4E Drow in chainmail bikinis should get a +5 damage bonus.

[PhoneLobster]

I am defining the word species as follows:
2) Logic. A class of individuals or objects grouped by virtue of their common attributes and assigned a common name; a division subordinate to a genus.

So you know the taxonomic definition like the one you use when talking about you know SPECIES of ANIMALS like you know YOU WERE, doesn't apply.

Even though that species is ALSO a class of stuff grouped by virtue of their common attributes.

Just like those plants are.

And they are different species.

And they aren't even a different colour.

Like I said you are seeing filtering, even quoting information and not a bit of it sinks in you just go ahead and declare "Why this discernibly different thing could not possibly be a different species even though by every definition of species that would normally be used to refer to it it could well be a different species. I just disagree with all of those definitions while discussing the same thing with the same words in the same context"

And your interbreeding definition is about as out of date as flat earth theory.

[Elennsar]

It was probably a crosspost but I seriously don't care in game mechanics what logic or lack thereof, or definition or lack thereof anyone is using. All I know is that I want to play a orc wizard that looks like an orc, quacks like an orc, smells like an orc, and isn't strictly worse than an elf at being a wizard.

And if orcs are strictly worse at being a wizard, because orcs lack (or have to a lesser degree than elves) the traits necessary to become a wizard, what then?

You could do something where you could buy off the orc Intelligence penalty in exchange for something else being unavailable (since you spent the points on buying off the penalty), but D&D doesn't have that mechanic (possibly it should, but it doesn't).

[Surgo]

I'm really just not getting here why my orcs have to make strictly worse wizards than elves. When I'm playing an orc it's because I want to be a badass and that's what orcs are, nothing less and nothing more. Buying it off doesn't make it any better unless it's like losing the two strength I'd otherwise have for the intelligence (not really a good example because orcs are a totally horrible race, but let's pretend they have an even stat distribution for a minute).

So here's the thing:
* I want to be an orc.
* I don't want to be worse for it.

If the solution doesn't involve letting me have both of those at the same time I'm really just not interested.

[Elennsar]

Well, you could be an orc (something else) and not suffer. Assuming orcs are a decent race at all (right now they're not and if we want "you can play an orc" on the list of races you can play, we need to fix that.)

You get better at some things and worse at other things (which you may or may not be able to influence, but they still have to be "orcish" things which can be rather broad or rather narrow) by being an orc, or a human, or an elf, or anything else.

I'm assuming that if you can buy it off that you have the points to do so without costing so much its not worth it.

Short of making all classes need all bonuses equally (I'm not sure how this is possible), orcs will wind up with some bonuses that will help some things more than other things and some penalties that will hurt some things more than other things.

Still. Orcs, if we want them to be playable (presuming we do for purposes of avoiding -that- discussion), need to have equal strengths and weaknesses, even if those strengths and weaknesses favor some options more than others.

But +2 Strength needs to really be equivalant to -2 to Intelligence if it supposedly is. As written it doesn't. And +4 to Strength for -2 to all mental stats definately isn't. Even for a barbarian or fighter, even if they didn't suck.

One thing that is becoming more and more appealing for a fixed D&D...something like Legend of the Five Ring classes.

There are three basic class types (Shugenja, courtiers, and bushi). Every clan gets one school (or more) for each.

Each is supposedly useful in its own way.

So you could have an orc shaman who would be able to do magic that would be equally useful to my elven druid and the human wizard.

And we could customize class to race/culture much more, with all the benefits that entails.

However, that requires a limited number of PC races so we can keep track of things without too much trouble and avoid overlapping too much.

[Draco_Argentum]

I can't believe PL has held up this long without going into a screaming rant. That has to be a record.

[RandomCasualty2]

All I have to say is... how the fuck? I posted to this thread like 7 hours ago, and you've accumulated 4 full pages in that time... God damn.

[Elennsar]

I can't believe PL has held up this long without going into a screaming rant. That has to be a record.

I'm afraid to ask what he's like when he's unreasonable if this is one of his good days.

All I have to say is... how the fuck? I posted to this thread like 7 hours ago, and you've accumulated 4 full pages in that time... God damn.

