Orcs for CRB


Prerelease Discussion

101 to 150 of 151 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Biztak wrote:
You don't need them to be good for them to be a playable option, not every character has to be heroic.

Sure, evil and antiheroic campaigns have their place, but stuff for those kinds of games don't belong in core, IMO.

It's a specific genre niche like horror or intrigue, and should be in a splat.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Vic Ferrari wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Marco Massoudi wrote:

When considering classic literature like Lord of the Rings or going back to D&D 1st Edition, the basic races are:

-Humans
-Dwarves/Gnomes
-Halflings/Hobbits
-Elves
-Orcs/Goblins

-Half-elves
-Half-orcs

There are a few others, but these are the most common.

So, orcs in PF 2.0 core? Yes, please.

Half-elves in Tolkien were only a few individuals IIRC. Hardly sufficient to be called a race

Yeah, Elros, Elrond and his two kids, Elladan and Elrohir, and that's about it. Though there were some others in the past, adding to Aragorn's heritage, etc.

Also, gnomes are not in Middle-Earth, though, technically, Tolkien referred to the Noldor elves as Gnomes, in his original drafts.

Thankfully we're playing in Pathfinder, not Tolkien's Middle Earth and not in ancient Norse Mythology. In pathfinder, and 3rd edition Dungeons and Dragons before it, Half-Elves are an actual race.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Biztak wrote:
You don't need them to be good for them to be a playable option, not every character has to be heroic.

Sure, evil and antiheroic campaigns have their place, but stuff for those kinds of games don't belong in core, IMO.

It's a specific genre niche like horror or intrigue, and should be in a splat.

Ye!

We could call them Ultimate Horror and Intrigue Adventures or something.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Biztak wrote:
You don't need them to be good for them to be a playable option, not every character has to be heroic.

Sure, evil and antiheroic campaigns have their place, but stuff for those kinds of games don't belong in core, IMO.

It's a specific genre niche like horror or intrigue, and should be in a splat.

Evil/antiheroic character doesn't necessarily mean evil/antiheroic campaign. I've played in a bunch of games where those types of characters worked with the party for their own reasons (usually because they too didn't want ancient wizards/tyrannical robot overords/evil oni running things). You should make sure everyone at the table is cool with it first, but that goes for most things anyway, I feel. Running an all-evil campaign is a different beast, I think (and a genre niche, like you said).

And it's not like neutral characters don't exist. Neutral characters are fun!

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Gimme Orcs in the Core Rulebook so I can roll a 1/2 Gnome 1/2 Orc.

DOOOO ITTTT!!!

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber
Charon Onozuka wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
The most relevant statistical data on races actually played puts Goblins way ahead of Orcs.
Nobody here, in this thread, is currently suggesting Orcs instead of Goblins. We are suggesting having both.

Can I be the first then? >:D

Because honestly, I'd vastly prefer to see Orcs rather than Goblins in the CRB. Orcs have a connection to core (half-orcs) and including them seems natural to help define what a half-orc is. Not to mention that they're already going to be printing Orc ancestry feats that half-orcs can take, so why not just go all the way and include them?

Goblins on the other hand are psychotic miscreants who won't be allowed in my home games. I know they're popular, but outside of goblin-only campaigns they don't really make much sense in the standard adventuring party.

Add me to this list...Orcs, yes...Goblins, no.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A risen hand in favor of those greenskins!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Biztak wrote:
You don't need them to be good for them to be a playable option, not every character has to be heroic.

Sure, evil and antiheroic campaigns have their place, but stuff for those kinds of games don't belong in core, IMO.

It's a specific genre niche like horror or intrigue, and should be in a splat.

I am SOOOOO going to steal your silver and replace it with valueless metal.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Definitely NOT a certain Kobold wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Biztak wrote:
You don't need them to be good for them to be a playable option, not every character has to be heroic.

Sure, evil and antiheroic campaigns have their place, but stuff for those kinds of games don't belong in core, IMO.

It's a specific genre niche like horror or intrigue, and should be in a splat.

I am SOOOOO going to steal your silver and replace it with valueless metal.

Like gold?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Definitely NOT a certain Kobold wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Biztak wrote:
You don't need them to be good for them to be a playable option, not every character has to be heroic.

Sure, evil and antiheroic campaigns have their place, but stuff for those kinds of games don't belong in core, IMO.

