Orcs for CRB


Prerelease Discussion

1 to 50 of 151 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

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

Let's not play any games here. After the Half-Orc reveal, everyone's thinking the same thing. Please, please PLEASE full Orcs for the CRB. Give Half-Orcs something to fall back on, give us something up against certain other systems without them in core, and just a great way to placate fans of those big ol' meat boys. To be clear, I personally am not asking to replace goblins, I love those guys- I'm saying it might be a fun option to port those orc feats you gave to half-orcs to a new ancestry, give em a few more mechanical toys (we could really use a race with an inherent strength bonus, I feel!) and voila- a way to get Celestial/Tiefling Orcs in the future, and please fans of the concept who aren't as happy with the human heritage decision (which I think is great!). I know it's frankly impossible for em in the playtest by now, but I know people would super appreciate this change. If not for CRB, then as soon as possible alongside other classic options like Tiefling or Aasimar, and not as much of a pushover as 1e! Who's with me?

Liberty's Edge

13 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm on board with corebook Orcs. That seems doable and fun. It'd help Ability Score balance by adding a +Str Ancestry (and probably a -Int one as well).

Really, I just generally think it's a good idea.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think you have to have a bonus to a physical and mental score, so that would have orcs with +str +Wis -int which fits pretty well. Only problem would be three +Wis races with halflings and dwarves, but there's already 3 +Dex races so that should be fine.

That way there's a bonus and penalty for every physical and mental stat (except Dex) which is nice for build variety. Int penalty might be problematic because it seems to be the least valuable stat.


I third this motion.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
citricking wrote:
I think you have to have a bonus to a physical and mental score, so that would have orcs with +str +Wis -int which fits pretty well. Only problem would be three +Wis races with halflings and dwarves, but there's already 3 +Dex races so that should be fine.

You could also give them +Str, +Con. That makes them really really good at combat, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. +Wis is cool, too, though.

citricking wrote:
That way there's a bonus and penalty for every physical and mental stat (except Dex) which is nice for build variety. Int penalty might be problematic because it seems to be the least valuable stat.

Int is pretty valuable. It governs more skills than anything else, and skills are much better in PF2, in addition to everyone receiving on Int-based Skill (Lore) that determines your downtime income. It might also reduce starting skills even as bonuses add to them.

You could, alternately, make them -Cha, but that makes them a bit too similar to Dwarves, IMO.


Fourthed. +Str+wis -int would be my statline of choice as well though ive seen the argument for +cha instead of wisdom


7 people marked this as a favorite.

This is the only reasonable and acceptable path forward.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Derry L. Zimeye wrote:
Let's not play any games here. After the Half-Orc reveal, everyone's thinking the same thing.

No, they are not.

Silver Crusade

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

Ewwww, no. The most boring and overdone Evil race ever.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I wasn't really keen on this idea before. But since half-orcs are now a feat, and they're already including orc ancestry feats, it seems like they're mostly there anyway, so why not just go all in?

I do wonder if this will kind of kill the interest in playing a half-orc, why go for half measures? But on the other hand, people do play half-elves.

As for stats, +Str, +Wis, -Int does seem to be the most logical choice. Although I wonder if all (non-human) ancestries are going to use the +2 to one physical, one mental and -2 to one stat formula. Most did in PF1, but there were noticeable exceptions like Aasimars and hobgoblins who had two bonus stats and no negatives (merfolk had three bonuses with no negatives although their mobility on land is horrible), goblins had a +4 dex and two negatives and orcs had +4 Str and negatives in all the mental stats and Kobolds really got the short end of the stick with a single bonus, a -4 Str and -2 Con. The tighter math might make these kinds of non-standard bonuses problematic though.

PF1 was a bit tight-fisted with racial Strength bonuses, although I'm not sure why. I think it might have been thought that it was too powerful compared to other stats because it deals with attacks and damage. But Dex seems to be much more so if you go finesse and dex for damage, it also helps with some skills, saves and AC. And Dex bonuses practically grew on trees and nobody had a negative in Dex except one variant Dhampir.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

This is fake Orcism. True Orcism would demand Orcs be included in the playtest! No compromise! "Impossible" is only another excuse of the weaklings !

Liberty's Edge

Doktor Weasel wrote:
Although I wonder if all (non-human) ancestries are going to use the +2 to one physical, one mental and -2 to one stat formula.

