alright. i decided the improved toughness thread had been threadjacked enough on the races issue. here is a basic rundown of what is going on:
half-orcs are weak compared to the other races and a couple people said they granted toughness or improved toughness to them to compensate.
i say this... half-orcs and half-elves really get the short end of the stick, especially when compared to elves and dwarves. those to races get sooooo many bonuses that, for whatever reason, do not count towards level adjustment. yet players and dms are supposed to believe a +2 str adjustment vs. either a -2 int penalty or a -2 cha penalty (as opposed to both, which is the current state of affairs) is going to overbalance a half-orc? i can see the general mechanical reason for this, but come on, an elf rogue can wield a longsword, and gets bonuses to search and spot checks, and notices secret doors without even knowing it is there. a dwarf can carry basically any amount of stuff and not be slowed down, and is exceptionally stable, and has the ability to notice irregular stonework... i think that gets my point across. half-orcs, and half-elves, too, have nothing that powerful, and yet we are expected to treat them all as equal. i, personally, am not too sure about that.
lets see some discussion about what tweaks can be done to make the races a little more balanced, especially the ones that are supposed to be the basic pc races.
tog
Ever consider the possibility that 1/2 breed races are PURPOSELY underpowered? Chances are, the game creators made them that way so that there aren't too many of them. Realistically there are hundreds, if not thousands, of humans/elves/orcs for each 1/2 elf/orc. If 1/2 breeds were truly equivalent in power to their pureblood parents, too many players would want to play them. The next thing I know, I would start seeing threads on Paizo where DMs complain about entire adventuring groups made up of 1/2 breed characters all with the same story: I'm a dejected misfit of society that has to adventure because mommy is old and gray and daddy was never around. Also, consider this: 1/2 breeds are in the same boat as other races like kobolds, goblins, etc...Why are they so underpowered? Because they're not supposed to be PCs; just like 1/2 breeds are supposed to be PCs only rarely.
My 2 cp.
In my very humble experience, a Strength bonus is a precious thing.
Let me clearly state: despite much design effort, STR is not yet the equal to any other ability score in current edition D&D... And that's why any 6-years old kid easily knows to create a melee-oriented character with overbuff STR, pick up Power Attack as soon as they reach 3rd level (preferably with a 2 handed weapon) and they get to play the "best" PC in the party: the ass-kicker, the hero, the one who really hogs the spotlight whenever dice are rolling.
Which is legitimate. It's one of the very basic character concepts in D&D.
But it's such straightforward a build, such ludicrously easy a way toward winning most battles, that nobody really deserves their DM to make it even easier on them.
That's why I believe the Half-orcs' +2 STR adjustment really *is* worth twice than most other racial bonuses.
(Plus, Darkvision is a great benefit)
And to drive my point home further, I just remembered: though everyone has their favorite race, humans are the BEST in 3.x. All others in PHB are underpowered compared to them. Why? Because humans are the most numerous race in fantasy and therefore should be most numerous in an adventuring group. If you want to start equalizing the races, you should be buffing all of them to be on par with humans or depowering humans. See where I'm going with this?
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
And to drive my point home further, I just remembered: though everyone has their favorite race, humans are the BEST in 3.x. All others in PHB are underpowered compared to them. Why? Because humans are the most numerous race in fantasy and therefore should be most numerous in an adventuring group. If you want to start equalizing the races, you should be buffing all of them to be on par with humans or depowering humans. See where I'm going with this?
I think you hit the nail on the head. Back in 2e, half-elves were more common than elves and humans put together. Actually, humans were so bad that the only time people played them was if they wanted to run a paladin or they were really concerned about high level play. Maybe it was just my players, but having a group without any humans whatsoever was not at all uncommon.
There is similar reasoning behind whey the cleric is the most powerful base class.
I truly agree with Sunrise, and Rafu. Jeezus, I love playing half-elves, simply because I do, but there's no denying that elves and humans are infinately better. And you know, since a great many half-orcs are fighters or jee, maybe BARBARIANS, the class that was probably built just for the half-orc, INT and CHA don't matter anyway. I mean, seriously, Barbarians are illiterate anyway.
The wonderful thing about the halfbreeds though, is that they are flexible. Like Sunrise was saying, there wouldn't be that many of them in a typical campaign setting. But if there happens to be a world with an over-abundance of half-breeds of any kind, then you can simply modify bonuses. I've run a campaign where it was harder to find a pure ANYTHING. Everyone was tainted somewhere along the lines. All the players had to do was run a modifier by me first. I even had a trixie and a watcher as NPCs. (Bastards and Bloodlines)
So, if it is that big of a deal, the DM can just modify. That is point of DnD. Everything is open to be customized.