It's a specific genre niche like horror or intrigue, and should be in a splat.

I am SOOOOO going to steal your silver and replace it with valueless metal.
Like gold?

We were thinking the chalky grey one that makes you sick. :P


Kevin Mack wrote:
Well if there putting Goblin in why not Orc's?

Can we exclude goblins as well as orcs?

Actually, I have a great idea: Why don't we include Balrogs as a core race? And Dragons.

Hey, while we are at it, I want to be Cthulhu.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malthraz wrote:
Kevin Mack wrote:
Well if there putting Goblin in why not Orc's?

Can we exclude goblins as well as orcs?

Actually, I have a great idea: Why don't we include Balrogs as a core race? And Dragons.

Hey, while we are at it, I want to be Cthulhu.

That's just silly. Cthulhu isn't a race.

You're looking for Starspawn.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ya know, if you go that line of joking you could at least keep it plausible :D Like 0hd races and cr 20+ racial hd monsters aren't really compatible. So at least make joke about 0hd version of Cthulhu and Balrog :p


Because PCs and NPCs are built with all the same stats, it is possible to play as cthullu in PF1. Not balanced for most games, mind you, but theoretically playable nonetheless.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sideromancer wrote:
Because PCs and NPCs are built with all the same stats, it is possible to play as cthullu in PF1. Not balanced for most games, mind you, but theoretically playable nonetheless.

Yeah, you could just keep adding class levels to the big ol' C.

The open-endedness of 3rd Ed/PF1 actually irritates me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
The Sideromancer wrote:
Because PCs and NPCs are built with all the same stats, it is possible to play as cthullu in PF1. Not balanced for most games, mind you, but theoretically playable nonetheless.

Yeah, you could just keep adding class levels to the big ol' C.

The open-endedness of 3rd Ed/PF1 actually irritates me.

I don't get this. Why?

I'm not being a smartass, just genuinely curious. I enjoy the open-endedness myself, especially for a game that they tell me technically has no "ending" or way to "win", seems to be that's how things should be.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I think the one obstacles orcs have is what mental stat they'd boost. Wisdom, maybe? They're certainly not charismatic or smart.


Derry L. Zimeye wrote:
I think the one obstacles orcs have is what mental stat they'd boost. Wisdom, maybe? They're certainly not charismatic or smart.

Wisdom is the most workable, I agree. Most orc spellcasters are going to be clerics or shamans.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
Derry L. Zimeye wrote:
I think the one obstacles orcs have is what mental stat they'd boost. Wisdom, maybe? They're certainly not charismatic or smart.
Wisdom is the most workable, I agree. Most orc spellcasters are going to be clerics or shamans.

I dig it. It'd be a throwback to Half-Orcs in 3.5, who suffered from a penalty to Int and Cha, but not Wis.


Derry L. Zimeye wrote:
I think the one obstacles orcs have is what mental stat they'd boost. Wisdom, maybe? They're certainly not charismatic or smart.

That was a similar problem with goblins. I really don't see them as charismatic at all, but apparently that's what they went with. But they're presented as dumb as stumps so intelligence doesn't really fit*, crazy, impulsive and weak willed so wisdom doesn't really fit but also completely unpleasant so charisma doesn't really fit either. I mean they might be going on force of personality, but that seems to be pretty weak in goblins as presented as well. It's also weird they're going from having a negative to cha in PF1 to a positive in PF2.

Orcs on the other hand do seem to have a strong will, keen senses and a cunning that fits with wisdom. While I have to agree charisma and intelligence are both poor choices and don't fit their portrayal.

I think this is a bit of a problem with the convention of bonuses to a mental, a physical and a negative somewhere. It forces bad fits.

* And making a willfully illiterate group among the best wizards really doesn't work for me.


Doktor Weasel wrote:
Derry L. Zimeye wrote:
I think the one obstacles orcs have is what mental stat they'd boost. Wisdom, maybe? They're certainly not charismatic or smart.

That was a similar problem with goblins. I really don't see them as charismatic at all, but apparently that's what they went with. But they're presented as dumb as stumps so intelligence doesn't really fit*, crazy, impulsive and weak willed so wisdom doesn't really fit but also completely unpleasant so charisma doesn't really fit either. I mean they might be going on force of personality, but that seems to be pretty weak in goblins as presented as well. It's also weird they're going from having a negative to cha in PF1 to a positive in PF2.

