Obligatory Half-Orc Thread

74 posts / 0 new
Last post
While we will have obligatory threads for each and every race introduced to D&D Next (and everything else, for that matter), I figure the obligatory Half-Orc thread doesn't exist and it's likely one that will have a bit of disagreement. Why might it have disagreement?  Like Human and Half-Elf, it has no subraces (makes sense to me), but it also has +2 to Strength and would be the only race to have +2 to a single stat from the race itself. It also has the least "extra abilities" of any race, period.

 Half-Orc abilities:

Strength increases by 2, Constitution increases by 1.
60 foot dark vision
Advantage on all charisma checks to intimidate
Languages: Orc and common



Thoughts?
Do you have an opinion on what campaign settings should be printed in D&D Next? If so, please cast your votes in this poll! Poll: What campaign settings do you want to see printed in D&D Next?
I really hope they use the Half-Orc as a guideline for all of the other races.

I've never been a fan of fiddly little powers, least of all in something as character-defining as race (I hate when I want to play a character of a certain race, but the mechanics are too annoying for me to want to deal with), so the two simple abilities are great for me.

I also think that the +2 to one stat and +1 to another would be the perfect distribution for races in general. Most races are really known for one thing, and it's kind of lame that Humans had the best abilities of every race combined. This way, Humans can have their +1 to everything, then each other race can have one thing where they're the best and one thing where they're not behind the average which Humans set. Hill Dwarves already pretty much have +2 Constitution, after all; saying that all Dwarves get +2 Con, but Mountain Dwarves get +1 Wisdom and Hill Dwarves get +1 Strength, would be a great way of both solidifying the commonality of all Dwarves while also differentiating between them - they have more in common then they have apart.
The metagame is not the game.
I'm still hoping we'll see Humans lose the +1 bonus to all six stats and instead get a +1 bonus to TWO stats of choice, plus some other abilities. That way some humans might be as agile and as intelligent as a high elf, but there's a huge difference between a small percentage of humans being as capable as a high elf and every single human being as agile and as intelligent as a high elf and also being stronger, tougher, wiser, and more charismatic, which is just downright silly.
It's boring. I like having meaningful inluencial powers that alter how a race plays.

That aside I have to ask why the ability is restricted to charisma intimidation. Would half orcs also be very good at the break stuff over their head school of intimidation (strength based).

Overall it's a huge leap ahead for race design in 5e but that's just barely bringing it into the tolerable range. 
It's boring. I like having meaningful inluencial powers that alter how a race plays.

That aside I have to ask why the ability is restricted to charisma intimidation. Would half orcs also be very good at the break stuff over their head school of intimidation (strength based).

Overall it's a huge leap ahead for race design in 5e but that's just barely bringing it into the tolerable range. 


Why would a half-orc breaking stuff over their head be strength based when their charisma was a better chance of succeeding the roll? I see how it COULD be Strength OR Charisma based. I see how the PLAYER could choose.
Do you have an opinion on what campaign settings should be printed in D&D Next? If so, please cast your votes in this poll! Poll: What campaign settings do you want to see printed in D&D Next?
I like the half orc, I just wish there was a little more to it.


then again I like humans as is too. 

Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?

I also think that the +2 to one stat and +1 to another would be the perfect distribution for races in general.



  With stats capping at 20, human's +1 to all quantity, seem much better than horc's extra strength quality.

@mikemearls don't quite understand the difference

I don't make the rules, I just think them up and write them down. - Eric Cartman

Enough chitchat!  Time is candy! - Pinky Pie

I like the race so far, though I'm on the fence about how Menacing works. I like the Adv/disAdv mechanic but I think its getting thrown into everything. I'd rather have Menacing work so that you can choose either Strength or Charisma for Intimidate or Persuade skills.
"Advantage on all X" is a mechanic that should be used sparingly, if at all, because it eliminates any incentives to ever try to get advantage on X. (Because you already have it.) I don't know if using it this way is too much, but I do feel like it should be deployed carefully.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
It's boring. I like having meaningful inluencial powers that alter how a race plays.

