In looking over orcs, which I allow as a normal player race, I got rid of their daylight sensitivity weakness. Mindflayers spend more time underground, and they don't have that trait. It was far too annoying and arbitrary.
Anyway, I also gave them a +2 racial bonus to intimidate. The only other racial abilities/adjustments they get at all are Darkvision 60 ft. (which is good, no doubt about it!) and +4 Str (also extremely good), with the tradeoff of -2 Int, Wis, and Cha.
I have a problem with this. I find it far too limiting. Orcs make good fighters and barbarians under this method, but they have no chance of making a good caster. I don't have a problem with orc wizards and sorcerers being rare to unheard of, but the issue I take is with their Wisdom adjustment. I have often imagined them as having a pretty good clerical and/or druidic tradition, but that's about as practical as their wizardly abilities with the current stat adjustments.
So, the question is, what type of penalty or negative racial ability can I give them that would balance the elimination of the Wisdom penalty? Possibly a -4 on Will saves, or against Illusions, or something? It can be creative and inventive, but I just need something to balance them out while allowing for their Wisdom to not be penalized.
|
Just a thought...
In Larry Niven's N-space, there is a race of warrior tiger people called the K'zinti. They are the ultimate predator.
They have telepaths among their race, and the use of telepathy makes them anxious neurotic scrawny disheveled freakboys. Something about touching alien minds does a number on the psyche.
Maybe a spellcasting orc is a freak of nature with no strength and lotsa smarts. They usually get beat to death for being scrawny in an orcish society, but every once in a while, one or two makes the cut somehow.
They could be born with no Str bonus and no Int/Wis detriments.
Maybe even more of a charisma detriment, since orcs don't even like these scrawny creatures for existing in a state which flies in the face of everything it means to be a macho orc man.
Maybe, they are mutants, the next step in orcish evolution.
So, create two subraces of orcs, one that can cast and one that makes good warriors? Not a bad idea, actually- if elves and other "common" races can have 1,000 different types, why not let orcs in on the fun?
So, any ideas for the stat adjustments on these things? Perhaps just use half-orc stats (I got rid of actual half-orcs in my games in favor of full-blooded ones), using the diminished strength to account for their increased Wisdom?
I don't think you really need to do anything to make up for getting rid of the wisdom penalty, Saern.
I've always believed that stats should be treated as equal as possible, including when one is evaluating racial traits for balance. No where, and I mean /no where/ else are physical stats given special consideration over mental ones. Some points:
* You don't see anyone paying extra points in point buy for physical stats over mental stats.
* Bull's strength isn't any harder to cast than owl's wisdom.
* Girdles of Giant Strength, Amulets of Health, and Headbands of Intellect all cost the same to make.
So get rid of the wisdom penalty; it'll give you a net ability adjustment of 0, which to me says it's balanced.
While you're at it, get rid of one of the stat penalties for half-orcs. Or let them choose which one they take a penalty to (which will increase the attractiveness of them as a player race, IMO).
Actually, Xellan, I'm glad you said that. I was thinking about just removing the wisdom penalty and leaving it at that, but I thought that Str bonus needed additional balancing. Afterall, half-orcs take two penalties for their +2. Then I got to thinking about dwarves....
They get, in additional to a load of minor miscellaneous racial features, a +2 to the universally valuable Con score, while only taking a -2 to Cha. By this logic, half-orcs should only take a single penalty.
However, my interpretation of the game has led me to decide that in my homebrew, human/orc crosses are not common enough to make for a legitimate race, so I've completely removed half-orc in favor of their full blooded versions. Who will now have now adjustment on their Wisdom. The Int and Cha penalties are already crippling enough when it comes to possible character concepts an orc can really fill.
Oh, and though I probably won't use them, I also like the racial feat and racial spell failure adjustment ideas. I enjoy seeing creative, sometimes even unprecedented, solutions to things.
I have always envisioned orcs as being similar to neanderthals. Apparently neanderthals were a bit stronger and hardier than cro-magnum men, but cro-magnum men (homo sapiens) were slightly more organized, had better weapons, etc. They (we) were smarter and wiser than neanderthal man and so dominated (that's if you agree with some researchers that we had something to do with the extinction of that subrace).
There is nothing wrong with a race being inferior stat wise in some way to another race in a game context. it's just how the game works. I for one think it's fine that orcs aren't as good as humans and elves at using magic. It might be one of the reasons orcs hate these races so much.
I have always envisioned orcs as being similar to neanderthals. Apparently neanderthals were a bit stronger and hardier than cro-magnum men, but cro-magnum men (homo sapiens) were slightly more organized, had better weapons, etc. They (we) were smarter and wiser than neanderthal man and so dominated (that's if you agree with some researchers that we had something to do with the extinction of that subrace).
There is nothing wrong with a race being inferior stat wise in some way to another race in a game context. it's just how the game works. I for one think it's fine that orcs aren't as good as humans and elves at using magic. It might be one of the reasons orcs hate these races so much.
The Homo sapiens sapiens/Homo sapiens neanderthalensis interaction appears to have been a variable one. The commonly held idea that humans "beat" the Neanderthals seems to hold in France (though not really, since the first Upper Paleolithic technology, the Chattelperonian seems to be associated entirely with Neanderthals, which blows the whole "primitive/can't adapt or progress idea out of the water).
In Israel, Neanderthals actually supplanted Homo sapiens, before being supplanted in turn by later sapiens groups. In the Balkans, it looks like there was a lot of interbreeding going on. It also looks like there was a lot of inter/intra-group cannibalism going on.