Orcs on the other hand do seem to have a strong will, keen senses and a cunning that fits with wisdom. While I have to agree charisma and intelligence are both poor choices and don't fit their portrayal.

I think this is a bit of a problem with the convention of bonuses to a mental, a physical and a negative somewhere. It forces bad fits.

* And making a willfully illiterate group among the best wizards really doesn't work for me.

To be fair, even if you weren't limited to the "+physical +mental -something" formula of PF ability boosts, what two stats (both being either physical or mental) would even fit a goblin in that case? Dex is the obvious choice as far as physical stats go, yes, but it's not like either Str or Con actually fit the portrayal of a goblin...

Goblins being an oddball, I generally like the idea behind the stat boosts always being split between the physical and mental stats - mostly so that you are given stats which can support a martial character as well as a spellcaster of some kind, instead of being pushed too hard towards one or the other. Especially important for the core races.


I can see Paizo Goblins as having a strong force of personality (+Charisma), I can even see them having cunning and guile (+Intelligence).
The problem is two-fold:
A) Their appearance is so different from ours that Humans are unlikely to find them sexually attractive (except as a fetish), and attractiveness is often used as a symptom of a high charisma. This leads to automatic associations of Ugly = Low Charisma.
B) Multiple decades of them being npc'd as bumbling idiots and fought as mindless video-game monsters makes it hard for real humans to take goblins seriously, and we like to underestimate the intellect of 'lesser beings'. Note the decades of "animal-level intelligence" being represented with an arbitrarially low Int-score

The Paizo goblin's classic flaws are voracity, impatiance, and foolishness. They are perpetually "hungry and need to right now!" aka "Hangry". The former simply indicates a high metabolism (which may grant a bonus vs poisons), and the latter is an indication of their 'natural' alignment (Chaotic Evil). Neither leds itself to defining their Flaw. Foolishness however, is certainly a Wisdom Penalty. I can see goblins doing all sorts of stupid things as a result of obliviousness. Plus there are all the examples of a single magic user charming or charming entire tribes of them, as well as now frequently they end up under the thumb of some other, more powerful goblinoid.


Derry L. Zimeye wrote:
I think the one obstacles orcs have is what mental stat they'd boost. Wisdom, maybe? They're certainly not charismatic or smart.

I mean, in my setting I gave Orcs +2 Str, +2 Int, -2 Wis but my game is set thousands of years after "savage orc hordes" were a thing, and their culture took a hard left turn away from that stuff after a long series of setbacks and a few charismatic leaders showed them it's ultimately unproductive. I figured that Orcs have powerful minds and are thinkers, they are just easily led to fall into unproductive and self-destructive loops. Orcs are scarier when you can't easily out-smart them, anyway.

I definitely don't want to see "Bonus to only physical stats, penalty to only mental states" ancestries in PF2.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Derry L. Zimeye wrote:
I think the one obstacles orcs have is what mental stat they'd boost. Wisdom, maybe? They're certainly not charismatic or smart.

Why does it have to be a mental stat? I don't see a problem with a race getting 2 physical stats up or 2 mental stats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RiverMesa wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Derry L. Zimeye wrote:
I think the one obstacles orcs have is what mental stat they'd boost. Wisdom, maybe? They're certainly not charismatic or smart.

That was a similar problem with goblins. I really don't see them as charismatic at all, but apparently that's what they went with. But they're presented as dumb as stumps so intelligence doesn't really fit*, crazy, impulsive and weak willed so wisdom doesn't really fit but also completely unpleasant so charisma doesn't really fit either. I mean they might be going on force of personality, but that seems to be pretty weak in goblins as presented as well. It's also weird they're going from having a negative to cha in PF1 to a positive in PF2.

Orcs on the other hand do seem to have a strong will, keen senses and a cunning that fits with wisdom. While I have to agree charisma and intelligence are both poor choices and don't fit their portrayal.

I think this is a bit of a problem with the convention of bonuses to a mental, a physical and a negative somewhere. It forces bad fits.

* And making a willfully illiterate group among the best wizards really doesn't work for me.

To be fair, even if you weren't limited to the "+physical +mental -something" formula of PF ability boosts, what two stats (both being either physical or mental) would even fit a goblin in that case? Dex is the obvious choice as far as physical stats go, yes, but it's not like either Str or Con actually fit the portrayal of a goblin...