That aside I have to ask why the ability is restricted to charisma intimidation. Would half orcs also be very good at the break stuff over their head school of intimidation (strength based).

Overall it's a huge leap ahead for race design in 5e but that's just barely bringing it into the tolerable range. 


Why would a half-orc breaking stuff over their head be strength based when their charisma was a better chance of succeeding the roll? I see how it COULD be Strength OR Charisma based. I see how the PLAYER could choose.


I believe the implication here is that Charisma is always used for intimidation.  As a I'd give a high strength, if properly applied, an ad-hoc bonus on intimidation, but if you can't actually sell it (charisma) it doesn't really matter how many iron bars you bend.  So while it helps to have miscle to show, the real intimidation check comes fromthe one having to convince the intimidated party that his kneecaps will suffer such a fate if he doesn't comply.


As to the Half-Orc race: I like it.  I think it's better than the previous races, and would like to see the race design paragdim that applies to Half Orcs applied to all other races.  I'd still like to see the return of racial penalties, but that's just me.  The only thing that bothers me... is the fact that they're half orcs.  I suppose that has a long and glorious tradition in D&D by now, having been core in an edition, but really... why not just a playable orc?

"Enjoy your screams, Sarpadia - they will soon be muffled beneath snow and ice."
On Worldbuilding - On Crafting Aliens - Pillars of Art and Flavor - Simulationism, Narritivism, and Gamism - Shub-Niggurath in D&D
THE COALITION WAR GAME -Phyrexian Chief Praetor
Round 1: (4-1-2, 1 kill)
Round 2: (16-8-2, 4 kills)
Round 3: (18-9-2, 1 kill)
Round 4: (22-10-0, 2 kills)
Round 5: (56-16-3, 9 kills)
Round 6: (8-7-1)

Last Edited by Ralph on blank, 1920

"Advantage on all X" is a mechanic that should be used sparingly, if at all, because it eliminates any incentives to ever try to get advantage on X. (Because you already have it.) I don't know if using it this way is too much, but I do feel like it should be deployed carefully.



I agree. This is why I dislike that they keep using advantage as part of class and race abilities for things that should be skills. For example, wizards get advantage on checks to recall magical lore instead of just getting a skill for free, as in past packets. I hate this because as a DM, I couldn't give wizards advantage on their check for doing research in a library, etc. The same goes for other classes with similar features.

As for the Half-Orc, I don't like it. It seems like a direct result of the stupid human bonuses. 
Streamlined.
I like this for a Basic Half Orc.
I would like to see subraces to offer diversity, however, I would also like streamlined versions for other races.
Just as I support Simple and Complex versions of the same classes, I like the idea of simple vs complex versions of the same race.

Also, +2... wow...

I was tinkering with the idea that, the hard cap of 20 could except for a race's signature Stat. But then it got into must be this race to be optimal at this class territory... so I shelved it. 
I have an answer for you, it may even be the truth.
Its a debut but i think the Half-Orc feels a little bland and incomplete though. I like its Ability Score Adjustment of +2 STR and +1 CON, showing the strong and sturdy Orcish blood. Darkvision make sense and Menacing surly help reinforce the intimidating aspect of Half-Orc quite well. But i feel its missing features compared to other Races and perhaps it could get something akin to the Orc's Relentless trait to show more of the Orc grittyness heritage. Or something like the Action Surge trait Half-Orcs and Humans have in Against The Slavelord Bestiary would be great for both Races!

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

I really hope they use the Half-Orc as a guideline for all of the other races.


You can have my tinkering when you pry it from my cold, dead, tiny, adorable gnomish hands.

 Is it just me or are the races in D&DN all more or less rubbish/boring?
Love the +2, this is ready for other good stuff, like a juicy Savage Species deal.
I really hope they use the Half-Orc as a guideline for all of the other races.