Several longish posts help.

[RandomCasualty2]

And if orcs are strictly worse at being a wizard, because orcs lack (or have to a lesser degree than elves) the traits necessary to become a wizard, what then?

You could do something where you could buy off the orc Intelligence penalty in exchange for something else being unavailable (since you spent the points on buying off the penalty), but D&D doesn't have that mechanic (possibly it should, but it doesn't).

Well it makes us beg the question why there are stat mods at all for PC races. It's understandable to say that NPC orcs are stupid and thus most of the NPC orcs you meet don't have int as a high attribute. And the DM can totally follow that guideline and the world would still have the "orcs are hulking dumb brutes" stereotype.

But for PCs you could just not have ability mods at all. If someone wanted to make the world's strongest elf, or a genius orc, why not let them?

I mean, it's one thing to say "orcs can't be wizards", but if you do allow it, you should definitely put them on even footing.

Now I realize D&D doesn't have mechanics that help with this, but we're saying that it should.

[Elennsar]

I mean, it's one thing to say "orcs can't be wizards", but if you do allow it, you should definitely put them on even footing.

Orcs are as capable of being wizards as humans, Int being even. The problem is that Int isn't even.

So an Int 14 orc can do wizardry as well as an Int 14 human. Unfortunately, because orcs are challenged at Int, the human would have a 16 for the same points invested.

I'd like a way around that without eliminating "orcs are mentally less capable", because "genius orc" should be possible without that being "except for this PC" being added to the "less capable". That doesn't feel right. PCs may or may not be really, really, really, really, unusual.

But literally one of a kind? That's a bit much.

If we can find a way, count me as one of its advocates.

[PhoneLobster]

I can't believe PL has held up this long without going into a screaming rant. That has to be a record.

I think you must be feeling exaggerative nostalgia for my former screaming rants. I thought I was abusing this loonatic quite handily.

Edit: Alternately it could be because I have a sneaking suspicion this guy is insane/several guys/a kid/a prank/a bot. It might be making me hold back.

Further Edit: Also its REALLY hard to fly into a fury with someone who won't agree with (or even seem to remember) ANYTHING anyone says, including himself. It's like having an argument with someone with no short or long term memory. You just plain can't hate pure gibberish with any REAL intensity.

It's a pity I'm in a fucking bad mood today and I'd love to rip someones text based spleen out.

[Maj]

No one answered my question on page 20, but I'd seriously like to know - especially from Elennsar - what makes an orc an orc? Describe them to me.

[Elennsar]

Depends on the setting.

If we use Middle-Earth, you have to be an orc based on those orcs.

But if you use Faerun, orcs are different.

There's not "one single orc race" in all settings.

I can give how I'd define an orc, similar to how I'd define a dwarf (which is not axe based for the most part), however.

[Maj]

OK, for the record, I wasn't just a noob to D&D, I was a noob to roleplaying, so I don't even really have the stereotypes of races down - just whatever my current DM says at the time. And I completely blew apart the first campaign I ever played in because I didn't know you were supposed to hate orcs on sight, especially if you were an elf.

So, keeping the fact that I really am an ignoramus in mind, just tell me what you think an orc is. This shouldn't be a trick question or one with the answer "it depends."

[Elennsar]

Well, different settings do vary. But if you were playing in the one I'm creating..

Orcs are stronger than humans.

They're tougher but tire faster, and don't have the human can-push-to-their-limits. Like horses in that regard.

They're bigger (Powerful Build? Maybe.)

They're uglier.

They're not as good at logic and abstract thought.

They're not penalized in Wisdom, though tend towards lower numbers than we do (no mechanical effect, or at least not one you can't alter).

They're as charismatic as we are.

Racial weapon proficiencies.

Bonuses to Intimidate and a few other things, penalties to Diplomacy and a few other things.

Charcoal gray skin (don't hold me to this)...like a charred albino, in fact, is the image.

Penalties during intense sunlight and not such great vision in general.

Good hearing.

Preference for melee weapons (psychological).

Evil aligned...not much you can do to shift this, they're fundementally flawed in that regard.

Resistant to (other) mind influencing powers. Charming an orc is not going to work very well.