However you slice it, you can't beat using neanderthals as a good working model for orcs. Stronger than homo sapiens. Hardier than homo sapiens (they lived in Europe when the Ice Age was at its very worst). And in some "replacement angst" and some of the evidence of their more unsavory practices (cannibalism and a pretty hard life that broke a lot of bones - the only group in modern humans which is comparable is rodeo clowns) and they make fantastic orcs.
But they also took care of an old man who had one side of his body crushed in an accident for decades and there are location where they buried their dead after filling the grave with flowers....
So maybe not, or there is a side to orcs outsiders just don't often see....
I'm going to disagree with Xellan on this one; Str and Dex are not equal to mental stats in terms of racical adjustments. Who would ever want to be a dwarven/human warrior if orcs got an even Str/mental balance?
In my homebrew, I've also eliminated half orcs in lieu of full orcs as a playable race. Orcs are exactly like PHB half orcs, stat-wise because I didn't want to discourage them from being divine casters...and I also just don't like the idea of a +0 LA race getting +4 to any stat.
However if you really want orcs to have +4 Str w/o the -2 Wis, I'd say that a -2 on Will saves would be a sufficient compensation for the penalty's removal. Possibly also a penalty on Wisdom checks, but that might be hard to explain...(well why not just give them an actual wisdom penalty?!...)
Actually, Xellan, I'm glad you said that. I was thinking about just removing the wisdom penalty and leaving it at that, but I thought that Str bonus needed additional balancing. Afterall, half-orcs take two penalties for their +2. Then I got to thinking about dwarves....
They get, in additional to a load of minor miscellaneous racial features, a +2 to the universally valuable Con score, while only taking a -2 to Cha. By this logic, half-orcs should only take a single penalty.
However, my interpretation of the game has led me to decide that in my homebrew, human/orc crosses are not common enough to make for a legitimate race, so I've completely removed half-orc in favor of their full blooded versions. Who will now have now adjustment on their Wisdom. The Int and Cha penalties are already crippling enough when it comes to possible character concepts an orc can really fill.
Oh, and though I probably won't use them, I also like the racial feat and racial spell failure adjustment ideas. I enjoy seeing creative, sometimes even unprecedented, solutions to things.
I have to almost agree with xellan, but not quite.
I've got Savage Species here and I'm looking at the Monsters compiled by name and Orc, orcs get 1d8 hd, 0 LA, 1 ECL, the +4 Str, and then the -2's to Int, Wis, and Cha, they get a Good Save of Fort a 0 BAB, no natural armor, but skillpoints by class.
They're actually not a very limited race, that good fort save should make up for the minuses.
Despite this rule wrangling, I'm more of a "let STATS you roll determine character class" rather than race rules.
Hell, in a 1e/2e hybrid of FR I played a fighter/mu Halfling who used ancient dwarven frost magic (a fact I forgot to bring up aside from the magic part in a discussion today) so I'm all about bending the rules that say you CAN'T do something...I just had a damn good backstory. (he was raised partly by dwarves, found with an ancient dwarven magic tome that his parents had found, before they were killed by friggin minotaurs who also hunt Dekmer, the fighter/mu.)
But when there are no rules that should be ignored, I don't see a reason to tweak them unnecessarily. The RARE breed of orc that doesn't have a wisdom penalty, or no wis penalty at all, actually doesn't make sense...just put that 18 in wisdom and take the friggin penalty, so they aren't the most badass druid or cleric ever, but they'll make up for it with that +4 strength bonus if they're a cleric if you stick just a 14-16 in there or less for that matter. Sure if you want a reasonably good INT and CHA- sorry sorcerers are extremely rare with Orcs, you really have to luck out with stats, but it is still ONLY a -2. Elves make good fighters and anything else despite their con penalty (maybe not barbs, but I'm playing a wood elf barbarian and I'm not about to laugh at the +2 to str).
I'm thinking from a player's stand point, it is their job to assign their stats, let them choose how they got their incredibly wise orc. (I might add that Wood Elves get minuses to INT, CON and CHA, but you don't see me complaining what with natural 19 str and 18 dex.)
I have always envisioned orcs as being similar to neanderthals. Apparently neanderthals were a bit stronger and hardier than cro-magnum men, but cro-magnum men (homo sapiens) were slightly more organized, had better weapons, etc. They (we) were smarter and wiser than neanderthal man and so dominated (that's if you agree with some researchers that we had something to do with the extinction of that subrace).
There is nothing wrong with a race being inferior stat wise in some way to another race in a game context. it's just how the game works. I for one think it's fine that orcs aren't as good as humans and elves at using magic. It might be one of the reasons orcs hate these races so much.
The Homo sapiens sapiens/Homo sapiens neanderthalensis interaction appears to have been a variable one. The commonly held idea that humans "beat" the Neanderthals seems to hold in France (though not really, since the first Upper Paleolithic technology, the Chattelperonian seems to be associated entirely with Neanderthals, which blows the whole "primitive/can't adapt or progress idea out of the water).
In Israel, Neanderthals actually supplanted Homo sapiens, before being supplanted in turn by later sapiens groups. In the Balkans, it looks like there was a lot of interbreeding going on. It also looks like there was a lot of inter/intra-group cannibalism going on.
However you slice it, you can't beat using neanderthals as a good working model for orcs. Stronger than homo sapiens. Hardier than homo sapiens (they lived in Europe when the Ice Age was at its very worst). And in some "replacement angst" and some of the evidence of their more unsavory practices (cannibalism and a pretty hard life that broke a lot of bones - the only group in modern humans which is comparable is rodeo clowns) and they make fantastic orcs.
But they also took care of an old man who had one side of his body crushed in an accident for decades and there are location where they buried their dead after filling...
