Inaryn
Knight
They also do not confer dual wield usage. So you still have to buy florentine and two weapon to use two of them.
High Orcs
- Thread starter norman b
- Start date
They also do not confer dual wield usage. So you still have to buy florentine and two weapon to use two of them.
mikestrauss
Squire
Also, unless I am badly misreading the rules, Claws are a racial skill, not a weapon skill. That means that until you buy either a style of some sort or a different weapon skill, you are prevented from buying most fighter and rogue skills.
It is a small point (and I'd even prefer a slight rules change such that Claws counted as a weapon skill), but could still be meaningful for specific character builds.
-MS
It is a small point (and I'd even prefer a slight rules change such that Claws counted as a weapon skill), but could still be meaningful for specific character builds.
-MS
norman b
Squire
It counts as a weapon skill in 1.3
I'm also underwhelmed by the change to high orc racials. Mechanically, the half cost weapon skills is a far greater value for scholars than fighters, which is at odds with how orcs are typically depicted in lore. I'd even say it makes them the "best" caster race, since two of the best skills for scholars are archery and shield - now high orcs do that better than anyone (and don't pay double for read/write and read magic.) The +2 body is a greater benefit for fighters with the 2.0 change (though still a 20% increase), but they aren't alone in having that ability.
I also feel it does impact RP somewhat, at least regarding mechanics-backed RP. I still remember the Strongarm skill, which yes said it was not a roleplay skill and didn't make you actually stronger than other people, but it still evoked the feeling of being a powerful, strong race. Racial prof is mechanically superior, but it lost that flavor. It still made you able to swing for more damage, but in the end it was just a build-saving racial. Racial Slay actually gave you something more than just build saving - at your fighting level (based on profs) you could have more and better slays than any other race.
Basically, it feels like high orcs have gone from "strong and mighty" to .... I'm not sure what. Is there a way to give high orcs that feeling while keeping with the 2.0 goals of reducing static damage? I noticed that there are no "offensive" racial abilities now - only defensive. Resists, racial resolute, racial dodge. I assume this was intentional, but what if high orcs break that mold without breaking the game. What about a Racial Improved Slay for 5-6 build? Lets high orcs have bigger burst damage through slays, but still limited uses per day. Or something to let them exceed the cap of 10 crit/back attacks.
I also feel it does impact RP somewhat, at least regarding mechanics-backed RP. I still remember the Strongarm skill, which yes said it was not a roleplay skill and didn't make you actually stronger than other people, but it still evoked the feeling of being a powerful, strong race. Racial prof is mechanically superior, but it lost that flavor. It still made you able to swing for more damage, but in the end it was just a build-saving racial. Racial Slay actually gave you something more than just build saving - at your fighting level (based on profs) you could have more and better slays than any other race.
Basically, it feels like high orcs have gone from "strong and mighty" to .... I'm not sure what. Is there a way to give high orcs that feeling while keeping with the 2.0 goals of reducing static damage? I noticed that there are no "offensive" racial abilities now - only defensive. Resists, racial resolute, racial dodge. I assume this was intentional, but what if high orcs break that mold without breaking the game. What about a Racial Improved Slay for 5-6 build? Lets high orcs have bigger burst damage through slays, but still limited uses per day. Or something to let them exceed the cap of 10 crit/back attacks.
Muir
Fighter
I'd disagree with you on the mechanics based role play point. Previously, High Orcs just hit harder than anyone else. Even casters were likely to hit 50% than any other race's caster because racial prof was just that good a deal.
Now, High Orcs are just very warlike. Every one of them is familiar with all sorts of weapons, and even their casters are very likely to know how to use martial weapons rather than the dagger or staff many others opt for.
Thematically, it's a similar flavor while reducing damage bloat.
Now, High Orcs are just very warlike. Every one of them is familiar with all sorts of weapons, and even their casters are very likely to know how to use martial weapons rather than the dagger or staff many others opt for.
Thematically, it's a similar flavor while reducing damage bloat.
I'm going to repeat that personal preference is going to be a major factor for how people see this. If someone doesn't like wearing make up, they shouldn't be doing that. If they are because they want to min/max their character. . . maybe they should be playing Warhammer 40k instead.
mythic
Baron
I'm going to agree with Dan. If you want to play an Orc because you want too; then play an Orc. Does it really matter what their racials are? Yes, Resist Fear is not the big bad ability that others may have, but if your reason for not playing a race boils down to "I don't like the racials" then just don't play that race. I know several PCs that are 4+ years into their characters and have not bothered buying their racials. It should not be the deciding factor in your race. I did not play a Saar because they could assassinate and resist poison. I play it because I wanted to be a large black panther. 
norman b
Squire
I'm going to agree with Dan. If you want to play an Orc because you want too; then play an Orc. Does it really matter what their racials are? Yes, Resist Fear is not the big bad ability that others may have, but if your reason for not playing a race boils down to "I don't like the racials" then just don't play that race. I know several PCs that are 4+ years into their characters and have not bothered buying their racials. It should not be the deciding factor in your race. I did not play a Saar because they could assassinate and resist poison. I play it because I wanted to be a large black panther.