I've never been a fan of fiddly little powers, least of all in something as character-defining as race (I hate when I want to play a character of a certain race, but the mechanics are too annoying for me to want to deal with), so the two simple abilities are great for me.

I also think that the +2 to one stat and +1 to another would be the perfect distribution for races in general. Most races are really known for one thing, and it's kind of lame that Humans had the best abilities of every race combined. This way, Humans can have their +1 to everything, then each other race can have one thing where they're the best and one thing where they're not behind the average which Humans set. Hill Dwarves already pretty much have +2 Constitution, after all; saying that all Dwarves get +2 Con, but Mountain Dwarves get +1 Wisdom and Hill Dwarves get +1 Strength, would be a great way of both solidifying the commonality of all Dwarves while also differentiating between them - they have more in common then they have apart.



+1.  I'm hugely in favor of humans getting the blanket +1's, as humans generally get underplayed in many games I run, due to baked in disads with regards to other races.  A blanket +1 makes humans a very attractive option for players. Agreed that the +2/+1 model presents a nice choice for players, as well, since other races have special abilities that are just huge (resistance to charm, sleep; darkvision, or low-light vision). It's a  nice tradeoff, and strikes me as fair.
I like the +2 strength

I'd do

Orc
Medium
Speed 30'
+2 Str
Darkision 60'
Common and Orcish

Fullblooded
+1 Con
Relentless

Half Orc
+1 Dex and Wis


Though I'd wish there was a way to get that charging orc flavor for 4E.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

With stats capping at 20, human's +1 to all quantity, seem much better than horc's extra strength quality.

Which would be a nice tip of the hat to old players, since demi-humans start off with a minor advantage at low levels and humans eventually become stronger in the long run. (Although, the magnitude of the advantage for either case is so incredibly minor in Next that it shouldn't ever feel like one way or the other is more powerful.)
You can have my tinkering when you pry it from my cold, dead, tiny, adorable gnomish hands.

That really, really feels like it should be a background trait - or even a skill - rather than suggesting that every single member of this one race is capable of building these three exact devices and nobody else is ever capable of doing so. What if they made Tinkering a skill, in which gnomes had racial Advantage?
The metagame is not the game.
First, I think all the Half-something should be a general subrace that you can use over any basic race choice.

Second, no second. I dispise the lack of consistency those half-race create as they are now.
Like all ddn races it is pretty mechanically dull. I want races to have more defining mechanics. I think all races should get a choice a interesting passive bonus or racial encounter power.

I know racial encounter powers are not to everyone's tastes and should be optional. However I don't want to go back to something as important in character creation as race, being largely mechanically inconsequential.

Not liking the new forums.

 

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/18.jpg)

 

 

Its a debut but i think the Half-Orc feels a little bland and incomplete though. I like its Ability Score Adjustment of +2 STR and +1 CON, showing the strong and sturdy Orcish blood. Darkvision make sense and Menacing surly help reinforce the intimidating aspect of Half-Orc quite well. But i feel its missing features compared to other Races and perhaps it could get something akin to the Orc's Relentless trait to show more of the Orc grittyness heritage. Or something like the Action Surge trait Half-Orcs and Humans have in Against The Slavelord Bestiary would be great for both Races!

+1
should racial feats be introduced to Next? could they be used to fill 'dead  levels'?
"Advantage on all X" is a mechanic that should be used sparingly, if at all, because it eliminates any incentives to ever try to get advantage on X. (Because you already have it.) I don't know if using it this way is too much, but I do feel like it should be deployed carefully.



I agree. This is why I dislike that they keep using advantage as part of class and race abilities for things that should be skills. For example, wizards get advantage on checks to recall magical lore instead of just getting a skill for free, as in past packets. I hate this because as a DM, I couldn't give wizards advantage on their check for doing research in a library, etc. The same goes for other classes with similar features.

As for the Half-Orc, I don't like it. It seems like a direct result of the stupid human bonuses. 