Props on the research as far as where and how Neanderthal lived and flourished before their eventual fall, but there's like no evidence for interbreeding, at least I remember something in Anthropology that suggested they weren't able to interbreed- thus the different SPECIES. If you have evidence to disprove me on this, feel free to give me a link or a reference.
I'm going to disagree with Xellan on this one; Str and Dex are not equal to mental stats in terms of racical adjustments. Who would ever want to be a dwarven/human warrior if orcs got an even Str/mental balance?
In my homebrew, I've also eliminated half orcs in lieu of full orcs as a playable race. Orcs are exactly like PHB half orcs, stat-wise because I didn't want to discourage them from being divine casters...and I also just don't like the idea of a +0 LA race getting +4 to any stat.
However if you really want orcs to have +4 Str w/o the -2 Wis, I'd say that a -2 on Will saves would be a sufficient compensation for the penalty's removal. Possibly also a penalty on Wisdom checks, but that might be hard to explain...(well why not just give them an actual wisdom penalty?!...)
While I respect your descision as a DM to use Half-orc stats instead of regular Orc stats, I again disagree by refering to Savage Species and would, myself, allow the +4 to strength, especially with the -2s. Eliminating Half-orcs does eliminate the rationale that as they are HALF-orcs they get HALF-the bonuses/penalties and making the stats apply for Orcs makes sense since basically you're just making a different breed of orc for your homebrew. (they don't quite get half anyway) The -2 to cha makes the most sense for a half-orc, it actually makes less for a full blooded orc since Intimidate is a CHA skill, but I take an 11 for cha with my wood elf barbarian, so I really just think intimidate should be a class skill with a pc orc. Again, if the Player wants to play a Sorcerer Orc, more power to them, but they'll have to work past the penalties and the associated stigma with magic. I do understand your wanting not to discourage orc divine spell casters. (Dare I say that there Should be more Orc Rangers?)
Props on the research as far as where and how Neanderthal lived and flourished before their eventual fall, but there's like no evidence for interbreeding, at least I remember something in Anthropology that suggested they weren't able to interbreed- thus the different SPECIES. If you have evidence to disprove me on this, feel free to give me a link or a reference.
The species argument is a big one. Julian Richards says no and Erick Trinkaus says yes. And I definitely come down on one side of it. But there is a TON of evidence for interbreeding in skeletal material found in caves in Eastern Europe with very long and unprnounceble names. If you are really really interested I can contact my former classmates in my PhD program in Anthropology who were working on this (with Trinkaus) and get site names, references, etc.
BTW, I look around me all the time and see Neanderthal traits. Including when I look in the mirror :-)
I've said this before - but, rather than worry about the stats, think about the culture you want your orcs to have, primitive, advanced, same as everyone else - what fits your campaign. Then think about what characteristics, abilties, skills, racial weapons fit that.
Because the average orc has lower charisma, intelligence, whatever doesn't mean that there are no geniuses.
The other alternative is to create a casting class that uses strength or constitution as the key ability - to keep it balanced you might want to limit the spell selection, increase casting time, add a fatigue component, have the spells inflict subdual/actual damage on the caster, requires the use of talismans or more expensive exotic components, or xp in the casting. This is (IMO) more in keeping with the casting in fantasy literature anyway.
I personally think a game is better served by more sophisticated, advanced orcs, than primitives or hulking savages - that role is well filled by many othter monsters. And although I am not particularly enamored with Tolkien's orcs - they were the race with industry and mass production - they weren't necessarily stupid or brutish (at least not all of them). But I tend to try to find economic and cutural templates for all of my races - at least those with significant distributions.
The other thing is just because you don't have a bunch of wizards with 20+ intelligence scores doesn't mean there is no intelligence in society. Soldiers, engineers, architects, don't need to be in the 99th percentile to be effective (it could actually be argued that at some point it super high intelligence is a detriment - no one get what you are talking about) - what is import is a structure that allows team work, collaboration, planning and learns by experience. Even low intelligence primitives learned tactics that worked on the hunt and in battle - but that information was passed on and honed by later generations. For example it took real insight to envision the utility of the phalanx - but after seeing it - anyone could use the same tactic. Mistakes might happen in early adoption - but assuming a few survivors report back each time - pretty soon (if you choose) you can use a phalanx too.
Further "savages" are rarely unsophisticated - they may be low tech - but that is far from the same thing. They have art, music, religion, developed cosmologies, intense understanding of their local areas, and technology that supports their culture and lifestyle.
IMO Stupid races make for stupid games.
When I was in the army lots of soldiers were far from genius - even dare I say it - my intellect (and I am no cerebral giant) - but they knew their business, could plan an ambush, lead a patrol, provide security, report intelligence back to their commanders effectively. Its training, process, discipline that make soldiers effective. Its nice to be smart, charismatic, wise - but its a bonus - as long as there is experience and will even the simple can be horrifyingly effective planners and tacticians.
Hope that wasn't too rambling.
I'm going to disagree with Xellan on this one; Str and Dex are not equal to mental stats in terms of racical adjustments. Who would ever want to be a dwarven/human warrior if orcs got an even Str/mental balance?
Me, for one. And anyone else who didn't want to deal with the hit to two seperate stats. A net -2 to stats, with the very little piece of pie an Orc comes with, is just /too/ little. With a net zero adjustment, weapon familiarity for orcish weapons, darkvision, favored class barbarian, and a +2 to intimidate checks, the Orc becomes a more viable race.
And if you're trying to make the Orc a standard or otherwise playable race, it implies you want people to actually play them. Otherwise, why in the world would you even bother?
