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

[RandomCasualty2]

I think the fundamental problem here is just the age old simulationist versus gamist argument. Simulationist says orcs should be worse wizards. Gamist says that a level 11 wizard should be a level 11 challenge.

And really, if people are playing PCs, any PC should be as equivalent as you can get it of any class. It's one reason I don't like racial ability score mods (or even ability scores at all for that matter). There's really no reason why PCs can't be the same power regardless of race. It just determines how remarkable they are. People see a skilled orc wizard and they're going to be impressed. If they see a skilled elf wizard, it's a little bit more commonplace. But PCs are supposed to be exceptional, so if they want to play that orc wizard, they should be able to without getting hosed doing it. Because even if orcs normally suck as wizards, the PC orc wizard can and should be exceptional.

I don't see why D&D is afflicted by this racist outlook that all orcs have to be stupid. I mean, can't the PC be the one exceptional orc that doesn't have the int penalty?

[Voss]

simulationist doesn't necessarily assume that orcs are worse than wizards. It can, especially if you're engaging in LotR fellatio, but it isn't an automatic assumption

[Elennsar]

If "all orcs are cursed with low intelligence", then no.

If "most orcs are dumb", then we need something where you can get around "most" without losing "being an orc".

If "orcs are dumb" is just a stereotype with no foundation in facts about orcs, we need to stat them accordingly.

You still need to have the race where 'being a good archer" is common to get the "good archer" trait/s commonly (if desired).

GURPS handles this rather well. If you want to be a smart orc, you just spend 40 points buying back -2 to Intelligence (one point is twenty points, twenty to spend elsewhere if you sell it off and twenty out of the amount you have available if you boost it).

I'm not sure that's necessarily superior, but it would mean you can do what you want...sure, most orcs don't do this, but your orc can.

However, if you want to make "____" a trait of orcs whether you want to remove it for your orc or not, its not a good system.

[Bigode]

I could spend the night digging proof of how fighters are intended to suck because they can't shape reality.

[Lago PARANOIA]

You still need to have the race where 'being a good archer" is common to get the "good archer" trait/s commonly (if desired).

WHY?

What fucking good does it do the game to tell players 'if you want to be an archer, be an elf or you won't be good?!'

WHY WHY WHY?!

Dwarves being sucky archers is stupid. Elves automatically being the best archers is completely fucking unworkable.

Having a race be bad at a common archetype is bad enough, having one race be the best is bad for the players, bad for roleplaying, and bad for the game.

[Crissa]

NPCs don't really care if they suck. They don't have a player to care about such things. They're just props.

-Crissa

[Elennsar]

Bigode: And in a setting where only people who can shape reality are good, and the rest are mooks, and labeled as mooks...

That'd actually be a good thing. Unfortunately, supposed, the fantasy genre allows guys who use swords to do stuff.

Other than suck.

As for Elves and archers.

You can be an elf and be a good archer but weaker at other elements of "adventurer". You can be a human and less good at being an archer and not weaker at those elements and have your own strengths and weaknessness related to something else. You can be a dwarf and weak at being an archer (though better than no archer at all) and be good at something else equally important.

If it was "Archer class. All you do is shoot things with your bow. Nonelves need not apply.", that would kind of ruin the point of offering it to nonelves.

That's not the case, however.

So a human might make an average archer but do other things as part of their class(es?) and skills that make them even with the elf that is a better archer and weaker in other things equally important.

Just because the elf will beat you in a shooting contest does not mean that you should never pick up a bow.

Crissa: So, PCs are the only people who care about succeeding, ever? Bullfuckingshit.

If it doesn't matter at all whether I insult the captain of the guards (or a common guard) or stay on his good side, he is adding nothing to the setting. He's not even adding an opportunity for me to show off that I'm a badass, because he's that irrelevant.

[Crissa]

"Similarly, you might wish to allow any race/class combination from the PHB if your players don't min-max."

I don't think I'd include this sentence. Or change it to 'if your players are all aware they may not meet listed challenges'

Min-max is so pejorative. And really, a statement allowing players to go off the map needs to say that they're off the map and support materials may just not match up.

-Crissa

[PhoneLobster]

I think the fundamental problem here is just the age old simulationist versus gamist argument. Simulationist says orcs should be worse wizards. Gamist says that a level 11 wizard should be a level 11 challenge.

