Mephestopheles's page

"He walked more than an hour to the home of Aaron Stribel, a shoemaker who boasted a personal library of some 150 volumes, twice a week to return an armful of books and borrow another armful."

- Abrham Lincoln Vampire Hunter by Seth Grahame-Smith

If a Half Orc suffers some prejudice, then a full Orc would probably suffer lots of prejudice.

I would make it difficult or impossible to enter certain places, such as palaces or the "upper class" part of town. There might be places where the townsfolk are so against Orcs that they riot and drive the PCs out of town. Shopowners might say that the Orc's money is no good at their store and won't do business with them. Inkeepers might charge an additional "security deposit" and still give the Orc the worst room available and only serve them the poorest meals.

Game mechanics wise, this would mean unfriendly or hostile attitude for most NPCs and penalties to social based Skill checks (diplomacy, gather info, bluff, etc. although they might get bonuses to intimidate).

Also, see here.

Things would be rough for them in the beggining, but I would make it entirely possible to prove themselves through their actions.

I always look at a few main things if one of my players wants to play a non standard race.

First, does it increase the power level of the PC? If so I make sure to use the appropriate level adjustment so that they are on par with the other PCs. IIRC, Orcs don't have a level adjustment, so this shouldn't be an issue.

Second (and more important IMO), is why they player wants to play that race. A player that wants to play a stereotypical CE, looting, pillaging, brutish type Orc is completely different than the player that wants to play an Orc that breaks that stereotype. Maybe they want to play a CG Orc Wizard that has to constantly prove that they are more than just their race (think Drizzt from Forgotten Realms).

Once you know why they want to play an Orc and what type of character they want their Orc to be you can decide if that character will fit your game.

Pathfinder is a group activity and is supposed to be fun. As long as the charater fits my game and doesn't detract from the fun, then I would allow it.

Thanks for the info. :)

"Determining in which ways a maneuver is treated as an ordinary attack and in which ways it is not... This is one of the more delicate arts in rules interpretation. ;)" - Jiggy

So true!

I was rereading the Improved Disarm and I started to think about RAI vs RAW for this feat while unarmed. Just to clarify, when I say "unarmed", I mean without Improved Unarmed Strike.

For example, let's say that Frank the Fighter has the feat Improved Disarm. He is facing off against Harold the Hobgoblin (who, for the sake of the story, is armed with a longsword) and for whatever unexplained reason Frank does not have any weapon. Frank attempts to disarm Harold and...

Here is where I start to wonder. Does Harold get an AoO against Frank or not?

Disarm states:
"You can attempt to disarm your opponent in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Disarm feat, or a similar ability, attempting to disarm a foe provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver. Attempting to disarm a foe while unarmed imposes a –4 penalty on the attack."

However, Unarmed Attack states:
"...Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack."

I think that RAW states that Harold the Hobgoblin doesn't get an AoO. But so the RAI suggest that he should? Wouldn't it be just as easy if not easier for someone to take an AoO against an unarmed opponent who is trying to grab their weapon compared to trying to punch them? Or does Improved Disarm cover the training needed to be able to snatch someones weapon away without risking an AoO.

As I write this I begin to think that RAI and RAW may be the same in this case, but I would still appreciate your thoughts on this subject?

-M