Humans and Dwarves have plenty going for them that a +0 LA race with a +4 Strength and net zero stat adjustments aren't going to sway too many players in the long haul. That extra +1 to hit and damage over the half orc is nice, sure. But in the end that's all it is; an extra +1 to hit and damage. Ooo. Oh, and some extra carrying capacity. Even with removing light sensitivity, they end up being a poorer package than the dwarf or human.
The dwarf gets a +2 con, a piddly -2 charisma, and a whole bunch of special abilities that make them attractive despite the slow tactical speed (and in heavy armor, they end up being faster than a human). The human's bonus feat and skill points are extremely useful to someone who wants to keep their options open. By comparison, the orc fighter has access to a few exotic weapons, /still/ ends up with 2 skill points less than a human with the same starting stats, and 1 less skill point than a similar dwarf. Rarg. I can hit things and scare them with a look! That's /all I do/. The simplicity has its appeal, but I think folks are going to be looking elsewhere when they want to be more than big and scary.
I have to almost agree with xellan, but not quite.
I've got Savage Species here and I'm looking at the Monsters compiled by name and Orc, orcs get 1d8 hd, 0 LA, 1 ECL, the +4 Str, and then the -2's to Int, Wis, and Cha, they get a Good Save of Fort a 0 BAB, no natural armor, but skillpoints by class.
I'm going to point out that those stats are for someone that wants to give them a racial hit die. Most (if not all) single hit die races give up their 1st racial hit die in favor of class benefits (HD, BAB, Saves, Skills).
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Try the following experiment to see if all stats are equal. Switch the bonuses and penalties for dwarves so that they get a +2 Cha and a -2 Con. Then see how many people play that modified dwarf as compared to the unmodified dwarf.
There are many reasons why strength is the most powerful stat relative to the other stats, at least based on the assumptions the designers made. One such assumption is that the core of the game is the combat system. Combat utilizes more dice rolls than any other system in the game. In combat, the stat that influences the most rolls is strength. It influences your to hit and your damage. It can apply to melee or ranged attacks. It can apply multiple times to multiple attacks. Strength is a stat that every single class can use via melee. The other stats do not come play such an important offensive role in combat unless you have a class ability, skill, or feat that make them relevant.
After Strength, Dexterity and Constitution come into play the most. Dex modifying AC, ranged to-hit (but not damage), and Reflex saves. Con modifying hp and Fort saves. Wisdom is the next most important because it modifies Will saves.
That leaves Int and Cha. Generally speaking, they don't do anything in the core combat system unless some ability brings them to bare.
Now, if you run a game where you do a lot of diplomacy and very little combat, or where you enforce novel penalties based on Cha or Int, this prioritization is going to change.
The comparison of Bull's Strength vs. Owl's Wisdom is not entirely correct. You are comparing the power of a second level spell vs. the bonus to an ability. Generally, a second level spell is at least as powerful as a +2 to the best ability score (Strength), therefore it is as powerful as a +2 to the worst ability score (Charisma).
A better comparison would be a spell that lets you trade stats. Suppose you've got two versions of a 1st level spell. Version A gives you a +2 to Str and a -2 to Con. Version B gives you a +2 to Str and a -2 to Cha. Which version are you going to be casting on 75% of the character classes?
Now, all this being said, I don't think that 2 points of Cha are worth 1 point of Str. I'd say that it's probably closer to 3 points of Cha are worth 2 points of Str. I agree that the half-orc gets the shaft by taking a net -2 penalty. I think the race should have some additional benefits to be in the same league as the other core races (and a wide variety of fixes exist in the ether). Is it too strong with just a penalty to Int? I would probably say no, but it's up there with the dwarf and human at that point. Is it too strong with just a penalty to Cha? You better believe it.
One last thing - I think the half-orc and the half-elf intentionally got the mechanics shaft to make them less desirable. The half characters come in with funky roleplaying baggage (you've always got to come up with that origin story whereby the character came into existence). If you do juice up the half orc, I like the idea of reshaping the race as a full orc to allow players to avoid that annoying and unnecessary rp hurdle.
I'm going to point out that those stats are for someone that wants to give them a racial hit die. Most (if not all) single hit die races give up their 1st racial hit die in favor of class benefits (HD, BAB, Saves, Skills).I have to almost agree with xellan, but not quite.
I've got Savage Species here and I'm looking at the Monsters compiled by name and Orc, orcs get 1d8 hd, 0 LA, 1 ECL, the +4 Str, and then the -2's to Int, Wis, and Cha, they get a Good Save of Fort a 0 BAB, no natural armor, but skillpoints by class.
Thanks, good point. I'd just bought Savage Species, so that's one of the first things I had to point out, still 1d8 isn't a bad HD. Sure it isn't the barbarian's d12 (favored Orc class, right?) or fighter's d10 (also a common orc class), but if you DO want to play an Orc Cleric, you aren't missing out with the racial hit die and if you wanted to play, and this sounds a little crazy to me, an orc sorcerer or WIZARD, then the d8 hit die is actually pretty damn good. Even for ranger it'd be preferred. But as you point out, this is just HD, as you point out there are other bonuses that class offers, but I'll again suggest that Orcs, since they are LA 1 & 1 ECL, they're an orc first then whatever class they pick.
Thanks, good point. I'd just bought Savage Species, so that's one of the first things I had to point out, still 1d8 isn't a bad HD. Sure it isn't the barbarian's d12 (favored Orc class, right?) or fighter's d10 (also a common orc class), but if you DO want to play an Orc Cleric, you aren't missing out with the racial hit die and if you wanted to play, and this sounds a little crazy to me, an orc sorcerer or WIZARD, then the d8 hit die is actually pretty damn good. Even for ranger it'd be preferred. But as you point out, this is just HD, as you point out there are other bonuses that class offers, but I'll again suggest that Orcs, since they are LA 1 & 1 ECL, they're an orc first then whatever class they pick.I'm going to point out that those stats are for someone that wants to give them a racial hit die. Most (if not all) single hit die races give up their 1st racial hit die in favor of class benefits (HD, BAB, Saves, Skills).I have to almost agree with xellan, but not quite.