Probably unplayable in most campaigns due to the fact they're minions of the Adversary.

That's the outline I can present at the moment. Naturally, there are some traits you can select "any one of" or the like, but those I haven't hammered out.

Not fully fleshed out enough or I'd give actual stats when they applied. But that is what "an orc" has as a basic "and if this isn't true, they're not an orc." for my setting.

They're not intended to be PCs (as a preference, I favor good aligned characters), so I doubt they'll be quite balanced as them, but we'll see when I flesh this out.

[Crissa]

So Orcs are stronger than humans. And Dumber.

So when you (Int 10, Str 10) meet an (Int 16, Str 8 ) orc, you should totally win at chess and lose at arm wrestling. But you don't.

Because his stats are higher (and lower) than yours.

He's lost his orc-ish-ness. Does he cease to be?

And why is an Orc Wizard an option in Elennsar
s player's handbook? So that newbies to your game who don't know that Int is tell-all to a Wizard and not a Sorcerer stat can belly up to their table with a character incapable of meeting the same challenges as Elennsar's Elf Ranger?

-Crissa

I'm totally going to get chewed out for making this post, spouse is passed out in bed.

[Ice9]

Ok, but how exactly are you going to avoid that? Any kind of meaningful ability you give a race is going to benefit some types of characters more than others. So what exactly are you giving to an Orc that doesn't do that? Seriously, I'm curious, because even if you give them an ability like:

Burst of Strength: Once per hour, +X to a Strength check.

That's going to be better for a character who has, and uses, a high strength already. Or how about a rage ability? Better for a character type that wants to get into the thick of things. Ultimately, if the abilities a race gets don't work well with a given class, the race will be a suboptimal choice for that class - and "don't work well" could simply mean they're less synergistic than other racial abilities, so removing negatives doesn't remove the issue.


Also, I don't see how the "make all classes support all stats" thing is going to help at all. If you make the Fighter have "brute fighter" strength powers, and "agile fighter" dex powers, and "tactical fighter" int powers, then it's the same situation, only more disguised. If someone is unclear enough on the rules that they'd try to play a Wizard with 8 Int, they're unclear enough on the rules to play a Fighter with 8 Dex and then pick exclusively "agile fighter" powers.


But mainly, I would like to see exactly what kind of racial abilities you can give that have non-trivial effects but don't favor one class more than another.

[Heath Robinson]

As I understand it, people object to the flat -2 Int for orks because it means that the ork PC potential range is lower than an elf, vice versa for Str.

If we escape from the confines of D&D ingame to a hypothetical character creation system for D&D, we can try to make some system that incentivises binary ork intelligence (i.e. either your Ork is a smart Ork, or he is a dumb Ork and values in between don't make sense from the perspective of a player) and equally binary elf strength without actually making the potential for orks and elves in all stats distinct. The inverse implication is that Elf intelligence is equally binary, but the lower number in the binary aspect is higher than for an Ork.

Essentially, getting a stat of 16 or 18 needs to cost the same for every race, but getting a 10 in a stat doesn't. At character generation, the cost of a high end point of Ork int needs to be lower than a low end point. Ork Strength needs to have the opposite progression, starting low and increasing until 16 or 18 (depending on where you set you cutoff point).

Orks made on low points will, even if their points are assigned randomly, come up with higher strength on average and lower intelligence without impacting the capacity of higher points characters to do whatever they want.


You can write a system which achieves this using simple mathematics that people can understand.

All your stats start at 8.
There are three attribute potentials: A, B, C.
The BP cost progression for Class A attributes is 2 + [Cur Stat Mod]
Class B costs a flat 3
Class C costs 4 - [Cur Stat Mod]

Orks who don't play mages or skill bunnies will be disincentivised putting any points into buying Int because it starts out cost 5 BP a point. Humans can splurge on multi-attribute synergy (if there is any, which I doubt) and Elves (they do get Class A Int, right?) can whore Int for skill points even if they don't want to focus on it. Every race will have 18 Int Mages, though (total cost: 30 BP). The Elf can sacrifice a point or two of Int for some benefits from elsewhere (accruing 10 points for dropping 2 points of Int), whilst an Ork mage has no reason to focus on anything except his Int because dropping a point of Int only nets him 1 point at 18.