Goblins being an oddball, I generally like the idea behind the stat boosts always being split between the physical and mental stats - mostly so that you are given stats which can support a martial character as well as a spellcaster of some kind, instead of being pushed too hard towards one or the other. Especially important for the core races.

Con definitely fits for goblins; one of the more popular options for goblins in PF1 was Roll With It, a feat that allowed you to get punted around while shrugging off any injuries that getting clubbed so hard you fly twenty feet away would presumably cause.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Mechalibur wrote:
Derry L. Zimeye wrote:
I think the one obstacles orcs have is what mental stat they'd boost. Wisdom, maybe? They're certainly not charismatic or smart.
Why does it have to be a mental stat? I don't see a problem with a race getting 2 physical stats up or 2 mental stats.

While it doesn't have to be, I think I like one mental one physical. It gives every race a broad range of competencies both for martial classes and caster classes, which could possibly reduce some thematic pidgeonholing?

E.g. for a +2 str +2 wis -2 int orc you can be reasonably sure they're not a wizard or an alchemist, but the classic fighter and barbarian, a cleric as a tribal shaman, or the orc might be a straight up feral wild druid (probably a good choice actually). Meanwhile a +2 str +2 con -2 int orc could be played the other ways, but would heavily encourage playing a beatstick.

IDK, I think it could be a shame to have a clear cut smashy race casty race division.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
sanwah68 wrote:
Charon Onozuka wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
The most relevant statistical data on races actually played puts Goblins way ahead of Orcs.
Nobody here, in this thread, is currently suggesting Orcs instead of Goblins. We are suggesting having both.

Can I be the first then? >:D

Because honestly, I'd vastly prefer to see Orcs rather than Goblins in the CRB. Orcs have a connection to core (half-orcs) and including them seems natural to help define what a half-orc is. Not to mention that they're already going to be printing Orc ancestry feats that half-orcs can take, so why not just go all the way and include them?

Goblins on the other hand are psychotic miscreants who won't be allowed in my home games. I know they're popular, but outside of goblin-only campaigns they don't really make much sense in the standard adventuring party.

Add me to this list...Orcs, yes...Goblins, no.

+1 team Orc!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel also that the fact that every ancestry gives at least one floating attribute bonus, making every +2/+2/-2 choice involve a benefit to a mental and a physical attribute prevents people from having a +2 to all three attributes, either physical or mental.

Want a Str/Con Dwarf? Easily done. Want a Str/Dex Elf? Sure. A Dex/Con Halfling? No problem. Let's just not allow "Str/Dex/Con" ancestries since all of those attributes are useful to every martial character.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Why wouldn't Charisma be an appropriate mental bonus for Orc's? They are all about intimidation, are they not?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
CraziFuzzy wrote:
Why wouldn't Charisma be an appropriate mental bonus for Orc's? They are all about intimidation, are they not?

Intimidation is only a part of what Cha is for. Orcs aren't well known for their rugged good looks or particularly charming vocabulary.


CraziFuzzy wrote:
Why wouldn't Charisma be an appropriate mental bonus for Orc's? They are all about intimidation, are they not?

I mean I'd personally be cool with charisma for imposing presence and force of personality.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would be 100% okay with orcs in the game. I'd also love a sidebar that talked about disruptive characters and how evil orcs will typically be inappropriate to play with lawful good paladins and how annoying kleptomaniac gnomes/halflings/goblins are typically really, really bad to include in a team based game.

Paizo Employee Customer Service Representative

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed some posts.

Profanity is not allowed on our forums. The substitution of alternative characters to bypass the profanity filter is not acceptable.

There is no excuse for escalating a discussion into argument by the use of hyperbole or personal attacks. If you find the discussion veering toward unfitting and emotionally provocative comparisons, please redirect the conversation in a more productive direction.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

One thing to note, with the way PF2 does stat ups especially in relation to race, +2,+2 physical isn't that big of a bonus (anyone can do that right now, so long as we aren't counting specific stats) and doesn't particularly typecast them as any given class.

Much like in Starfinder, the stat you only really care about is the malus. The only stat you absolutely can't start as an 18 in PF2 is your malus stat.