ok, maybe i didnt cover my bases very well. i understand that half-breeds shouldnt be the entire party. and i played in 2nd ed. with the no humans in the party mindset. however, there is no mistaking how much more powerful elves and dwarves, and to a lesser extent halflings, gnomes, and humans, are compared to the half-breeds. THAT is the crux of my argument. kobolds, goblins, and the others... they arent detailed in the phb. half-elves and -orcs are, however. you should be able to choose any race in the phb and feel as though you are compensated fairly compared to any other race in the phb. thats what i am trying to say. i apologize that i was not as clear as i thought i was
tog
Btw, Other Guy, I apologize for being so blunt...sometimes it just slips out. Anyway, everyone has their favorite races except maybe true munchkins who will play whatever race provides the best advantages/bonuses. Other than those few hard-core munchkins, players will most often play their favorites even if they are a bit underpowered. Kobolds and goblins are VERY overpowered, which is why they are not in the PHB. 1/2 orcs and elves are a BIT underpowered, which is why they are in the PHB.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
You hit on some common tweaks in your first post. Others that I can think of include:
-Give half-orcs scent
-Give half-elves a bonus skill point like humans
-Give either race a bonus feat
-Create more orc-blooded items to make the orc blood ability useful
-Give half orcs a racial familiarty with certain weapons like pure elves do. This will also help push them away from being a barbarian because the benefit won't matter to the classes that receive proficiency in all the martial weapons as automatic feats (e.g. elves make great wizards because they can use a bow, half-orcs could make decent rogues if they were proficient with a greataxe)
-Have half-orcs be more human; get rid of both their Cha penalty and darkvision
Those are some suggestions off the top of my head.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Btw, Other Guy, I apologize for being so blunt...sometimes it just slips out. Anyway, everyone has their favorite races except maybe true munchkins who will play whatever race provides the best advantages/bonuses. Other than those few hard-core munchkins, players will most often play their favorites even if they are a bit underpowered. Kobolds and goblins are VERY overpowered, which is why they are not in the PHB. 1/2 orcs and elves are a BIT underpowered, which is why they are in the PHB.
At the risk of hi-jacking the thread, why do you think goblins and kobolds are overpowered? I always want to run kobolds/goblins in every game in which I get to play, and most other players scoff at me for doing so. They get darkvision and faster movement than is typical for a small race, but their ability scores really hurt. I don't think they're too out of line w/the halfling, and they're definitely weaker than, say, the dwarf.
Edit: I looked them up just to make sure I wasn't missing something obvious. They both have net penalties to stats, with goblis getting -2 to Str and Cha, and +2 to Dex. Kobolds get +1 natural armor, which is cool, but they have -4 Str, -2 Con, and +2 to Dex. Plus, kobolds are light sensitive, which means you're taking a -1 penalty on to hit, spot, and search when you're outside.
I think that the half-orcs and half-elves are not weak at all.
Half-orcs make better fighters or barbarians because of the +2 Strength. The human bonus feat can give weapon focus to compensate for the +1 to hit, but the half-orc does more damage and is just plain stronger. Fighters don't need Charisma or Intelligence to be great fighters.
Half-elves make the best bards, and arguably rogues, depending on the build of the character. You can't deny the benefit of +2 gather information and diplomacy, and the +1 to spot, listen and search, while not as good a an elf, is better than the +1 skill point of a human.
Neither race needs adjustments.
To make things better, though not in the core books, the racial substitution levels, like the half-orc druid, makes the -2 charisma a mute point as for handling animals, because it can use its STR instead of CHA, at which point it becomes better than any other druid of the same level, because noone gets a bonus to CHA.
These bonuses, or the bonuses of any of the races, really only become unbalanced if you don't use the point-buy system, or some other system where everyone starts off as equal. The scale is even more skewed for races with an ECL.
If you allow a 4d6 (no re-rolls), six times, arrange in the order you wish, you can have a halfling with a higher str than a half-orc, a higher con than a dwarf, and better abilities over a drow, if they didn't roll well.
What's the point of a +2 ECL when all of your racial bonuses don't make you "better" than the standard ones, just because they rolled better? What's the point of a +2 Str when your highest roll is a 14, and *everyone else* has an 18 STR?
For me, the problems of what makes a "weak" races has alway come down to this: point buy. The rules are built with this in mind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your contending that dwarves and elves are more powerful than humans? And half-orcs?
I would have to agree with the earlier post that humans are the most powerful race. Think about it. 4 extra skill points at level 1 and 1 extra thereafter every level. Any class is considered it's favored class. An extra Feat at 1st level. That's the gift that keeps on giving, man!
Each of the other races has their cool perks, yes. IMO, though, none of those cool perks overbalances those that humans get. It's pretty darned balanced. And makes it more a matter of role playing opportunities and customizing a character concept.
"Weak" is a very objective term for any of the races. It's based entirely on your perception and personal experiences with them. I've seen players with halfling characters that outshone every other character and race around a gaming table because the player knew exactly how to get the most out of that halfling. The same has applied with half-elves, half-orcs, humans, and all of the rest. It all depends on what you're trying to get out of it.
At the risk of hi-jacking the thread, why do you think goblins and kobolds are overpowered?