The system is strongly predicated on the stat mods for Ancestries being +,+,-, and then a floating +. I'd bet good money that won't change, pretty much ever.

The one physical/one mental thing, though, that might be more variable. I could easily see Hobgoblins as +Dex, +Con, and then maybe -Wis, for example.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would be ok with core orks, if nothing else it makes it easier for gms to create orc npcs - and I guess many players would also love the options


Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Seisho wrote:
I would be ok with core orks, if nothing else it makes it easier for gms to create orc npcs - and I guess many players would also love the options

NPCs do not use the rules for PC creation anyway, so that would not help at all.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Zaister wrote:
Seisho wrote:
I would be ok with core orks, if nothing else it makes it easier for gms to create orc npcs - and I guess many players would also love the options
NPCs do not use the rules for PC creation anyway, so that would not help at all.

This isn't precisely true. There are two ways to make NPCs, and one of the two is to make them precisely like a PC. Being able to make an Orc Warlord as an Orc Barbarian 17 is therefore super useful.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I am pretty sure orcs don't need to ask to be in the core rulebook. They would just be there, or not, based upon whether they choose to be or not.


Zaister wrote:
Derry L. Zimeye wrote:
Let's not play any games here. After the Half-Orc reveal, everyone's thinking the same thing.
No, they are not.

True, I am not too keen on full on monster races (orcs, hobgoblins, goblins, kobolds, lizardfolk, gnolls, etc) in core, but I really like them as an option; good for an Al-Qadim campaign.

Dark Archive

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

Well if there putting Goblin in why not Orc's?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kevin Mack wrote:
Well if there putting Goblin in why not Orc's?

Well why not Deep Ones, Swanmays and Jorugumo?

The most relevant statistical data on races actually played puts Goblins way ahead of Orcs.

Liberty's Edge

13 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Better idea, give us Core Half-Orcs.

Though I'd be down for getting both.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
Kevin Mack wrote:
Well if there putting Goblin in why not Orc's?

Well why not Deep Ones, Swanmays and Jorugumo?

The most relevant statistical data on races actually played puts Goblins way ahead of Orcs.

That is a nice survey. ... Too bad it was up on a third party site that can't be used for PFS reliably. I would think that skewers the results a bit.

Also: 60% of the characters weren't played with Paizo AP's or in PFS, so we can't say if the basic assumptions of races available match with what Paizo has in mind for their setting.

On the other hand, Archetypes were popular. 50% of all characters using them is something.
Multiclassing too, if a bit lower.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
Kevin Mack wrote:
Well if there putting Goblin in why not Orc's?
Well why not Deep Ones, Swanmays and Jorugumo?

Why not indeed. Give us those too.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

And Gnolls.

I already miss Gnolls.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
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.

Oh, I totally see that, but then we need at very least Kitsune, Kobolds, Catfolk, and Drow in as well. But not Tengu. Screw those dirty thieves.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If they can make goblins core then why not orcs.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

In theory I too would not terribly mind an Orc ancestry in the CRB though I find it even more difficult to explain away than the Goblins

But I really fear that getting Orc as a core ancestry will kill the Half-orc

Which would be sad considering the long story it has in the game


Considering my big question is going to be "how much of the stuff I've enjoyed making can be modeled under the new system?" I'll support most things that unilaterally increase the amount of options. (though I don't think I have a full orc NPC lying around. Some of that is pure chance since I literally rolled a die for which section of the ARG to pull from)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mean, why not, if they've got the page count ?
Personally, I'd rather have Kobold, Tengu or Ratfolk but I certainly wouldn't object if Orcs turn up in the eventual CRB.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, even in 1e orcs were easier to justify as PCs that Goblins because city guards might just mistake them for really orc like half orcs :P Only problem with it was that since most orc tribes are into the whole violence for violence's sake it'd be the drow problem of "You are the only/one of really rare individuals who was like "Screw that" and went to do something else".

So yeah, I'm totally in for orcs in 2e core rulebook


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Franz Lunzer wrote:

That is a nice survey. ... Too bad it was up on a third party site that can't be used for PFS reliably. I would think that skewers the results a bit.

Also: 60% of the characters weren't played with Paizo AP's or in PFS, so we can't say if the basic assumptions of races available match with what Paizo has in mind for their setting.

Not just that, it is a survey asking people what they played. Which is not exactly the same thing as what people would want to play.