This is somewhat dumb because even if you do want to simulate the first bit and, er, game the second bit those are in no way mutually exclusive.

Hell both bits don't even specifically need to be gamist or simulationist motivations. I mean orc inferiority could be a gamist goal and CR 11 level 11 wizards could be a simulationist goal.

But then we knew it was dumb because you started talking about GNS theory and that is always dumb.

Aside from that I agree with pretty much everything else RC said about smart orcs and the like.

It's remarkable how often that's happening these days.

If "all orcs are cursed with low intelligence", then no.

If "most orcs are dumb", then we need something where you can get around "most" without losing "being an orc".

If "orcs are dumb" is just a stereotype with no foundation in facts about orcs, we need to stat them accordingly.

You still need to have the race where 'being a good archer" is common to get the "good archer" trait/s commonly (if desired).

I go away for a week and you are still spouting weird gibberish when I get back?

Which one of those vague (yet often contradictory) and just plain BAD points do you actually even promote and agree with?

Screw answering Crissa's question, you are clearly incapable, just settle on a any sort of remotely definable position so we can appropriately humiliate you for it without having to do it again four more times per post just to attack all the various contradictory wandering mumbling variants.

[Elennsar]

Your unwillingness to read what I write and see what it means are not my problem.

[PhoneLobster]

Your unwillingness to read what I write and see what it means are not my problem.

You yourself accused someone else just five million pages of your own rambling ago of being stupid for either A)not understanding you or B)not asking for clarification.

I'm asking for fucking concise clarification. In that post you literally outlined a big pile of "If" statements.

Well which fucking "If" is it?

[Roy]

Your unwillingness to read what I write and see what it means are not my problem.

Edit: The above poster decided to express the same sentiment in a more verbose manner. Damn ninjas!

[IGTN]

Your unwillingness to read what I write and see what it means are not my problem.

Have you considered that maybe the problem isn't that everyone else on TGD and, apparently, BG is unwilling to understand you or too stupid to do the same, that it might instead be that you are either unwilling to communicate clearly at all, or too stupid to do the same?

The only common factor across all of these miscommunications is you.

[Elennsar]

The one that fits the setting. If you want orcs to be inherently stupid(er), then pick that option. If you want orcs to be generally stupid(er), you need a way to support that within the rules. If you want orcs to be just as smart as humans, the stats need to support that.

Insisting that Faerun's orcs are say, 2, you must have orcs in Middle-Earth be 2 as well is a bad idea.

Have you considered that maybe the problem isn't that everyone else on TGD and, apparently, BG is unwilling to understand you or too stupid to do the same, that it might instead be that you are either unwilling to communicate clearly at all, or too stupid to do the same?

The only common factor across all of these miscommunications is you.

Since I am able to express what I think to some people, then obviously some people are able to understand what I say even though it is exactly the same as what some people are failing to understand, some people are failing.

So, I do not think "everyone else" is refusing/unable. Invalid assertion.

[RandomCasualty2]

You still need to have the race where 'being a good archer" is common to get the "good archer" trait/s commonly (if desired).

Why?

Seriously, can't you just be an orc who has either more skill or more talent than the average orc?

I mean, that's contrary to the base fundamentals of the game. In the game, a dragon or giant is a fucking genetic killing machine, It's bigger than you, it's stronger than you, and it can tear your shit up. But D&D isn't about fearing dragons because they're innately better, it's about playing exceptional humans, elves, dwarves or whatever that kill dragons.

So even though dragons and giants have some kind of super genetic advantage to being warriors, you can make a dwarf fighter who is just as good, if not better. And that's the whole idea of the level system. If you're level 12 and fighting a CR 12 monster, that should be an even match.

So why is it okay for a human to be a better warrior than a giant, but it's not okay for an orc to be a better wizard than an elf?

It seems you've just got a big double standard here.

However, if you want to make "____" a trait of orcs whether you want to remove it for your orc or not, its not a good system.

Um.. what? So you're saying PCs can't be exceptional at all. Fantasy stories are full of exceptional characters with six fingers or pale white eyes, exceptional genius and all manner of shit.