Yes, please. I'm dying to hear your reasons.
At the risk of hi-jacking the thread, why do you think goblins and kobolds are overpowered?
Whoops! Big phat typo on my part! I suppose that's what comes of posting too soon after a large meal. I definately meant to type UNDERPOWERED.
Half-elves make the best bards, and arguably rogues, depending on the build of the character. You can't deny the benefit of +2 gather information and diplomacy, and the +1 to spot, listen and search, while not as good a an elf, is better than the +1 skill point of a human.
Neither race needs adjustments.
That Half-elves make the best bards I won't argue. As for rogues, I can't even see a viable platform to argue from -- a full elf gets better senses, and a human can not only outshine that rogue in social skills by spending their bonus feat on a "Skill Synergy" feat, such as Negotiator, but will have one more skill in their repertoire. A Halfling Rogue will have an AC 2 higher, all other things being equal, and strength is a nonissue, as the rogue's primary damage output (sneak attack) is unaffected by size and strength.
As for the Half-Elven Senses being better than an extra skill point, I'd have to say I disagree wholeheartedly. The Human's extra skill point is four at first level, and last time I checked a +4 to one skill was better than a +1 to three. Search isn't even on the list of important skills for Bards, and Listen and Spot are typically pretty low as well. I'll take maxed ranks in Knowledge (Trivia) or Craft (Flimsy Excuse) over a handful of minor bonuses any day.
That said, I'll continue playing half-elves when it seems appropriate or strikes my fancy, but from a mechanical standpoint, the only reason I can find to do it is to maximize diplomacy, take a substitution level, or pick up Lowlight vision without taking a hit to your constitution.
first: thank you sebastian. that first post of yours is the kind of thing i have been looking for. not to say the other discussion is bad, it helps everyone voice what they think about the topic at hand.
second: i am thinking purely from a mechanical aspect, not a role-playing one. in other words, why would a munchkin ever take a half-elf or half-orc? i, personally, have taken humans for every game, since 3.0 came out, that started at first level. there is nothing quite like the extra feat and skill points that come of it. however, by taking a non-martial class, an elf gets as many as 4 martial weapon proficiency feats, bonuses to select skills, low-light vision, and a host of other abilities. a dwarf gets to treat an exotic weapon as martial, bonuses to select feats, ability to withstand certain combat tactics (trip comes to mind), darkvision, and also a host of other abilities. dont get me wrong, i know there are players who rock at role-playing and min-maxxing (not necessarily munchkining) and can get the most out of even kobolds and goblins. but im less interested in personal flavor and more interested in general power.
tog
edit: thank you guys for the discussion! tog
Ever consider the possibility that 1/2 breed races are PURPOSELY underpowered? Chances are, the game creators made them that way so that there aren't too many of them.
That's what I've always thought.
Half-elves are a little weak - they're like elves with only half the special bonuses and none of the ability score modifiers; alternatively they're humans with some minor skill bonuses instead of +1 point per level and with low-light vision and some limited Will save bonuses instead of a feat that could have given +2 to all Will saves. To balance that I give them the human's +1 skill point bonus - I suggest it especially for the Khoravar (Eberron's native half-elves) considering their greater numbers.
Half-orcs are still good, because Strength is one of the best ability scores and they're the only race to get both 30ft speed and Darkvision. They don't have an awful lot of miscellaneous abilities like most races, but +2 Strength and Darkvision is still nice. They're not the toughest race - that's the dwarves' domain - but they are the strongest.
i am thinking purely from a mechanical aspect, not a role-playing one. in other words, why would a munchkin ever take a half-elf or half-orc?
One question: why are you thinking purely from a mechanical aspect? If you take roleplying into consideration, your problem will dissapear. I.e. why concern yourself that a munchkin would never choose a half-breed? Please explain, as I am completely bewildered.
One question: why are you thinking purely from a mechanical aspect? If you take roleplying into consideration, your problem will dissapear. I.e. why concern yourself that a munchkin would never choose a half-breed? Please explain, as I am completely bewildered.
well, its not necessarily about munchkins and half-breeds, so much as the mechanical aspects, period. i DO realize the role-playing aspect generally nullifies the mechanical. but i still dont exactly understand why they dont have the same "bang for the buck" the other races have. i analyze stuff like this because thats just me. i posited the question here because i know that, in general, i will get interesting responses, if not what i happen to be looking for. i like studying the crunch for bits that make sense, and for those that dont.
i hadnt actually started thinking about this until the improved toughness thread brought it up, but then it became "yeah, why do half-orcs get a bit ganked comparatively?" and then i realized half-elves get kinda hurt, too.
hmm... lost the train of thought...
anyway, i thank everyone again for the great discussion, it has helped me understand more of what other players and dms think about this topic.
tog
ok, basically the issue seems to be centered around how you roll up your gm has you roll up your character. If you are rolling 3 dice in order of stats then apply the 1/2 race modifiers; well, that is gonna be very low powered; basically, you get a +1 and -1 to a large number of stats no matter how you roll up your character; but using this strict way; it really is gonna hurt this farmer adventure style.