Thus if we got Orcs as (for example) +2 Str, +2 Con, -2 Int, the only classes they have a disadvantage in being are those that favour Intelligence. A level 1 Orc can have 18 in any other stat. Even then they can have 16 Intelligence, which is still pretty darn good, especially if you are looking to roll something like a self buffing Muscle Wizard.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
One thing to note, with the way PF2 does stat ups especially in relation to race, +2,+2 physical isn't that big of a bonus (anyone can do that right now, so long as we aren't counting specific stats) and doesn't particularly typecast them as any given class.

This isn't quite true. See, with +Str, +Con, the Orc can select Dex as their floating bonus and have +2 to all three physical stats, making them an 'ultimate warrior' of sorts.

Personally, I don't have a huge issue with Orcs or Hobgoblins being able to do precisely that, but I can definitely see the arguments against it.

The Concordance

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
One thing to note, with the way PF2 does stat ups especially in relation to race, +2,+2 physical isn't that big of a bonus (anyone can do that right now, so long as we aren't counting specific stats) and doesn't particularly typecast them as any given class.

This isn't quite true. See, with +Str, +Con, the Orc can select Dex as their floating bonus and have +2 to all three physical stats, making them an 'ultimate warrior' of sorts.

Personally, I don't have a huge issue with Orcs or Hobgoblins being able to do precisely that, but I can definitely see the arguments against it.

The other thing I rapidly see happening as more races open up. Is having multiple races with the exact same bonuses and negative. However, Deadman, as you have been so awesomely in touch with the maths so far as to predict things. Is there a specific negative if we end up with a race that is, essentially, a pre-set +2 and a floating +2? (Aka, the second bonus and the malus, are treated as ending up on the same stat.)


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
One thing to note, with the way PF2 does stat ups especially in relation to race, +2,+2 physical isn't that big of a bonus (anyone can do that right now, so long as we aren't counting specific stats) and doesn't particularly typecast them as any given class.

This isn't quite true. See, with +Str, +Con, the Orc can select Dex as their floating bonus and have +2 to all three physical stats, making them an 'ultimate warrior' of sorts.

Personally, I don't have a huge issue with Orcs or Hobgoblins being able to do precisely that, but I can definitely see the arguments against it.

If that's the case, then what about +2/+2 physical, and the -2 also physical? Like, +2 Strength, +2 Constitution, -2 Dexterity?

Liberty's Edge

Yako Zenko wrote:
The other thing I rapidly see happening as more races open up. Is having multiple races with the exact same bonuses and negative. However, Deadman, as you have been so awesomely in touch with the maths so far as to predict things. Is there a specific negative if we end up with a race that is, essentially, a pre-set +2 and a floating +2? (Aka, the second bonus and the malus, are treated as ending up on the same stat.)

It's a bit more restrictive, since it's effectively paring down the options to be less flexible than the human's two floating bonuses, while also disallowing dump stats. I suspect we won't see too much of that sort of thing, though it's not impossible.

Meophist wrote:
If that's the case, then what about +2/+2 physical, and the -2 also physical? Like, +2 Strength, +2 Constitution, -2 Dexterity?

That would work for an Ancestry it was appropriate to. I don't think Orcs really qualify.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just passing by to beg for orcs in CRB again. :D


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
One thing to note, with the way PF2 does stat ups especially in relation to race, +2,+2 physical isn't that big of a bonus (anyone can do that right now, so long as we aren't counting specific stats) and doesn't particularly typecast them as any given class.

This isn't quite true. See, with +Str, +Con, the Orc can select Dex as their floating bonus and have +2 to all three physical stats, making them an 'ultimate warrior' of sorts.

Personally, I don't have a huge issue with Orcs or Hobgoblins being able to do precisely that, but I can definitely see the arguments against it.

I see your point, but this seems more of an issue of Dexterity being an all-around useful stat, while intelligence is more specific. For example, it wouldn't really be overpowered if a wizard, cleric, druid (or whatever spellcasting class) had +2 intelligence, +2 wisdom, and +2 charisma.


Mechalibur wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
One thing to note, with the way PF2 does stat ups especially in relation to race, +2,+2 physical isn't that big of a bonus (anyone can do that right now, so long as we aren't counting specific stats) and doesn't particularly typecast them as any given class.

This isn't quite true. See, with +Str, +Con, the Orc can select Dex as their floating bonus and have +2 to all three physical stats, making them an 'ultimate warrior' of sorts.

Personally, I don't have a huge issue with Orcs or Hobgoblins being able to do precisely that, but I can definitely see the arguments against it.