I've got Savage Species here and I'm looking at the Monsters compiled by name and Orc, orcs get 1d8 hd, 0 LA, 1 ECL, the +4 Str, and then the -2's to Int, Wis, and Cha, they get a Good Save of Fort a 0 BAB, no natural armor, but skillpoints by class.
Yeah, that is how it works. 1d8 for Orc Level 1, then 1d4 for wizard levels, or 1d12 for barbarian levels. The 1d8 HD is not for the orc to roll no matter what class they are.
I do not own Savage Species, nor does anyone I play with, nor would my players ever opt for a level adjustment when taking such a "common" race- for my purposes, orcs have no racial HD.
Also, human will always, always, always be a favorite race, because that +1 skill and +1 feat is actually a huge bonus. If you just want to play a hulking brute that smashes things well, orc is right for you. If you want versatility, human (and dwarf, to a lesser extent) are better options.
All this boils down to, however, was my desire to tweak orcs to promote them as a player choice and make orc druids a more common options, because I like that view of the race.
That's it. That's all I'm going for. Eliminating the Wisdom penalty seems fair enough.
I am currently working on developing all the "evil" humanoids into more advanced societies that don't simply exist to serve as PC sword-fodder. And I like the thought of orc druids, and yes, orc rangers (finally, get an orc that actually uses that racial weapon familiarity!), moving farther away from the Tolkien-esque brutes. I've even toyed with the thought of making Gruumsh Chaotic Neutral, rather than evil, to make the race more capable of integrating on the whole. They would still be ancient enemies of dwarves and elves, but more than just a mindless horde of savages.
The comparison of Bull's Strength vs. Owl's Wisdom is not entirely correct. You are comparing the power of a second level spell vs. the bonus to an ability. Generally, a second level spell is at least as powerful as a +2 to the best ability score (Strength), therefore it is as powerful as a +2 to the worst ability score (Charisma).
Actually, I'm trying to illustrate that racial bonuses are the only time that mental and physical stats are weighted differently. No where else, be it a spell, buying stats in point buy, magic items, inherent bonuses... in all these, mental stats seem weighted the same as physical stats.
Plus, you don't see this going the other way around, either. You get a race with a -2 (or -4) to strength, you don't see them gaining a net +2 for their troubles.
And finally, with the races in question - orcs, half-orcs - they don't even get a decent suite of additional abilities to make up for it in the least.
Mind, as a monster race, it doesn't really matter if the Orc has a bunch of special abilities to make it attractive to players, because you're supposed to bash them. The half-orc was really done a disservice, however, because they're a PC race. Players are /supposed/ to want to play them. And in /my/ world view, one doesn't work up a half-assed race if it's meant to be played, unless one is just lazy. It doesn't make sense for them to be engineered to be 'less-desirable'. If you don't want them played, don't put them in, and use the space for something people /will/ want.
I'm going to disagree with Xellan on this one; Str and Dex are not equal to mental stats in terms of racical adjustments. Who would ever want to be a dwarven/human warrior if orcs got an even Str/mental balance?Me, for one. And anyone else who didn't want to deal with the hit to two seperate stats. A net -2 to stats, with the very little piece of pie an Orc comes with, is just /too/ little. With a net zero adjustment, weapon familiarity for orcish weapons, darkvision, favored class barbarian, and a +2 to intimidate checks, the Orc becomes a more viable race.
And if you're trying to make the Orc a standard or otherwise playable race, it implies you want people to actually play them. Otherwise, why in the world would you even bother?
Humans and Dwarves have plenty going for them that a +0 LA race with a +4 Strength and net zero stat adjustments aren't going to sway too many players in the long haul. That extra +1 to hit and damage over the half orc is nice, sure. But in the end that's all it is; an extra +1 to hit and damage. Ooo. Oh, and some extra carrying capacity. Even with removing light sensitivity, they end up being a poorer package than the dwarf or human.
The dwarf gets a +2 con, a piddly -2 charisma, and a whole bunch of special abilities that make them attractive despite the slow tactical speed (and in heavy armor, they end up being faster than a human). The human's bonus feat and skill points are extremely useful to someone who wants to keep their options open. By comparison, the orc fighter has access to a few exotic weapons, /still/ ends up with 2 skill points less than a human with the same starting stats, and 1 less skill point than a similar dwarf. Rarg. I can hit things and scare them with a look! That's /all I do/. The simplicity has its appeal, but I think folks are going to be looking elsewhere when they want to be more than big and scary.
I don't feel like arguing so I'm going to agree to disagree with you here. You're right that my intent is to make orcs more attractive to players in my homebrew, but I also know that many players have favorites regardless of stats and traits. I know a guy that loves nothing more than opening a greatsword-wielding-can-of-orcish-whoopass straight from RAW.
Here's my homebrew orc:
+2 Str, -2 Int, -2 Cha
Medium: 30 feet base speed
60 ft. darkvision
+2 Handle Animal and Intimidate
Auto Languages: Common, Orc
Favored Class: Barbarian
I see orcs as basically big toughs who suck at life except for their talent at ass-kicking, which is what some players like to do plain and simple. I gave them bonuses to 2 skills that they can actually use effectively and overcompensate for their -2 Cha. If that's not enough to make them attractive to a player, he/she can play another race...Gods know I made enough of them!