If you roll 4 dice drop the lowest die and reroll ones; make two columns; choose the best score; place in any order you want; then it is not so bad; the bonus and the minus is offset as most players will have mostly heroic stats; ie no farmers.
The gm's playing style will determine what type of stats you need for his style of game; this is the rolling meathod I use; plus, as my world is very developed; all humans and halfbreeds get cultural bonus traits or skills depending on the area they are from; I assume that this is the intent of the elf, dwarf; etcetera abilities.
I can't say that I can agree with the current 3.5 rules for halfbreed races as given; frankly; you are right; they suck and are over burdening; in first addition, as a half orc you got some interesting class combinations that were a nice offset as they were not available to others (cleric/assassin), but currently; as a half orc, you are just supposed to be a big, dumb, raging brute; kinda the black orcs from Tolkien, not descended from the more crafty, clever green orc breed. And since I am the gm; and I think the halfbreed development is bunk; I changed it; it hasn't produced any ripple of power or any such; the half orc and half elf; while interesting; are not the most powerful brutes in the group; they dont lay waste or such; they are clever and crafty; have loads of contacts and followers, and are very useful to the party, which they could have done just as well with any other character, they just get a +1 to hit from the +2 str; and took some feats to overcome the -2 to int/char.
Bloodlines from Unearth can help overcome this obviously warped deficate, but then you give up levels to do so, but I believe levels are easily obtained; stats not so much so.
And to drive my point home further, I just remembered: though everyone has their favorite race, humans are the BEST in 3.x. All others in PHB are underpowered compared to them. Why? Because humans are the most numerous race in fantasy and therefore should be most numerous in an adventuring group. If you want to start equalizing the races, you should be buffing all of them to be on par with humans or depowering humans. See where I'm going with this?I think you hit the nail on the head. Back in 2e, half-elves were more common than elves and humans put together. Actually, humans were so bad that the only time people played them was if they wanted to run a paladin or they were really concerned about high level play. Maybe it was just my players, but having a group without any humans whatsoever was not at all uncommon.
There is similar reasoning behind whey the cleric is the most powerful base class.
Wow, finnaly someone is making sense.... I totally agree with you though I wish you could tell me more about this "cleric the best class" thing....
Yeah I'd also like to hear the rationale behind 'cleric is best', as I have never considered them such myself. I vastly prefer the cleric over the druid but...being the best class PERIOD?
Yeah I'd also like to hear the rationale behind 'cleric is best', as I have never considered them such myself. I vastly prefer the cleric over the druid but...being the best class PERIOD?
Offensively, the cleric is almost as good as a fighter. At higher levels with some magic and perhaps the War domain, he can temporarily become a better fighter than the party's actual fighter.
Defensively, the cleric is tough and as well-armoured as any fighter, sometimes moreso because fighters often forgo shields.
Spell-wise, again, toward higher levels he gets some damage-dealing spells such as flame strike that you would normally associate with a wizard. On top of that he gets all the healing spells and is always on hand to heal himself when he needs it. He also gets to save money on weapons and armour by casting greater magic weapon and magic vestment daily.
He lacks the sorcerer's spontaneous casting and pure offensive spell power, the fighter's combat techniques, and the rogue's skills, stealth and sneak attack, but overall he's certainly not a bad class if played well.
|
Clerics got seriously beefed up for 3.X. They are impressive now. Good hp, Good BAB, Good spells (buffing machines), great AC, Undead thumpers, all in all a good total package guy. They have good offensive spells, just not an whole lot. They can Detect Traps, evil, undead, good, items, etc. Turning rocks!
They are a fun class to play now. It used to be "Who wants to be the cleric, we have to have a healer!" then someone would "take one for the team". Now I see alot more people playing them and loving them. I will be playing one in our groups next campaign if I get the chance.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Wow. I didn't expect that to be a controversial statement at all. I figured it was like saying that blue is the most powerful color in magic. The only people I've ever known to argue that point are those who's favorite color is something else or hate the blue style of play.
Anyway, in addition to Johnathan Drain and FH's excellent summary of the points in favor of the cleric, here's a quote from Mike Mearls that is concise and on point:
Mike Mearls: The cleric is the most powerful class. Aside from its mechanical advantages – its access to divine spells, ability to wear heavy armor, average base attack, turning/rebuking undead, and two good saves – the cleric's role within the party is perhaps the most vital to the players' success. The cleric is responsible for keeping the other players active with its ability to heal. While magic items can cover this gap, most items that a party can afford don't provide enough healing on a round-to-round basis. The person playing the cleric can exert a lot of control over the party's decisions. For example, during a battle, the cleric moves away from the monsters and announces that if anyone wants healing, they have to move back to his position. The players must follow the cleric if they want their characters to survive.While the cleric is the strongest class, I would argue that it is not unbalanced. Its abilities are fundamentally passive – they remove conditions rather than inflict them. The cleric needs to be powerful in order to attract players to the role. I think the cleric illustrates that mechanics must sometimes be judged according to criteria other than pure mathematical analysis.