[TarkisFlux]

I get that you're probably sitting on this thread and just posting a response as soon as someone else does Elennsar, but your wierd lack of/seeming refusal to put a quote at the top of your posts that expressly indicates which question/challenge/rant/insult you are answering with your initial burst of text probably isn't helping you. I've had to scroll back up to see what the fuck you're referring to several times, and I don't imagine the less charitable posters here are willing to spend the extra time on you anymore.

[Crissa]

Insisting that Faerun's orcs are say, 2, you must have orcs in Middle-Earth be 2 as well is a bad idea.

That's great!

...But not related to the topic at hand at all, hence all the confusion for you adding it in.

Since I am able to express what I think to some people,

This is, however, a group of people we have not met.

-Crissa

[Absentminded_Wizard]

I think we agree on this second point. However, I believe that things that should never come up in the hands of PCs shouldn't be permitted as choices to PCs in the default rules.

Correct. Making "A guy who disdains using weapons and armor" in a gritty represention of Dux Artorius would be stupid and should be stupid.

Its not prohibited, however. You could run around naked and unarmed. No one is forcing you to grab a sword and maille.

So I'm not sure what you do to "deny the choice" for those. If its stated that they're worse options, and someone wants to suck, why are we supposed to forbid sucking?

"The rules should say A, therefore B"
"Correct. The rules should not say A, therefore B"

Thank you, IGTN. You saved me the need to come up with my own response to this.

"Similarly, you might wish to allow any race/class combination from the PHB if your players don't min-max."

I don't think I'd include this sentence. Or change it to 'if your players are all aware they may not meet listed challenges'

Min-max is so pejorative. And really, a statement allowing players to go off the map needs to say that they're off the map and support materials may just not match up.

Yeah, the wording would be subject to change in any actual finished product. I was using shorthand to try to get the intent across and keep it reasonably short for the board.

Since I am able to express what I think to some people, then obviously some people are able to understand what I say even though it is exactly the same as what some people are failing to understand, some people are failing.

So, I do not think "everyone else" is refusing/unable. Invalid assertion.

Fair enough. Just change that to "90% of all people are unable to understand you." Since you've been both for and against PhoneLobster's approach to combo balance in the last couple pages of this thread, it's easy to see why.

[Elennsar]

Why?

Seriously, can't you just be an orc who has either more skill or more talent than the average orc?

Sure. Up to the limits of what orcs can do. If all orcs are less intelligent than equivalant humans, they should have a racial penalty to Intelligence you can't shake off.

But if you want "but yeah, most orcs are, but I want to avoid this"...then you need something to buy off the penalty without the resulting orc having all the orc strengths and none of their weaknesses.

So why is it okay for a human to be a better warrior than a giant, but it's not okay for an orc to be a better wizard than an elf?

It seems you've just got a big double standard here.

Humans can become better warriors than giants, even though the "normal human" is weaker. If you want orcs to be able to become better wizards, then you need somethign to buy off the penalty in a balanced way, as said.

I don't want orcs to be able to become better wizards, so I'm fine with "orcs are doomed to fail here". That would be mechanics succeeding for me. If that's not what you want, then you need a system that allows for that.

Um.. what? So you're saying PCs can't be exceptional at all. Fantasy stories are full of exceptional characters with six fingers or pale white eyes, exceptional genius and all manner of shit.

No, I'm saying that if humanity is forever weaker than dragons, then no human, PC or NPC, should ever reach "dragon slaying" level. You can be better than average (and lots better) without being better than your species is capable of being. What ours is capable of in a fantasy world is presumably like in our world unless we get something we don't get here to work with (chi by any other name seems to be a pretty good justification, however).

So if no human EVER can develop psychic powers, don't ask to be a human psion. If only one in (a number too begin to be named) can, that's another story. If only those given them by the gods or some other people who can change what you are can develop them, you need to qualify (whatever that means).

As for combo balance: I am against "you are equal because you are identical".

Period. You should have something EQUIVALANT if its meant to be equally viable to use an axe or a sword, but using the same stats for both is obnoxious.

[PhoneLobster]

OK so you are promoting the "It's an extensive toolkit of shit!" option and demanding, yet again, that we have to round up and decapitate every stumbling muttering resurrected zombie argument present regardless of whether they have been refuted before by us or previous zombie arguments or even by each other.

FINE. But just this once.

If "all orcs are cursed with low intelligence", then no.

That sucks. It is stupid. Everyone has told you why. For a week.