While I respect your descision as a DM to use Half-orc stats instead of regular Orc stats, I again disagree by refering to Savage Species and would, myself, allow the +4 to strength, especially with the -2s. Eliminating Half-orcs does eliminate the rationale that as they are HALF-orcs they get HALF-the bonuses/penalties and making the stats apply for Orcs makes sense since basically you're just making a different breed of orc for your homebrew. (they don't quite get half anyway) The -2 to cha makes the most sense for a half-orc, it actually makes less for a full blooded orc since Intimidate is a CHA skill, but I take an 11 for cha with my wood elf barbarian, so I really just think intimidate should be a class skill with a pc orc. Again, if the Player wants to play a Sorcerer Orc, more power to them, but they'll have to work past the penalties and the associated stigma with magic. I do understand your wanting not to discourage orc divine spell casters. (Dare I say that there Should be more Orc Rangers?)I'm going to disagree with Xellan on this one; Str and Dex are not equal to mental stats in terms of racical adjustments. Who would ever want to be a dwarven/human warrior if orcs got an even Str/mental balance?
In my homebrew, I've also eliminated half orcs in lieu of full orcs as a playable race. Orcs are exactly like PHB half orcs, stat-wise because I didn't want to discourage them from being divine casters...and I also just don't like the idea of a +0 LA race getting +4 to any stat.
However if you really want orcs to have +4 Str w/o the -2 Wis, I'd say that a -2 on Will saves would be a sufficient compensation for the penalty's removal. Possibly also a penalty on Wisdom checks, but that might be hard to explain...(well why not just give them an actual wisdom penalty?!...)
Sorry, don't own Savage Species. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about intimidate...it is already a class skill for barbs. An orc's Cha penalty does make it less attractive for orc characters, but whatever it's only -1.
In my homebrew, half-elves have +1 Dex and -1 Con. If any player really wanted to play another half breed, such as half orc I'd do similarly.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Actually, I'm trying to illustrate that racial bonuses are the only time that mental and physical stats are weighted differently. No where else, be it a spell, buying stats in point buy, magic items, inherent bonuses... in all these, mental stats seem weighted the same as physical stats.
Yes, and my response is that you are comparing apples to oranges to a certain extent. Almost every other time you buy a bonus you are trading some other resource (gp, xp, feats, etc) for the stat bonus. There could be different prices for the different stats, but that would provide more confusion than balance (particularly since most of the other ways that you boost stats come into play at later levels, and the early levels is when good or bad stats make the biggest difference.) Only in character creation do you trade stats for stats. So, when you weigh how much a stat costs vis a vis another stat, that's the time when you weigh it.
I do agree that you have a good point re: stat arrangement and point buy. In those instances, you can effectively trade physical stats for mental stats at a 1:1 conversion ratio.
Another, slightly off-topic place where you can see the difference between mental and physical stats is a game like Hero System, where the phyisical stats are priced differently to represent their importance in combat.
Plus, you don't see this going the other way around, either. You get a race with a -2 (or -4) to strength, you don't see them gaining a net +2 for their troubles.
I could swear there is one out there, but for the life of me, I can't think of where.
And finally, with the races in question - orcs, half-orcs - they don't even get a decent suite of additional abilities to make up for it in the least.
Mind, as a monster race, it doesn't really matter if the Orc has a bunch of special abilities to make it attractive to players, because you're supposed to bash them. The half-orc was really done a disservice, however, because they're a PC race. Players are /supposed/ to want to play them. And in /my/ world view, one doesn't work up a half-assed race if it's meant to be played, unless one is just lazy. It doesn't make sense for them to be engineered to be 'less-desirable'. If you don't want them played, don't put them in, and use the space for something people /will/ want.
I generally agree.
|
The Homo sapiens sapiens/Homo sapiens neanderthalensis interaction appears to have been a variable one. The commonly held idea that humans "beat" the Neanderthals seems to hold in France (though not really, since the first Upper Paleolithic technology, the Chattelperonian seems to be associated entirely with Neanderthals, which blows the whole "primitive/can't adapt or progress idea out of the water).
In Israel, Neanderthals actually supplanted Homo sapiens, before being supplanted in turn by later sapiens groups. In the Balkans, it looks like there was a lot of interbreeding going on. It also looks like there was a lot of inter/intra-group cannibalism going on.
However you slice it, you can't beat using neanderthals as a good working model for orcs. Stronger than homo sapiens. Hardier than homo sapiens (they lived in Europe when the Ice Age was at its very worst). And in some "replacement angst" and some of the evidence of their more unsavory practices (cannibalism and a pretty hard life that broke a lot of bones - the only group in modern humans which is comparable is rodeo clowns) and they make fantastic orcs.
But they also took care of an old man who had one side of his body crushed in an accident for decades and there are location where they buried their dead after filling...
My understanding is that Neanderthal man was beaten by the change in environment. Neanderthals were specialised for hunting big game in a cold forest environment. As the environment changed out of the the last ice age into the present warmer, the environment and the prey they sought became too rare for them to sustain themselves against competition from the much more adaptable Cro Magnon.
|
|
I am currently working on developing all the "evil" humanoids into more advanced societies that don't simply exist to serve as PC sword-fodder. And I like the thought of orc druids, and yes, orc rangers (finally, get an orc that actually uses that racial weapon familiarity!), moving farther away from the Tolkien-esque brutes. I've even toyed with the thought of making Gruumsh Chaotic Neutral, rather than evil, to make the race more capable of integrating on the whole. They would still be ancient enemies of dwarves and elves, but more than just a mindless horde of savages.