And, conveniently enough, he even has a comment about the least powerful race:
The half-elf is the least powerful race, because it is an elf with the weapon proficiency, secret door detection abilities, and racial ability adjustments removed and the bonus to Spot and Listen reduced. In return, the half-elf gains a +2 bonus to Diplomacy and Gather Information checks. These bonuses are useful only for a narrow range of characters – low Charisma characters and those who do not have Diplomacy and Gather Information as class skills gain little benefit from it since these skills operate against static DCs rather than opposed checks. In an opposed check, there's always a chance that you face an untrained or penalized foe, making any sort of bonus useful. Since both Diplomacy and Gather Information can be used untrained, they are poor investments unless you can use them to routinely beat high (20+) DCs. If anyone in the party aside from the half-elf invests in those skills, the half-elf's bonus is largely useless.The ability to count any class as favored is a minor edge, especially compared to the human benefits. In comparison, the elf's secret door detection is useful to any character, while Spot and Listen are useful in almost every encounter.
There was a poll somewhere on the wizards website at one time that also listed the cleric as the most powerful class (and by a decent margin), but I can't seem to find it.
I'm not a passionate believer in the idea, but I find it persuasive and the reasoning to be sound. I can't think of another class that is more powerful. Generally though, I find the opinion to be so widely held among gamers (and even more widely held among designers) that I tend to forget there's any debate left in the issue.
I would love to meet some of these cleric-fanatic players. I've never met anyone that actively likes to play them even in 3.x, and I am the only person I know that would prefer a cleric over a druid. Maybe I just know strange gamers.
|
|
In my very humble experience, a Strength bonus is a precious thing.
Let me clearly state: despite much design effort, STR is not yet the equal to any other ability score in current edition D&D... And that's why any 6-years old kid easily knows to create a melee-oriented character with overbuff STR, pick up Power Attack as soon as they reach 3rd level (preferably with a 2 handed weapon) and they get to play the "best" PC in the party: the ass-kicker, the hero, the one who really hogs the spotlight whenever dice are rolling.
Which is legitimate. It's one of the very basic character concepts in D&D.
But it's such straightforward a build, such ludicrously easy a way toward winning most battles, that nobody really deserves their DM to make it even easier on them.
That's why I believe the Half-orcs' +2 STR adjustment really *is* worth twice than most other racial bonuses.
(Plus, Darkvision is a great benefit)
I completely agree with Rafu here. Strength is by far the most powerful ability score in the game; it influences damage over a longer period of time than spellcasting ability scores; a fighter at a high level gets to use the +1 bonus on attacks and damage (granted by a +2 racial bonus) four or more times per round, while a sorcerer gets to use the +1 to DC (granted by a comparable +2 racial bonus) once per round, or twice if the character makes use of swift or quickened spells. In addition, a half-orc receives no penalties to the other physical ability scores, making a fighter-ish PC overbalanced in terms of ability scores. Though I personally prefer more well-rounded characters, a half-orc fighter built according to the iconic paradigms of the D&D Player's Handbook would benefit from an increase to the best ability score in the game, and the price paid is from two different ability scores that the character does not even remotely rely on for his combat ability.
While I certainly agree that half-elves are underpowered (unless one chooses to abuse the use of two paradigm classes from Unearthed Arcana), half-orcs are definitely not.
I would love to meet some of these cleric-fanatic players. I've never met anyone that actively likes to play them even in 3.x, and I am the only person I know that would prefer a cleric over a druid. Maybe I just know strange gamers.
Well, I must say; there are 3 cleric players in my game; guess this means they like them; none are really healing builds, but they can all heal, some more than others; the highest is a war priest level 19. Most of these clerics have between 3 and 9 levels of cleric base class. So none took it for the team; so to speak; as they did back in first edition.
Elves receive -2 to constitution, the only sata everybody can truly benefit from. Dwarves are a bit overpowered, but HELLO they are far fewer in number than most other races and they have to survive being surronded by hostile creatures(if you consider what else lives under/in a mountain)on all fronts more often than not.So it would make sense that they would be tougher than most.
|
|
This is an interesting thread, and many if not all of the comments expressed seem well reasoned (or at worst, moot). However, it is interesting that the argument hasn't considered the issue of the level of the characters: i.e. do the advantages between the different races increase, diminish or stay the same as you go up levels? If (say) the +2 STR bonus a half-orc gets is a big deal at 1st level, does it make such a difference at 20th (once the BAB progession, feat choices and magic items are added on)? Is a 20th level half-orc barbarian still majorly advantaged (assuming you think he is to start with at 1st level) compared with an (to take a slightly silly example) 20th level elven barbarian? I have no answers, but my hunch is that the debate really centres on 1st level characters which have less to rely on except their innate bonuses and abilities. The issue probably fades in importance as the ongoing "character build" kicks in through the levels: the big influence becomes choice of feats, accumulation of skill points and magic items. Any comments?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I would love to meet some of these cleric-fanatic players. I've never met anyone that actively likes to play them even in 3.x, and I am the only person I know that would prefer a cleric over a druid. Maybe I just know strange gamers.