This system has the nice property that moving points from an 18 Class A or C attribute into an 8 attribute of the opposite class is simple, even if involving a Class B attribute is more complex. Bad properties include the fact that there are still effective penalties to certain concepts, they're just slightly hidden in the way that the costing mechanism pans out. It's not newbie friendly and truly mathtarded players may be unfairly impaired.


There we go, smart Orks do exist, dumb Orks are the norm (if you don't want to whore Int, then you drop it like an ugly hooker). It's represented mechanically. Elves are generally smarter (even a Fighter can drop points into getting Int productively because it's cheap) than Orks, but are nancy boys (getting Class C in Str or Con) more often. You still don't lose the ability of the player to achieve a hardass Elf or a smart Ork.


I doubt this is going to stop the holy war, but could people uninvolved in the current one flame me for being stupid?

[Orion]

Question:

PCs are spectacularly unlikely. Seriously. A player can roll up to the table with an 18 INT *Human* anytime. We have no idea what the D&D population really looks like, but I'm gonna say that's one in a thousand intelligence.

Seriously, it's astoundingly unlikely that any individual human would be that smart, but we still let you play it.

Now lets say that genetically, orcs tend to be dumber than humans. Let's say that instead of 1/1000 odds, an 18 INT Orc is one in TEN thousand.

Who the fuck cares? They're both spectacularly unlikely, but they're balanced, so who gives a fuck.

For further lols: Human women are weaker, on average, then human men. Why don't they get a STR penalty? Maybe because It's *conceivable* that an 18 STR woman could exist? And we don't want to prevent the player from playing one?

[Absentminded_Wizard]

If orcs DO do that, then being a PC should not magically make you able to pursue a career in wizardry just fine even though every other orc before you and after you will hit things with sticks and let you speak in with an upper class British accent.

Some character I just made up off the top of my head: Hello, I'm Bilbo Buckly, the half-orc wizard. I'm smart and cultured and have the kind of face only a mother--or rather, a barren noblewoman who desperately wanted a child--could love. Though I haven't been beaten like so many of my kind, I feel the disdain of the aristocrats and household staff daily. Therefore, I try to make up for the brutality of my orcish forbears by becoming more cultured, speaking in a pretentious accent, drinking with my pinky finger extended, and taking up the study of arcane lore. Because of my sedentary and scholarly lifestyle, I'm both smarter and weaker than any half-orc has a right to be.

---

Now, if there's anything remotely interesting about this character concept, explain to me why game mechanics should discourage it in any way, even slightly.

[Username17]

I could see a plausible game in which Orcs were worse at being Wizards and Dwarves were worse at being Rangers over all and the game would still be balanced. You'd just have to kick the POV up a notch.

So now each player is an Ars Magica style magician complete with grunts that work for him. Everyone gets some random troops every mission in addition to their archmage main character. Dwarves get less rangers and their rangers are not as good. But they get more and better shield fighters and other line holders, so they're army is overall competitive with other races. Meanwhile, the Kobold Sorcerer Lord straight up gets crappy troops but more of them across the board. And the Orc gets worse magic, but his army gets frickin trolls in it, so it works out. Everyone has something to contribute.

As long as you insist on having one player be one character, different characters have to individually be the same strength. If you insist on having different characters be different strengths, you have to let each player play multiple characters so that it all adds up.

If you demand that an Elf Warrior is worth 8 points and a human warrior is worth only 6, then the bare minimum fair game is one in which a person gets 3 elven warriors or 4 humans.

-Username17

[SphereOfFeetMan]

Question:

PCs are spectacularly unlikely. Seriously. A player can roll up to the table with an 18 INT *Human* anytime. We have no idea what the D&D population really looks like, but I'm gonna say that's one in a thousand intelligence.

I once saw someone post the Dnd 3d6 and 4d6 Intelligence probability rolls against the bell curve of average human IQ scores. It was interesting. Basically, having a low Int score isn't that detrimental to IQ, and having a moderately high IQ relates to a high starting intelligence score. If someone could find that thread, or re-post that, that would be neat.