Its not just about min/maxing. Its about the normal "x race has a requirement of having more make up, for the inconvenience, they are compensated more than y race that only has to wear this costuming/prosthetics". If the game wants to get rid of that standard, that's up to the owners and ARC, I just don't see many people playing Orcs.
Would someone be kind enough to link where this standard is written? It is something that would certainly help in some of the documents and reviews I am preparing. I appreciate your assistance!
mythic
Baron
There is nothing written about it.
So is this actually a standard? Or a focal point of design? Or is this a conclusion that was arrived at by parties who were not necessarily part of the design process? Thanks Mythic for your feedback.
norman b
Squire
Actually page 38 of the ARB under make-up requirements:
The rules were specifically designed to
take into consideration the relative discomfort
and bother these things will give you and to
compensate you accordingly with beneficial
skills and plot for your race. Thus, if you want
the benefits of your racial skills, you must take
the disadvantages (which include the make-up)
as well. You cannot be a gypsy all dressed in
black or a high orc without protruding teeth.
You must not only act the race, you must also
look the race. If you do not, you will not be
allowed to continue playing the race and will
be forcibly changed into a boring human.
The rules were specifically designed to
take into consideration the relative discomfort
and bother these things will give you and to
compensate you accordingly with beneficial
skills and plot for your race. Thus, if you want
the benefits of your racial skills, you must take
the disadvantages (which include the make-up)
as well. You cannot be a gypsy all dressed in
black or a high orc without protruding teeth.
You must not only act the race, you must also
look the race. If you do not, you will not be
allowed to continue playing the race and will
be forcibly changed into a boring human.
norman b
Squire
It literally states "to compensate you accordingly with beneficial skills". It set the standard above the other races. Ear tips are not nearly as uncomfortable as Tusks and Green make-up. Hence why High Orcs got the benefits they did in 1.3 and Elves got the half cost archery and resist command.
Just because Hobling's are the exception does not make it the rule.
Just because Hobling's are the exception does not make it the rule.
It does indeed say that, however there does not appear to be language that sets a defined structure for what is deemed to be more or less of a "discomfort or bother". Discomfort or bother are, by their very nature, subjective, and vary from individual to individual. Some players love wearing makeup, and it doesn't bother them. Some have no issues with tusks or other such things. Some can't stand one or more of those things.
norman b
Squire
That is not the spirit of what they were writing. The constant upkeep on make up, the constant adjusting of tusks, the difficulty eating/drinking with tusks. These are all "discomforts". They meant that there is a lot more requirement for some races, so they get better benefits. I don't understand why you are arguing this point when it is pretty clear. The owners knew that these deserve better benefits than people who don't have to wear such requirements. Are you saying green face make up doesn't take as long to put on as ear tips? Are you saying ear tips interfere with eating as much as tusks? I don't think you are.
First, I am not arguing with you. I am asking for clarification on statements, and requesting source material that was used to arrive at them. Nowhere in any of this have I expressed a sentiment on the requirements and their merits versus one another. As a result I am unsure how you arrived at the conclusion that I may have been arguing with you, when that is not the case whatsoever.
Second, I am simply assessing the language that was used in the text versus the potential for assumptions to be made in its interpretation. I already have questions fielded to ARC and owners on whether or not this was specifically the case by design, or whether it is an evolution of interpretation. I am using this information in responses and summaries to them of forum activity and people's viewpoints on the proposed v2 rule set. In the presented text, I do not see specific language that infers that the ARB recognizes any particular costuming requirements as more or less [metric] than any other. Hence my communication to them requesting clarification.
Third, I am saying none of the things you list in your closing statements. I am unsure where those have come from aside from your posting of them. They are in no way statements that reflect my personal opinion on this matter whatsoever. It would be greatly appreciated if you were kind enough not to infer what you feel is my personal opinion on this issue. I am simply collecting data and source material in an impartial fashion. Your recognition and support of that process would be a great help, as it assists in the documentation I am preparing for ARC and owner review. It better helps to paint the picture of your perspective on this matter and more accurately relay your feedback. I appreciate your contributions, and encourage you to continue your discussion and sharing your observations.
Second, I am simply assessing the language that was used in the text versus the potential for assumptions to be made in its interpretation. I already have questions fielded to ARC and owners on whether or not this was specifically the case by design, or whether it is an evolution of interpretation. I am using this information in responses and summaries to them of forum activity and people's viewpoints on the proposed v2 rule set. In the presented text, I do not see specific language that infers that the ARB recognizes any particular costuming requirements as more or less [metric] than any other. Hence my communication to them requesting clarification.
Third, I am saying none of the things you list in your closing statements. I am unsure where those have come from aside from your posting of them. They are in no way statements that reflect my personal opinion on this matter whatsoever. It would be greatly appreciated if you were kind enough not to infer what you feel is my personal opinion on this issue. I am simply collecting data and source material in an impartial fashion. Your recognition and support of that process would be a great help, as it assists in the documentation I am preparing for ARC and owner review. It better helps to paint the picture of your perspective on this matter and more accurately relay your feedback. I appreciate your contributions, and encourage you to continue your discussion and sharing your observations.