I don't think there are all that many cleric-fanatic players. The class is inherently non-sexy, which is why it's a little more powerful - to get people to play. It's the same reasoning behind humans being the best race. Try ENWorld - they might have a poll about the most powerful class somewhere.
Well, I gave half-elves -2 Con and +2 Cha, and then just completely removed half-orcs and replaced them with full orcs. I never have liked the thought that there were enough rapes of human women by orcs to constitute a full race, and DEFFINATELY not enough actual love stories. Besides, my whole group have always thought of a full orc whenever they wrote "half-orc" on their sheet.
I'm also thinking about just taking out half-elves, too, and saying "No half-anythings unless magic was involved, such as half-fiends and half-dragons."
As somebody who's always wanted to play a big ol' kick-in-the-door barbarian, I've found that from a mechanical POV, humans are still more attractive for the role than half-orcs because of that extra feat. A human barbarian can start the game with power attack and cleave -- the most useful melee combo there is, pretty much -- the half-orc cannot.
STR is vital to the role, yes ... but when push comes to shove, the feat wins.
The extra skill points humans get are also mighty nice for making characters who are good at things _besides_ straight-up combat. Even Conan was known to negotiate and hide from time to time.
Add an Int hit to the mix, and the half-orc barbarian is seriously hampered compared to the human, at first level. At higher levels, the skill point problem in particular just gets worse and worse as time goes on.
-The Gneech
|
|
As somebody who's always wanted to play a big ol' kick-in-the-door barbarian, I've found that from a mechanical POV, humans are still more attractive for the role than half-orcs because of that extra feat. A human barbarian can start the game with power attack and cleave -- the most useful melee combo there is, pretty much -- the half-orc cannot.
STR is vital to the role, yes ... but when push comes to shove, the feat wins.
The extra skill points humans get are also mighty nice for making characters who are good at things _besides_ straight-up combat. Even Conan was known to negotiate and hide from time to time.
Add an Int hit to the mix, and the half-orc barbarian is seriously hampered compared to the human, at first level. At higher levels, the skill point problem in particular just gets worse and worse as time goes on.
-The Gneech
In terms of the human being superior to the half-orc, I've no argument with you there; I think the general consensus on these posts is that humans are, by far, the best race to choose hands down, due to their bonus feat and skill point. However, as one moves away from being a human, I doubt anyone can come up with a more dedicated iconic racial choice for a barbarian-type character than a half-orc. Opinions of the board aside, I too love humans, and play them more than any other race. But I know an overbalanced set of ability adjustments (+2 to a physical score, and the best physical score at that, and -2 to two mental scores?!?!) when I see it. Half-orcs are not unbalanced or overpowered to the extent that they are automatic choices when making a fighter (as the opinions of this board have shown), but they are CERTAINLY not underpowered, as the initial posters have asserted. In my opinion, anyway.
1/2 orcs get the innate special ability of "being the new orc" in the dungeon.
/Imagines an orc piping up huggybear style. "Let me talk to them They's MY people!"
In my campaigns 1/2 races aren't allowed, and mongrolmen are Proto-goblinoids.
Okay, then what happens when you compare a half-orc to a dwarf?
Half-Orc:
+2 Str, -2 Int, -2 Cha
30' movement
Darkvision
Orc blood (whatever the heck THAT'S good for -- don't even get weapon familiarities out of it)
Dwarf:
+2 Con, -2 Cha (Con is a physical stat, isn't it?)
20' movement which is not reduced by armor
Darkvision
Weapon familiarity w/ dwarven waraxe (a crazy good weapon) and ugrosh
Stonecunning (can find stone-based traps as a rogue and get a free search check for same)
+4 vs. bull-rushing or tripping
+2 vs. poison
+2 vs. SPELLS AND SPELL-LIKE EFFECTS 0.o
+1 attacks vs. goblins and goblinoids
+4 AC vs giants
+2 on Appraise and Craft checks on stone (including gems)
Dwarves not only make better barbarians (and better fighters) than half-orcs do, they make better EVERYTHING than half-orcs do. 0.o
Either half-orcs are too weak, or dwarves are too friggin' strong.
-The Gneech
I would love to meet some of these cleric-fanatic players. I've never met anyone that actively likes to play them even in 3.x, and I am the only person I know that would prefer a cleric over a druid. Maybe I just know strange gamers.
I wouldn't call myself a "fanatic," but I like playing clerics just fine. Two of my last three characters have been clerics, in fact. And I generally prefer to play a cleric over a druid.