I see your point, but this seems more of an issue of Dexterity being an all-around useful stat, while intelligence is more specific. For example, it wouldn't really be overpowered if a wizard, cleric, druid (or whatever spellcasting class) had +2 intelligence, +2 wisdom, and +2 charisma.

No, but that's mostly because for most casters, raising a non-primary mental stat doesn't do anymore for them than it does for a martial character. To a wizard, wisdom only increases Will, Perception and a few skills. Meanwhile, all martial characters have some benefit from all physical attributes; more AC, more HP, higher damage, they're all good.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I still disagree. Strength is not useful to all martial characters (dex-based rogues, in particular), while dexterity and constitution are approximately of equal use to a caster as they are to a strength-based martial character.

I don't think the problem lies in doubling up on physical or mental attributes, the biggest problem is that not all attributes are inherently as useful.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mechalibur wrote:

I still disagree. Strength is not useful to all martial characters (dex-based rogues, in particular), while dexterity and constitution are approximately of equal use to a caster as they are to a strength-based martial character.

I don't think the problem lies in doubling up on physical or mental attributes, the biggest problem is that not all attributes are inherently as useful.

I think it's probably the fact that as a physical character, you're going to be the one getting targeted the most. So you need a decent dex and con to survive. Casters can usually make do with having a high casting stat and just staying away from the fight.

Also rogue is the only example in this case. (and ranged based characters if there's no composite bow, but I think there will be.) They have been moving away from Dex to damage. And the rogue having it seems to still not be a done deal in the true release of 2e.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I suppose we'll see when it comes out.

Either way, I'd like to see orcs included, whether STR/CON or STR/WIS.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS!


The use of having an all mental spread vs an all physical spread will largely come down to how well resonance and new skills compete. The cleric will certainly enjoy having extra charisma because that is also an extra channel.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bardarok, But An Orc Now wrote:
ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS!

The day my players show up with a party of orcs and goblins I will be happy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mechalibur wrote:

I still disagree. Strength is not useful to all martial characters (dex-based rogues, in particular), while dexterity and constitution are approximately of equal use to a caster as they are to a strength-based martial character.

I don't think the problem lies in doubling up on physical or mental attributes, the biggest problem is that not all attributes are inherently as useful.

Yes, let's put Str back on the map, it seems to have lost some oomph in the last 18-years!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Mechalibur wrote:

I still disagree. Strength is not useful to all martial characters (dex-based rogues, in particular), while dexterity and constitution are approximately of equal use to a caster as they are to a strength-based martial character.

I don't think the problem lies in doubling up on physical or mental attributes, the biggest problem is that not all attributes are inherently as useful.

Yes, let's put Str back on the map, it seems to have lost some oomph in the last 18-years!

Yeah, it's a highly ignorable stat unless you're going for a strength-build (generally a two-hander). Dex on the other hand is king of the stats, it's useful for everyone and dex-based martials really benefit from being able to focus on one do-all stat that provides attack, damage, AC, saves and skill bonuses. And now finesse isn't even a feat anymore, it's automatic with certain weapons. Though I'm not sure how you'd make strength more useful in a way that makes much sense.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Mechalibur wrote:

I still disagree. Strength is not useful to all martial characters (dex-based rogues, in particular), while dexterity and constitution are approximately of equal use to a caster as they are to a strength-based martial character.

I don't think the problem lies in doubling up on physical or mental attributes, the biggest problem is that not all attributes are inherently as useful.

Yes, let's put Str back on the map, it seems to have lost some oomph in the last 18-years!
Yeah, it's a highly ignorable stat unless you're going for a strength-build (generally a two-hander). Dex on the other hand is king of the stats, it's useful for everyone and dex-based martials really benefit from being able to focus on one do-all stat that provides attack, damage, AC, saves and skill bonuses. And now finesse isn't even a feat anymore, it's automatic with certain weapons. Though I'm not sure how you'd make strength more useful in a way that makes much sense.

I've always liked removing con and making strength determine hp and fortitude. That way strength and dex both have offensive and defensive applications, and aren't useless for anyone, martial or otherwise.

To make it balanced, dex to damage would need to be easily accessible, of course. There'd probably be a bunch of other considerations too...

I know I went a bit off topic, but I'd love to see that some day.

101 to 150 of 151 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Orcs for CRB All Messageboards