If "most orcs are dumb", then we need something where you can get around "most" without losing "being an orc".

This is... what exactly? No really? You yourself have repeatedly and explicitly claimed that variations from the average are unnecessary, undesirable, and somewhere just short of impossible.

You have also declared that you are only an orc if you are mechanically an orc. You've decried the best possible solution, the ability to take smart weakling traits and call yourself an orc as just plain destroying the "orcness" of being an orc since you apparently can't role play for ass without an enforced mechanical stereotype.

Why the hell should I believe you are honestly promoting this option? You highlight it just now and yet it contradicts everything else in the same post AND everything else you have ever said on the topic.

Or should you put into your sig a line like "Every statement in this post no matter how broad and sweeping actually only applies situational, subjectively, and when I want it to. You can hold me to nothing, ever, with no takesbacksies."

But really option 2 seems to suggest your quest for orcness retention means that it may as well read "option 2 is not allowed, goto option 1"

If "orcs are dumb" is just a stereotype with no foundation in facts about orcs, we need to stat them accordingly.

So in retrospect option 3 is actually just "Option 3 is not allowed, goto option 1".

You still need to have the race where 'being a good archer" is common to get the "good archer" trait/s commonly (if desired).

Option 4 is the only option other than 1 which ultimately is anything other than "goto 1" instead it is "1 in a funny hat" Effectively replace "good archer" with "+dex" and then we see that, well, "Goto 1".

GURPS handles this rather well. If you want to be a smart orc, you just spend 40 points buying back -2 to Intelligence (one point is twenty points, twenty to spend elsewhere if you sell it off and twenty out of the amount you have available if you boost it).

I'm not sure that's necessarily superior, but it would mean you can do what you want...sure, most orcs don't do this, but your orc can.

And then we get... more contradiction and rambling. You propose (an existing) selectable trait racial system.

And that goes only one of two ways. Either I CAN select any damn traits and still write "Orc" at no damn cost (which violates your "Orcness" preservation goal AND your "Rare archers are nonexistant" goal from "option" 4) or I do so at a real cost (which violates the whole you know, playable game thing everyone else is on your back over, AND your "Should be a way to avoid "most"" goal from option 2).

Then you spend a brief paragraph alternating between declaring the idea to be questionable or successful for a bit, just to cake on the gibberish a bit more.

However, if you want to make "____" a trait of orcs whether you want to remove it for your orc or not, its not a good system.

THEN you make this statement. Which as far as I can tell switches from the alternating uncertainty/"it works!" from the prior paragraph straight to outright condemnation and suddenly the whole thing is "Goto Option 1"

So on very close analysis I apologise, I think to some limited degree I DID fail to understand it before taking it apart in detail.

If you follow it to its conclusion the whole thing REALLY reads the same as "No, all orcs are cursed with low intelligence."

As long as I avoid every second bit which reads a lot like "Unless they aren't, or are they? or aren't they? OR ARE THEY!!!!111!!!?"

You should work on your posting style. You could have said the whole thing without contradictions using the first of those two lines alone.

You could even have added the contradictions with the same depth and analysis by the mere addition of second line.

Think "Short and punchy".

[Crissa]

PS, in GURPS if you took the Orc template, it would have given you the points (the same number!) for having the negative ability modifier. So this argument is just like #4 except Elennsar took the opposite position; saying that it was okay to buy off negative traits - in #4 buying off negative traits was bad somehow. And #5...

However, if you want to make "____" a trait of orcs whether you want to remove it for your orc or not, its not a good system.

Completely contradicts:

GURPS handles this rather well. ... but it would mean you can do what you want...sure, most orcs don't do this, but your orc can.

Honestly. What are these two statements supposed to mean together?

-Crissa

[TarkisFlux]

Think "Short and punchy".

Pffft. Lots of people can do "Short and punchy" PL, and some can even do it entertainingly for long periods of time. But how many "evasive, subjective, relativist, seemingly self-contradictory, not clearly aware of their own premises" posters do we have here? You should embrace those few, and the rage they bring out within you.

[Elennsar]

That sucks. It is stupid. Everyone has told you why. For a week.

It is only stupid if you don't want it to be the case. Nothing anywhere says that orcs must be equally able in what Intelligence means to do other stuff that makes them your equal.