If you're looking for some House Rules on half-orcs and half-elves, as well as adjusting some of the other races, you might take a look at Sean K Reynolds site: seankreynolds.com. He's posted a discussion, and his own house rules for various races here.
Dwarves not only make better barbarians (and better fighters) than half-orcs do, they make better EVERYTHING than half-orcs do. 0.o
Of course the dwarf looks better than the half-orc if you only go by number of abilities - the dwarf has more abilities. If you go by that, dwarves would be three times better. However, not all abilities are equal.
Half-orcs still make better barbarians than dwarves. They're the only race that can begin with 20 Strength. They can move 30ft in light armour - dwarves can move 20ft in heavy but barbarians can't use heavy. Constitution doesn't matter so much; their rage is one round shorter but they hit more often and deal more damage. In a quick fight, a longer rage is wasted anyway.
Half-orcs can make excellent fighters, too, because again, the Strength lets them hit more and deal more damage. They're evenly matched here, and it's a matter of whether you want more offence or more defence. For a lot of other classes, such as a wizard, rogue or ranger, I'd rather play a dwarf. In truth I prefer dwarves in general because they're cooler.
To be honest, I think the dwarf is a better race, but not massively better - just enough that you'll see more dwarf characters than half-orcs.
... and I am the only person I know that would prefer a cleric over a druid.
Me too
Me too... and I am the only person I know that would prefer a cleric over a druid.
Nah, I prefer a cleric myself.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
If you're looking for some House Rules on half-orcs and half-elves, as well as adjusting some of the other races, you might take a look at Sean K Reynolds site: seankreynolds.com. He's posted a discussion, and his own house rules for various races here.
This is also a good link that provides evidence of another game designer saying that the cleric is the most powerful class.
With respect to the whole preference of cleric v. druid, the statements I made were not that clerics are more popular, but that they are widely perceived as the most powerful class. A lot of people don't like to play clerics because of the roleplaying aspect, not the mechanical aspect.
Far be it for me to disagree with the esteemed Mike Mearls or the infallible SKR, but IMO the "best" class is not so easily determined and changes from level to level.
From levels 1-4 it's the barbarian, hands down. These guys totally dominate low-level play, healer or no healer.
Levels 5-about 12 it's the druid, Mainly because you get to play 2 characters for the price of 1. Not only do you get an excellent healer/offensive spellcaster/summoner (that even gets to melee occasionally), you also get an animal companion that is a better fighter than almost every other character in the party. And is fairly expendable, cause you can whistle up a replacement in 24 hours at no cost.
And above level 13 it’s either the cleric or wizard, but it depends heavily on your campaign.
As for races, I'm in the minority on the editorial staff, but personally I think half-orcs are fine. IMO dwarves are a little overpowered, and half-elves are a little underpowered. IMC, I would be willing to give a slight boost to a half-elf PC, but rather than an extra racial trait I would probably work with the player to come up with something cool and campaign specific (like a free magic item he could start with).
Edit: This is pure speculation, but I think that a lot of the sentiment of the overpowered cleric comes from 3.0. The cleric got nerfed quite a bit in 3.5 (shorter durations on buff spells, fixing harm, etc.) while the druid got significantly improved (spontaneous casting, new animal companion rules, etc.). Don't get me wrong, clerics are still very good, but they are not better than druids until they have access to 6th-level spells. At that point, the druid's lack of really good high-level spells starts to hurt.
Levels 5-about 12 it's the druid, Mainly because you get to play 2 characters for the price of 1. Not only do you get an excellent healer/offensive spellcaster/summoner (that even gets to melee occasionally), you also get an animal companion that is a better fighter than almost every other character in the party.
Animal companions are better fighters than characters? Because I have always found animal companions to totally suck in combat, how have you come by this opinion?
Experiance :)
If I get a chance later I'll post a stat block from one of the animal companions from one of the campaigns I play in and you can judge for yourself.
It's not quite as good as the main fighter, but it's pretty close.
Durnit, keep this puppy on topic: Weak /Races/, folks. :)
Of course the dwarf looks better than the half-orc if you only go by number of abilities - the dwarf has more abilities. If you go by that, dwarves would be three times better. However, not all abilities are equal.
Half-orcs still make better barbarians than dwarves. They're the only race that can begin with 20 Strength. They can move 30ft in light armour - dwarves can move 20ft in heavy but barbarians can't use heavy. Constitution doesn't matter so much; their rage is one round shorter but they hit more often and deal more damage. In a quick fight, a longer rage is wasted anyway.
I must disagree -- dwarves ARE massively better.
It's not the number of abilities, it's the quality.
What is the barbarian's primary weakness? His low Will save. Sleep, hold person, or (worst of all) charm monster in the first round can easily put the barbarian completely out of the fight or turn him against the rest of the party.
Except that dwarves get +2 against those! That's a much better chance of not being one-punched than the half-orc has. This is a major, major ability in my experience -- easily equivalent to getting a free Iron Will feat. So the dwarf ends up not as hampered in this area.