Why I like the Half-Orc intimidate feature because it does only work with Charisma, somewhat limiting its usefulness depending on build.
As far as libraries you can lower the DC to reflect their usefulness.
Overall though I agree Ad/Dis could be overused, but if they are careful about limiting the situations it can be fun.
They should try and slip Subraces in so it'll be easier to accommodate worlds where there are variant versions of the half-elf or half-Orc.
Where they're raised is one idea: human-raised versus elf-raised.

I dislike advantage being worked into racial powers. Advantage should be situational. Races should actually be better at things, not just having a better chance for success. They should have the potential to roll higher.

Half-orcs are also portrayed as hardy. I'd like a bonus to death saves.  
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: 
What Would Wrecan Say?

5 Minute Workday

My Webcomic
Updated Tue & Thur

 

I love that class and race now provide "advantage on checks to do X" instead of a skill - skills (and their attached Backgrounds) should be completely optional as specialties/feats are.

Overall, I actually become more and more impressed with DDN as each new packet comes along, and this one is the best by far.
Careful, man. That much logic might be illegal on the internet. - Salla
Is it just me, or does the +2 Str/+1 Con thing (plus darkvision and intimidate supremacy) just completely invalidate humans as a melee warrior (fighter, barbarian, etc.)? What does the human have going for it now? +1's to the other stats? You mean the other stats a tank usually couldn't care less about? You mean those ones?




 Most races are really known for one thing, and it's kind of lame that Humans had the worst abilities of every race combined. 


Fixed.  

"Trying to run gritty gothic horror with 4e is like trying to cut down a tree with a hammer, likewise trying to run heroic fantasy with 1e is like trying to hammer a nail with a chainsaw."

 
 

 This is what i get when i hit the Quote button:  http://community.wizards.com/%23

 

  

Is it just me, or does the +2 Str/+1 Con thing (plus darkvision and intimidate supremacy) just completely invalidate humans as a melee warrior (fighter, barbarian, etc.)? What does the human have going for it now? +1's to the other stats? You mean the other stats a tank usually couldn't care less about? You mean those ones?


because Roy Greenhilt.

"Trying to run gritty gothic horror with 4e is like trying to cut down a tree with a hammer, likewise trying to run heroic fantasy with 1e is like trying to hammer a nail with a chainsaw."

 
 

 This is what i get when i hit the Quote button:  http://community.wizards.com/%23

 

  

Maybe humans should get a bonus feat like in 3.5e?
 Is it just me or are the races in D&DN all more or less rubbish/boring?


I think humans, half-orcs and half-elves are boring, but not in a bad way. Humans are by far the most boring of all, and I don't find this too negative. Some people want less choices and simpler character creation. Those players have "human" to fall back on. I also think character optimization wise, humans are going to be the go-to race for anything MAD. I don't think they'll be as optimal overall as humans in 3.5 (one extra feat goes a really, really looooooong way for almost anyone), but +6 to stats can also go a long way if you care about a lot of stats.
Do you have an opinion on what campaign settings should be printed in D&D Next? If so, please cast your votes in this poll! Poll: What campaign settings do you want to see printed in D&D Next?
Having a +2 modifier while everyone else gets +1 at most is bad and lazy design. Seriously, we had this talk about humans already.

I would set it to +1 STR, +1 to a stat of choice (like the half-elf). The stat choice seems to be tied to having a human heritage, so any half-anything should have that.

I like Menacing in concept, but it's another example of advantage bloat. I am now imagining a level 2 half-orc rogue getting advantage while intimidating a dragon because THAT'S WHAT MY CHARACTER SHEET SAYS!

It's noteworthy that only dwarves and half-orcs get darkvision.