Actually, one of the reasons I like Eberron is because it does just this - at least with orcs and goblinoids.
Even with a -2 to the casting stat, an elite array Orc starts with a 13 in their primary stat, which gives them their bonus first level spell. At 20th level (assuming they bump their casting stat) they can cast 8th level spells-- not quite the full 9, unless they have an item to help them out.
Really, I suspect that even with the penalty, they'll make fine wizards and shamans and priests. They won't be as powerful as a race that's not penalized-- but their culture and strength will set them apart. It sounds like a good roleplaying opportunity.
You could also have a "shaman called" Orc sub-race that uses the half orc stats, as was suggested above.
My understanding is that Neanderthal man was beaten by the change in environment. Neanderthals were specialised for hunting big game in a cold forest environment. As the environment changed out of the the last ice age into the present warmer, the environment and the prey they sought became too rare for them to sustain themselves against competition from the much more adaptable Cro Magnon.
That was the common theory, but it's under heavy fire these days in the archaeological community.
The only place there appears to be a clear "Neanderthal then Cro Magnon" succession is France. However, in France, the Middle Paleolithic c. 300,000 to 30,000 BC(classic Neanderthal times with the technology for surviving the worst part of the Ice Age) ends and then the Upper Paleolithic begins c. 340,000 BC to 10,000 BC(classic Cro Magnon times with a warmer environment and new and changing technology).
The first era in the Upper Paleolithic in France is called the Chatelperronian (c. 35,000 BC to 29,000BC). This is the first of the new stone technologies adapted for the new post-ice age Europe. Except it has only ever been found associated with Neanderthals. That means the Neanderthals, who were supposedly doomed to extinction by the change in environment and their lack of ability to adapt to the new circumstance DID adapt.
And boy do those Cro Magnon skeletal features sure look like a combination of the characteristic features of the intrusive Homo sapiens sapiens populations from Asia and the native Homo sapiens neanderthalensis....
I still can't get over the broken bones thing. If the average male Neanderthal has as many bones as a modern rodeo clown, I always get images of Neanderthals jumping on the backs of Pleistocene fauna (mammoths, wooley rhinos, etc.) and riding them down...
BTW, we are STILL in the Ice Age. The entire Holocene (Modern) period, is just an interglacial period. And one that (based on other interglacials) is due to end around now....
According to the National Geographic program I watched last night, we're actually well overdue.
I'm trying to decide which is the lesser evil: the ice age getting a second wind and turning us all into popsicles or global warming turning the planet into waterworld...
-TS, wondering what happened to option C.
I'm trying to decide which is the lesser evil: the ice age getting a second wind and turning us all into popsicles or global warming turning the planet into waterworld...
-TS, wondering what happened to option C.
Well there isn't enough water around to get a real landless waterworld. For an idea what it would look like go get a topographical map of the US and follow the 500ft line. St. Louis ends up being a sea port on the vastly expanded Gulf of Mexico. Last time there were no polar caps, there were hippos in the Thames.
If we want to get a real waterworld, we'll need to smash some comets into the planet to get more water. But that plan has all sorts of additional complications.
Don't worry, TS, the choice isn't that hard, as it's a false one. Global warming will actually, ultimately, result in global cooling. It works something like this.
A huge amount, if not all, of the Earth's climate is directly tied to the movement of warm and cold water in a current called the Transoceanic Conveyor (Did I get the first name right? I always have trouble remembering its exact terminology). Anyway, this is what makes the gulf stream and is why Britain is habitable at the same latitude that Canada has ice sheets.
Well, the Conveyor runs on salt water. However, the ice cap on Greenland is frozen fresh water. As global warming continues, it will melt and flow right into the path of the Conveyor, and the difference in salinity will throw a major wrench in the works of the current. Thus, the warm water stops circulating, and the accompanying warm air, too, resulting in massive cooling and freezing.
The scary part are the positive feedback systems. Ice reflects sunlight and heat. Deep, dark water absorbs it. So, as global warming melts the polar ice, the once reflective surface starts absorbing heat and warming up even more. That speeds up the melt, making more water, which gets hotter, melting more, and so forth. Thus, we can't just "shut off" global warming and be all right; we have to do it before a positive feedback gets out of control.
Similarly, once the big cool has started from the dysfunction of the Conveyor, you find yourself with a lot of ice over what was once heat-absorbing water. The ice reflects the sunlight, making it cooler, and more ice forms, reflecting more sunlight... see a pattern?
I'm still trying to figure out how this relates to orcs.
Sounds like you saw An Inconvenient Truth too, or just do a lot of personal research. How does this relate to orcs? They're the culprits behind global warming, and why they need to remain hero fodder so that we can defeat them and their evil scheme to turn our planet into a tropical-arctic hell!
Those foul knaves! :)
Yes, I saw An Inconvenient Truth, and while I liked it, I was somewhat dissappointed that Gore tooted his own horn so much that many people would dismiss the apolitical topic as being simple maneuvering for possible re-election or some such. My mother was also very environmentally inclined, and I watch stations like the Science Channel and National Geographic (but not Discovery, those sell outs!) far more than any other. So, I pick up things here and there.
|
i'd recommend you read the last couple of months of
[color=blue]Dominic Deegan, Oracle for Hire[/color], Saern.
It will illuminate you when it comes to "civilized" Orcs.
(as well as being some damn good reading!)
-the hamster
|
|
BTW, we are STILL in the Ice Age. The entire Holocene (Modern) period, is just an interglacial period. And one that (based on other interglacials) is due to end around...Ah well, so much for global warming.....
Not in Texas, we ain't. You can stick a boot in the oven, but that don't make it a biscuit.
What? I kind of understand... I think?