What are the barbarian's primary strengths? a) Doing lots of damage, b) Sucking up lots of damage, and c) Going into a rage to improve A and B.
On A, the half-orc has a minor advantage. (20 Str is mighty nice, yes, but it's not THAT much nicer than 18, if you're maxing out Str.) On B, the dwarf has the minor advantage, due to the higher Con adding hit points. On C, the dwarf has the advantage AGAIN, because they can rage longer. So when it comes to the class strengths, the dwarf ends up better overall.
The only possible hindrance the dwarf has is his movement speed ... 20' is certainly slower than 30' -- but a dwarf barbarian has 30' -- which puts him on par with _most_ characters AND you can put him in medium armor without losing that. So taken in all the dwarf has an advantage THERE, too.
Thus, the dwarf makes a MUCH better barbarian than the half-orc does. +2 Str is just not that big of an advantage -- and even if you think it is, the half-orc is already paying for it by losing Int and Cha, whereas the dwarf has a big pile of advantages (+2 vs. poison on top of the boost to their Fort save gives them effecively +3 vs. poisons, +1 AC boost vs. orcs and goblins, +1 attack vs. giants, etc., etc., etc.) they're getting for "free."
-The Gneech
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
What are the barbarian's primary strengths? a) Doing lots of damage, b) Sucking up lots of damage, and c) Going into a rage to improve A and B.
I agree with Johnathan drain - half orcs make better barbarians. You're forgetting d) mobility. 40' movement is significant, and only the monk and the barbarian are capable of that speed. It's a major class feature, not an incidental perk. The barbarian's ability to close and then decimate is very important, and not easily discounted.
As for c), I agree with Johnathan again that it's much more important to get the extra +2 to Str than an extra round of rage. The number of fights where the barbarian's rage played out too early is in the minority in my experience. And in the cases where it does play out too early, that extra round is not significant. Which is better: +4 to Str for 5 rounds or +6 to Str for 4 rounds? I'd say the later.
So, I would say that the half-orc has the advantage on a), c), and d).
Granted, dwarves do make good barbarians and the two races are fairly close for the class, but I think the half-orc is the better build.
Edit: I was curious about whether dwarven barbarians would get slowed down by wearing medium armor, so I looked it up in the SRD, and it seems ambiguous to me. Is there a ruling on this of which anyone is aware? Here is what the SRD says:
Dwarf base land speed is 20 feet. However, dwarves can move at this speed even when wearing medium or heavy armor or when carrying a medium or heavy load (unlike other creatures, whose speed is reduced in such situations).
Does the this bolded above refer to the dwarf's base land speed (which for a barbarian is 30') or the 20 ft?
Though The Koga feels kobold/goblins should be given a break (then again, he likes kobold/goblins.) He does not have the same sympathy for half-races, they really shouldn't even exsist. In Tolkien's world (which D&D was originaly based on) there were no "half-elves" or "half-orcs" if a human and orc/elf got it on, they were either born a human or whatever other race they boned. You could keep the flavour of your background story with a human parent, but mechanichaly there'd be no differance as it should be. This is why The Koga just uses the orc for a PC race instead of a half-orc. (Which is another thing, why isn't the orc considerd a PC race if the half-orc is?)
Another theory is humans simply cannot reproduce with other races, which makes alot of sense considering dogs can't mate with wolves to produce pups despite thier simalarities. (Atleast The Koga thinks so..)
The only system that seemed to make half-races equaly as strong as non-half ones was Dragon's Darksun article, which was only because EVERYTHING in Darksun is uber, infact they even stated the average ECL described there would probably be even higher in a normal setting.
...a full elf gets better senses, and a human can not only outshine that rogue in social skills by spending their bonus feat on a "Skill Synergy" feat, such as Negotiator, but will have one more skill in their repertoire. A Halfling Rogue will have an AC 2 higher, all other things being equal, and strength is a nonissue, as the rogue's primary damage output (sneak attack) is unaffected by size and strength.
It all comes down to what you want in the character. Do you want the extra skill set, or do you want to be better at the skills you have? When a human uses a bonus feat to match the half-elf, then they're even on that aspect, but the half-elf will always have the +1 to the other skills. It may not be much, but it sometimes comes down to that extra "1" point.
As for the other races (as rogues), as an elf you lose hp, but gain AC and range to hit bonuses. As a halfling you gain AC and ranged attack bonuses, and great bonuses to stealth, but lose move speed, strength, encumberance, and will not match the half-elf in social skills.
But, that's basically what I meant by "certain builds." And, of course, the type of rogue you want is based on your likes, and the type of game that the DM runs. If there is no social interaction, then the half-elf rogue loses hands-down. But if there isn't much sneaky-sneaky going on, then the halfling doesn't get much either. If you're in a lot of combat, then every hp counts, and the elf might not be a good choice.
Hard to say, but I think they're all pretty much equal, but any can be built to be incredibly stronger in aspects that other races just can't match.