For example, since "We Be Goblins" is a thing and "We Be Orcs" is not, I'd expect goblins to be played more often.
Not to forget about mechanical benefits as well (like the human bonus feat the survey mentions, or favoured class bonuses)

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Seriously, there is a limit on space in the CRB they have to manage. Goblins are in because they've become so linked with the Paizo brand. The other monstrous races won't be too far behind, I'm sure, but you can't expect them to add everything in just the CRB.

They'll be publishing more books fairly quickly, and sure, I'd love to see full orcs as an option. There is no need for them to be in the CRB - not to say I don't want to see them within the first year of PF2 books.

But if Paizo put everything people wanted in the Core Rulebook, you wouldn't be able to pick it up. Leave them some space for future content.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Rikkan wrote:
Franz Lunzer wrote:

That is a nice survey. ... Too bad it was up on a third party site that can't be used for PFS reliably. I would think that skewers the results a bit.

Also: 60% of the characters weren't played with Paizo AP's or in PFS, so we can't say if the basic assumptions of races available match with what Paizo has in mind for their setting.

Not just that, it is a survey asking people what they played. Which is not exactly the same thing as what people would want to play.

For example, since "We Be Goblins" is a thing and "We Be Orcs" is not, I'd expect goblins to be played more often.
Not to forget about mechanical benefits as well (like the human bonus feat the survey mentions, or favoured class bonuses)

You didn't notice the section on characters entered, that never were played? That accounted for ~4.5% of characters entered into the survey.

Quote:
...Unfortunately, due to the nature of the desired analysis to quantify what class features have actually been used in-game, for many analyses later on, “Hasn’t been played” contributions were excluded despite their wealth of insight into the might-have-been.

[edit:] yeah, they were excluded from further analysis.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd also like to see Orcs in the Core Rulebook. In that case I'd want some differentiation between half-orcs and orcs. They feel kind of the same to me for now.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Wolventad wrote:
But if Paizo put everything people wanted in the Core Rulebook, you wouldn't be able to pick it up. Leave them some space for future content.

This is a concern, but if we're already most of the way there just to make Half-Orcs playable, why not go the extra page and make more players happy?

The majority of an ancestry's page count is its feats. They've committed to Orc feats in the CRB. Why go halfway, or even 3/4s of the way, and stop?


Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
AnimatedPaper wrote:
The majority of an ancestry's page count is its feats. They've committed to Orc feats in the CRB. Why go halfway, or even 3/4s of the way, and stop?

They are obviously there so that half-orcs have something unique they can take with their ancestry feats. They are even listed under the heading "Half-Orc Ancestry Feats" along with the single actual half-orc ancestry feats—they can be distinguished by their traits.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

This seems reasonable. We know a lot of the space for each race is crunchwise is going to be ancestry feats, which they already have to include for the half orcs. Seems fairly straightforward to just go ahead and add the basic ancestry itself and the flavor text.


I want orcs, kobolds, and a "dragon soul" ancestral feat option to give us a better Pathfinder equivalent to the dragonborn that we got in PF1.

If half-orcs, half-elves, and half-draconics dragon souls are in the core then the bases for most fantasy tropes you can expect new players that you're poaching from other games to go all in as well.

I also want to know what the human stat adjustments are, do they get a floating physical and a floating mental? A floating negative? HOW DOES THIS RACE WORK!?!?!?!?


Totally agree with the thread!

PLEASE, ORCS IN CRB!!! :D

How cool will Paizo/Pathfinder be after that?!? It's over 9,000!!!

Dark Archive

*Pounding fists on table and stamping feet in rythm* ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS!

Seriously, it shouldn't be that hard to push a PDF supplement with just the Orc ancestry stuff in a month or two, we could have them for most of the playtest year, and put them into the CRB. I mean, TECHNICALLY we have 2 fewer ancestries than we thought, since Half-Elf and Half-Orc aren't their own ancestries, they're Human variants now.

So anyway *Resumes Banging* ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS! ORCS!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll be a dissenter. No Orcs or Goblins. Give us true Half Orcs and Half Elves!


I also agree orcs should be in the CRB.

They are a classic fantasy race and presenting them alongside goblins in core would be a good way to broadcast that pathfinder is moving away from the inherently evil race [badword]. I think a lot of other races would be good too but with limited space I think orc makes the most sense after goblins. Orcs are very well known fantasy race right up there with elves and dwarves and hobbits halflings.