But really option 2 seems to suggest your quest for orcness retention means that it may as well read "option 2 is not allowed, goto option 1"

False. Presumably, there are other traits than "less smart" that make orcs orcs instead of kobolds or elves.

So in retrospect option 3 is actually just "Option 3 is not allowed, goto option 1".

Again, no. You could do a perfectly reasonable orcs-are-different-in-some-way without "orcs are inferior in mental capacity". Maybe they're clumsier. Maybe they're different skinned.

Option 4 is the only option other than 1 which ultimately is anything other than "goto 1" instead it is "1 in a funny hat" Effectively replace "good archer" with "+dex" and then we see that, well, "Goto 1".

False. If "elves are commonly good archers", then there ought to be something that makes that the case. Maybe your PC isn't in the 70% of the race that studies archery, but that's "No, you don't have to select the 'archery' option, even though most elves do."

You propose (an existing) selectable trait racial system.

I state that it is an option. Not one I desire, but it is perfectly playable if you have something to ensure that "I'm an orc" means something that "I'm a nonorc" doesn't left.

THEN you make this statement. Which as far as I can tell switches from the alternating uncertainty/"it works!" from the prior paragraph straight to outright condemnation and suddenly the whole thing is "Goto Option 1"

The point of said statement is that it would work just fine for playable, intelligence-equal-or-greater-than-human orcs. It would not work if you can replace any "orc trait" with something that's nonorcish and wind up with the only thing making you an orc is that you claim to be an orc.

There are a variety of things you can do, listing them does not mean I support them.

If you do not retain "orcness" in some sense that means that "I'm an orc" actually means something, you are not an orc. Whatever else you are, you are not an orc.

In our world, the line between "Korean" and "Chinese" is totally arbitrary. You could be Korean and wind up with nothing showing it at all.

Orcs, meanwhile, are not human (or elven or any of the other races). They get different traits (some showing up mechanically and others just visually) entirely.

Honestly. What are these two statements supposed to mean together?

If you want to be able to manipulate your Intelligence without race forcing you to have a low(er) score, it does well. Go for something like this mechanic if that's what you want.

If you want "all orcs have the following", or "one of the following", it doesn't work very well because ultimately you can buy -2 to Intelligence as a human, +4 to Strength as a human, and any description of how an orc is different becomes "and you can do that as a human, too." if you don't have some traits humans can't select that nonhumans can or vice-versa.

Do not go for something like this mechanic if you don't want "nonhuman" to be able to take any trait "human" can and vice-versa.

[Crissa]

Why does being an orc have to have a stat difference? That I don't understand. They're just some other color humans.

Now, my spouse piped in the argument last night that having less optimal options took the weight off of being optimal - the exact opposite of Absent's point that balanced classes took the weight off of roleplayers. Her point was that 'they [min-maxers] know you suck, so they stop trying to make you optimal'.

My answer to that was they stop playing with you. And wouldn't it just be nicer not to have this argument, and have all the player-options be vaguely balanced in some way? If you're going to have Dwarven Rangers for players, they might as well be just as good adventurers as Elven Rangers for players.

She came back with the original point that you could take the poor combo and 'prove' you're a better player. But I countered that it didn't 'prove' anything because the DM could have helped you behind the screen. And if you wanted a disadvantage, wouldn't it be better to just have the DM give you a disadvantage out in the open, rather than there be traps in the player character creation metagame?

She didn't have an answer to that. But she's of the school 'there's no bad games, just bad groups'; so you can only get so far with her on game mechanics.

-Crissa

PS, Elennsar is back to saying you can't buy off negative orc traits without being 'nonorcish':

The point of said statement is that it would work just fine for playable, intelligence-equal-or-greater-than-human orcs. It would not work if you can replace any "orc trait" with something that's nonorcish and wind up with the only thing making you an orc is that you claim to be an orc.

[Elennsar]

Why does being an orc have to have a stat difference? That I don't understand. They're just some other color humans.

Since orcs are a fictional race, you certainly could create an orc race that is "just some other color human", but if you want orcs to be something more different than that, you need the differences we have mechanics for.

If its different enough for orcs to be green skinned (which humans can't be), more power to you.

That's not what I would do, however. Or recommend being done.

PS. No, Elennsar is saying that negative traits are as much a part of what makes a species what it is as the positive traits. Buying off "I can't move on land" for a whale means it isn't a whale any more.