Also, an 18 Int isn't that special. It's like .5% of the human population. After accounting for aging Int bonuses, it's a few percentage points of the entire population.

[Orion]

except NPCs aren't made by die rolls, they have arrays. And nonelites have nothing higher than a 12.

[Elennsar]

He's lost his orc-ish-ness. Does he cease to be?

No, but since said orc has Strength 10 (stats below a 6 are in the "not going to survive", and orcs have that even more than we do, so...but that mechanic is another story.), it won't happen, either.

So let's say he's armwrestling someone with 12.

No, he hasn't. But all things being as close to even as possible, orcs have better developed muscles and worse developed brains.

There are no orc Stephen Hawkings, unfortunately. (In my setting, with my list of races, etc. etc. In yours, there might well be one. And I'm not stopping him.)

And why is an Orc Wizard an option in Elennsar
s player's handbook? So that newbies to your game who don't know that Int is tell-all to a Wizard and not a Sorcerer stat can belly up to their table with a character incapable of meeting the same challenges as Elennsar's Elf Ranger?

Int as tell-all to a wizard is one of the first things that you read in the Wizard description.

If you overlook that, that's your problem. If I failed to put it in, that's my problem.

I doubt this is going to stop the holy war, but could people uninvolved in the current one flame me for being stupid?

As you said, it hurts the mathtarded. Which means that it involves math and paying attention to math. Ew.

Beyond that, I'll have to get back to you. But count that as a wisp of a flame if you so wish.

For further lols: Human women are weaker, on average, then human men. Why don't they get a STR penalty? Maybe because It's *conceivable* that an 18 STR woman could exist? And we don't want to prevent the player from playing one?

Human women have roughly the same limitations and advantages as human men. Orcs have different limitations and advantages.

Would you want to have apes be able to have Int 18? I wouldn't. Same problem with orcs.

Now, if there's anything remotely interesting about this character concept, explain to me why game mechanics should discourage it in any way, even slightly.

Because you are going against the nature of what your race does well or poorly.

That said, I would rather have them "hinder" than "eliminate" this character, if such a character should be able to exist (in my setting with my setting's orcs, he wouldn't. In another equally valid setting, he would.)

Since that is the thing. "Going against your race's nature" ought to be difficult. Doing something wildly uncommon, not necessarily, but if you want to overcome being small and puny, that should not be "well, you're an exceptional kobold: Strength 18 is fine!" I wish I had an answer, however.

If you insist on having different characters be different strengths, you have to let each player play multiple characters so that it all adds up.

However, you could have different characters -have- different strengths. So yes, my elf makes a better archer-ranger than your dwarf, but your dwarf does equally well somewhere else and we both have a natural environment we rock in.

Insisting that "No, you can't be a better archer-ranger" is a bit much.

Also, an 18 Int isn't that special. It's like .5% of the human population. After accounting for aging Int bonuses, it's a few percentage points of the entire population.

Mathmatically, yes. Presumably, less commonly in practice for some reason. Die, die rolls. </mini-rant>

[Ice9]

That's an interesting system, Heath - it might even work, as far as stat mods are concerned. It does seem a bit complicated though, and there's the possibility of having "orphan" points - like one or two points left over when even your lowest stat takes 3 points to raise. It doesn't really cover MAD characters either, but hey, those don't have to exist.


The problem I see with "nobody should be better or worse at a given level", is that classes are only the start of it. People don't play classes, they play characters, and those characters are specialized further to doing certain things.

For instance, a sneaky scout/sniper type character. If Elves get, for instance, a bonus to stealth and faster movement speed, and Orcs don't, then an Elf is going to be stronger than an Orc at that particular role. Conversely, those Elf bonuses are pretty much useless for a mounted knight, and so the Elf is going to be worse at that than a race which gets useful abilties for that role.

And I believe a lot of people, myself included, don't want race to be a purely cosmetic choice. They want to say "as an elf, I am more stealthy and can move quickly", rather than "as an elf, I can visualize myself as being stealthy and quick, but it has no actual effect because someone might want to play a dwarf sprinter".

[name_here]

No, No, we're sticking to classes here.