I think +2 Str +2 Wis -2 Int makes sense. It's a bit of a departure to make them wise but it makes the most sense I think, probably in the context of hunting and survivalist. Half-orcs would still have a place if you wanted to be an ancestry without an Int penalty with access to orc feats and the powerful ambition human feat which seems pretty strong. Similar place to half elves really.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Why not place Orcs ancestry in the Bestiary instead? I understand wanting to play a full breed orc right of the bat but maybe they should be in another book besides the CRB. Assuming the CRB and Bestiary come out at the same time, what difference does it make to have them in one or the other? (I'm also aware this can be used as a counter argument against me...) Personally I want to play a bugbear but won't be seeing something like that as an ancestry for a LOOONNNGGGG time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dwarves: +2 CON/WIS; -2 CHA; (floating +2); darkvision; 20ft speed; no speed reduction in armor; 10 racial HP; 2 languages

Elves: +2DEX/INT; -2 CON; (floating +2); low-light vision; 30ft speed; 6 racial HP; 2 languages, probably more with INT

Halflings: +2DEX/CHAWIS?; -2 STR; (floating +2); 20 ft speed; 8 racial HP; 2 languages

Gnomes: +2 CON/CHA; -2 STR; (floating +2); 20 ft speed?; low-light vision; 8 racial HP; 3 languages

Goblins: +2 DEX/CHA; -2 WIS; (floating +2); 25 ft speed; darkvision; 6 racial HP; 2 languages

Humans (unconfirmed but easily accessible info through the other blogs): [stats unknown]; normal vision; 25 ft speed; 8 racial HP; 1 language; ancestry feats that just give you a feat from another list like general feats or class feats instead of a bonus feat at 1st level

From here it's pretty easy to see how easy it would be to simulate an orc race, especially given the facts that orcs will have ancestry and heritage feats in the core, even if there are no orcs to take them? Also, as a baseline look at all the different chassis we have, dwarves are still the best race (next to maybe humans). Halflings are the weakest.

Hypothetical Orcs: +2 STR/CHA; -2 INT; (Floating +2); darkvision; light sensitivity; 25 ft speed; 10 racial HP; 2 languages; trained Intimidation, or signature skill depending on game balance (something has to balance with light sensitivity)

Hypothetical Kobolds: +2 DEX/CHA [ooc](already redundant with goblins, that's bad); -2 STR; (floating +2); speed 20ft; 6 racial HP; darkvision; light sensitivity; 2 languages; trained in stealth

Ancestral packages are easier to build now, for sure. It's the act of balancing the feats that matters more now.


Zaister wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
The majority of an ancestry's page count is its feats. They've committed to Orc feats in the CRB. Why go halfway, or even 3/4s of the way, and stop?
They are obviously there so that half-orcs have something unique they can take with their ancestry feats. They are even listed under the heading "Half-Orc Ancestry Feats" along with the single actual half-orc ancestry feats—they can be distinguished by their traits.

Look again, you are wrong about this. Half orc and half elf feats are things, distinct from orc or elf feats. Orcs can't take half-orcs feats. If all the feats were meant solely to be half-orcs options there would be no reason to print any orc feats. The implication is that Paizo intends to make an orc ancestry at some point.

It may not be in core, but animated paper is correct that ancestry feats are at least 50% of the page count for an ancestry.


Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I have looked, believe me. Orcs can't take half-orcs feats, no, but half-orcs can take orc feats. I believe, for now, this simply is structured like that, so symmetry exists for the half-elf version. I don't believe they are currently anticipating orcs as a PC race.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I definitely do think this is a good idea. I don't expect it to happen, but I would be happy about it. If we're suddenly adding random amounts of nuance to goblins, why not add it to Orcs considering there is actual precedent for good aligned Orcs, whereas this New Edition is the first we are ever learning of any good aligned Goblin ever?

(Or at least the first I'm learning of them. Probably someone even more well-read on the books than me knows about 1.)

The Concordance

Zaister wrote:
Seisho wrote:
I would be ok with core orks, if nothing else it makes it easier for gms to create orc npcs - and I guess many players would also love the options
NPCs do not use the rules for PC creation anyway, so that would not help at all.

They do if the GM wants them to.

1 to 50 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