Those foul knaves! :)
Yes, I saw An Inconvenient Truth, and while I liked it, I was somewhat dissappointed that Gore tooted his own horn so much that many people would dismiss the apolitical topic as being simple maneuvering for possible re-election or some such.
Nevermind the fact that he's not running again...some people will rationalize Satan into sainthood in order to continue ignoring the inconvenient fact that they're wrong. (Did someone say 'Big Bang' theory? Nah, must've been a fly!)
Though if Gore did run again, I'd probably vote for him again.
|
Those foul knaves! :)
Yes, I saw An Inconvenient Truth, and while I liked it, I was somewhat dissappointed that Gore tooted his own horn so much that many people would dismiss the apolitical topic as being simple maneuvering for possible re-election or some such.
Nevermind the fact that he's not running again...some people will rationalize Satan into sainthood in order to continue ignoring the inconvenient fact that they're wrong. (Did someone say 'Big Bang' theory? Nah, must've been a fly!)
Though if Gore did run again, I'd probably vote for him again.
Say what you want about good old Al, we should all be gratefull to him. Afterall, if he hadn't invented the internet, we wouldn't be having these chats.
Not in Texas, we ain't. You can stick a boot in the oven, but that don't make it a biscuit.BTW, we are STILL in the Ice Age. The entire Holocene (Modern) period, is just an interglacial period. And one that (based on other interglacials) is due to end around...Ah well, so much for global warming.....
Sure it does, a tough leathery biscuit.
But we are still in an ice age. No ice age = no polar caps, the Thames becomes like the modern Nile, complete with crocodiles and hippos, etc. And Texas gets much much hotter, but also much wetter, since the shoreline moves in past Houston at least. It would probably look something like the Yucatan.
I don't know if anyone has done any work on figuring out whether global warming will actually delay the shift back to glaciation or not. I'm betting with Saern that the Gulf Stream shuts down and kicks off the next glaciation with a bang (not a Day After Tomorrow level bang, but quicker than otherwise).
Anyways, about orcs....
About Orcs...
In my homebrew I have thought of Orcs as being like a Jewish/Roman empire that has been almost wiped out by successive wars with the Byzantine/Egyptian Elves and the totally Islamic Dwarves.
Let's see, Global Warming and Orcs . . .
Oh, I got it. Global warming is conspiracy between Big Oil and those evil and infamous bashers of the underdark. You see, a certain individual occupying the white house has a -2 penalty to all his mental stats, and likes simple solutions to problems (just invade 'em!) so we can infer that he must be an orc in disguise (the disguise kit has trouble covering up the low brow and big ears, though). He's been insisting all along that we need to pump out more CO2 to help our economy, and denying the whole global warming problem. Somebody give Big Al his Holy Avenger back! :P (No offense intended toward those of you may disagree with my politics!)
Incidentally, Neanderthals are statted up in Frostburn. I've included them in my homebrew, but renamed them Skraelings--from the term the Norse used to refer to the Inuit and other mesolithic peoples living in Greenland and nearby.
Thanks for updating us on the latest theories about Neanderthalensis, Calloway!
This thread and the other on humanoids have been interesting. I'm afraid most of the humanoid races except hobgoblins have been bit players in my homebrew--I've been more interested in developing the human and demi-human cultures, and the PCs' adversaries are actually mostly human NPCs, though there are some Drow infiltrators here and there. (No I haven't even read Salvatore's FR stuff on the Drow--the old 1e drow adventures captured my imagination long ago, and discovering and acting upon lore about the breakup of an ancient elven kingdom and division of elvenkind into seven different races is central to the current campaign I'm running in this world.)
If anyone wants to see more detail on the latest Neanderthal research, the Science channel will be airing an hour long special this Sunday. Enjoy!
Peruhain, that was so funny. :) You made my evening.
Hey Saern just how discouraged are shamans and druids in orc society? I think you already have everything you need as is.
Supposing you take the orc as a standard PC race (which I find no problem with) that means that you have a +4 str with a penalty to int wis and cha. So you have a lot of brutes running around in whatever level of decency or organization you desire for their community.
Now where do all you clerics and druids fit in? Simple, they are rare. And when you do have an orc that pops up to have a 15 or so in wis they grow up in a community that treats them as the rare wonder they are. This means that their training and role as a leader are far more cultivated then the orc seargent barbarian. So they will likely gain levels quickly as their services are in dire need in their community. So the community of 300 orcs may only have 3 shamans but you can bet they are some bad ass shamans since they have to take care and guide their tribe all on their own whearas a different humanoid settlement has a much better mystic to brawler ratio.
Orcs may not be built to be clerics or druids. But they can still be damn good ones. Whens the last time anyone said and elf can't be a good melee combatant because they have reduced hit points and fortitude saves? Elves can be awesome tanks when they use their strengths to offset their weaknesses. Namely agile fast paced combat with two weapon fighting, thrown weapons, or simply out manuvering you're opponent.
After all an elf fighter has to keep in mind his weaknesses and fight elf style. So an orc has to fight orc style. An orc may have less spells and less powerful DC's but he's still got a major advantage on his side. The ability to grab his heavy mace in two hands and beat the hell out of any human cleric that dared to resist his hold person spell. Try fleshing out an orc cleric of Kord with a greatsword and the strength domain and see what a 240 pound preacher can do.
By the way normally I'd just call and talk to you about this Saern but by tomorrow I'll be in my dorm at colledge so I'm trying to get used to this as out medium for idea exchange.
Later
Ah, yes, and some day, when you do call my house again, we'll be so used to this form of discourse that you'll forget and call me Saern instead of Will, and I'll forget and call you Sexi, and then vomit.