Half-orcs need more stuff, or everyone else needs less. Right now it feels like one of those monster manual races that is completely underdeveloped and unfleshed out.
Is it just me, or does the +2 Str/+1 Con thing (plus darkvision and intimidate supremacy) just completely invalidate humans as a melee warrior (fighter, barbarian, etc.)? What does the human have going for it now? +1's to the other stats? You mean the other stats a tank usually couldn't care less about? You mean those ones?


because Roy Greenhilt.


I basically feel this is true.  Characters are more than their "+1 to hit stuff" sum.  Having your extra abilities higher lets you be a lot more versitile, especially when Next really focuses on ability checks putting two individuals with the same score on more or less even keels.

"Enjoy your screams, Sarpadia - they will soon be muffled beneath snow and ice."
On Worldbuilding - On Crafting Aliens - Pillars of Art and Flavor - Simulationism, Narritivism, and Gamism - Shub-Niggurath in D&D
THE COALITION WAR GAME -Phyrexian Chief Praetor
Round 1: (4-1-2, 1 kill)
Round 2: (16-8-2, 4 kills)
Round 3: (18-9-2, 1 kill)
Round 4: (22-10-0, 2 kills)
Round 5: (56-16-3, 9 kills)
Round 6: (8-7-1)

Last Edited by Ralph on blank, 1920

Is it just me, or does the +2 Str/+1 Con thing (plus darkvision and intimidate supremacy) just completely invalidate humans as a melee warrior (fighter, barbarian, etc.)? What does the human have going for it now? +1's to the other stats? You mean the other stats a tank usually couldn't care less about? You mean those ones?


because Roy Greenhilt.


I basically feel this is true.  Characters are more than their "+1 to hit stuff" sum.  Having your extra abilities higher lets you be a lot more versitile, especially when Next really focuses on ability checks putting two individuals with the same score on more or less even keels.


I think you guys are on to something. I would prefer +1 to Str/Con and Dex, OR even better, +1 to Str/Con and have some other situationally useful ability.
Do you have an opinion on what campaign settings should be printed in D&D Next? If so, please cast your votes in this poll! Poll: What campaign settings do you want to see printed in D&D Next?
Maybe humans should get a bonus feat like in 3.5e?




Feats are optional in 5th Ed, so if not used, that equals a +1 to an ability score.

Back to the first packet. 
Maybe humans should get a bonus feat like in 3.5e?




Feats are optional in 5th Ed, so if not used, that equals a +1 to an ability score.

Back to the first packet. 



Then an extra skill, if that is also optional then +1 ability score it is. 

Maybe humans should get a bonus feat like in 3.5e?




Feats are optional in 5th Ed, so if not used, that equals a +1 to an ability score.

Back to the first packet. 



Then an extra skill, if that is also optional then +1 ability score it is. 




Yep, back to the 1st packet (really like that one, had some good lore, too, goblins originating in Faerie, etc).
But even if feats are optional, I still think humans should get an extra feat like how Fighter
can get extra martial feats.  
Half-orc is pretty much perfect in my eyes.
But even if feats are optional, I still think humans should get an extra feat like how Fighter
can get extra martial feats.  


This was the main reason why humans were one of the and often the optimal race for most builds in 3.5e. One extra feat goes an insanely long way. Adding one to each stat isn't insanely useful unless you rely on all your stats a lot. Check out the 3.5 character optimization boards. Humans are the top race for almost all builds for a reason, and that reason is the extra feat. 
Do you have an opinion on what campaign settings should be printed in D&D Next? If so, please cast your votes in this poll! Poll: What campaign settings do you want to see printed in D&D Next?
Half-orc is pretty much perfect in my eyes.



In my mind they lack the possibilities of subraces, like the half-elf and the humans. Tho I would probably call them cultural influences instead of subraces. It would make the whole race system consistent.
Half-orc is pretty much perfect in my eyes.



In my mind they lack the possibilities of subraces, like the half-elf and the humans. Tho I would probably call them cultural influences instead of subraces. It would make the whole race system consistent.



I don't think humans and half-humans need subraces. Givign them subraces would make the system more consistent, but also more homogenous.