The Gaming Den

Elennsar wrote:There's a couple points there.

#1: I'm fine with "Personal background: Something that compensates for my penalty in exchange for something else."

So, an orc wizard without intelligence penality is fine, since he still suffers from the prejudices of both orcs and humans (and elves etc.) that see an orc as strong, but dumb, and those prejudices provide sufficient problems to compensate for not suffering from low int.

Just remember what you posted here.

Not quite.

"An orc wizard able to overcome the intelligence penalty by taking something else that will ensure he is still balanced and still within the realm of orcs and not some nonorc thing that only superficially resembles an orc, that is fine, since he still suffers from..."

If you want to play an orc (or anything else), it should influence you.

One thing I would strongly desire to see in that orc is an unusual thirst for knowledge and the company of the well educated, above and beyond the norm for people of Int 18 (or whatever) and such, because he's been deprived of their company growing up amongst savages.

Or something else reflecting that his background as "guy who grew up amongst savages" is influencing him. It may repulse him as easily as attract him, but it isn't something he can forget.

Ah, we're back to "If the orc PC is not conforming to my stereotype, it's not an orc anymore".

Elennsar wrote: "An orc wizard able to overcome the intelligence penalty by taking something else that will ensure he is still balanced and still within the realm of orcs and not some nonorc thing that only superficially resembles an orc, that is fine, since he still suffers from..."

Don't you get that the whole point of the concept is an orc that breaks the stereotype. When you think of a typical asian, you don't think of Yao Ming. This is because he breaks the stereotype.

You probably don't think of a brilliant wizard when you think of an orc, but some person may want to make an orc that breaks the typical orcish stereotype.

Why is that not okay?

Why does writing "orc" on my character sheet mean that I have to portray a stereotypical orc?

No, if he's not conforming to the traits that make orcs orcish.

Orcs are different than humans. I doubt that they approach the world identically other than bits of cultural fluff that can be resisted by anyone who cares to.

Elennsar wrote:No, if he's not conforming to the traits that make orcs orcish.

Seriously, where are you getting that it's some innate trait of an orc to be stupid? Remember, we want to change the rule that orcs get a -2 to intelligence.

We're proposing that orcish stupidity is just going to be a stereotype.

If its a stereotype, see my comment on if its just a product of blindness by nonorcs...it shouldn't come up more in orcs than anyone else.

PC OR NPC.

As for stereotype breaking: Its one thing to do something you never would have thought of. Its another thing to have someone flap their arms and start flying.

The less Grok resembles the latter, the better.

Elennsar wrote:If its a stereotype, see my comment on if its just a product of blindness by nonorcs...it shouldn't come up more in orcs than anyone else.

PC OR NPC.

I disagree. Completely. Maybe your typical orc *is* a bit dim. But I'm not going to force a player to do that, too, if they really don't want to and if doing that would gimp their character and put a sour note on their perspective of the game. That's from the point of view of the real world and the people in it.

I'm also going to venture and say that Adventurers are not a good representative sample of the general population (which is all NPCs). Adventurers *will* be stronger, smarter, faster, tougher...in some way MORE than Joe the Crap-Covered Farmer.

Therefore, players who are creating adventurers as characters, (that is, all of them) have a lot of slack when it comes to ways to make their character different from the norm, and are encouraged to find ways to do just that.

As for stereotype breaking: Its one thing to do something you never would have thought of. Its another thing to have someone flap their arms and start flying.

The less Grok resembles the latter, the better.

Funny you should say that. Because he doesn't resemble that in the least. He's not pulling superpowers out of his ass or breaking the laws of nature or magic or doing absurb things for no reason. He's just very intelligent, even by Wizard standards.

Funny you should say that. Because he doesn't resemble that in the least. He's not pulling superpowers out of his ass or breaking the laws of nature or magic or doing absurb things for no reason. He's just very intelligent, even by Wizard standards.

What are we assuming a normal wizard has?

No, seriously. Because we should definately ensure Grok can get there without excessive trouble.

Whether he can get to "genius even amongst wizards"...well, that's another story. But "enough to do adventuring wizardly stuff with his equal level peers", certainly.

The same number we've been talking about.

18 Int is considered to be pretty darn good for someone just starting out.

So if a player's using point-buy with a cap of 18, or gets lucky on his starting rolls, I'm not going to make him take a -2 and say, "Should have played something else if you wanted to be a wizard."

The biggest problem with comparing STR to INT was that the 3.5 writers seemed to forget that while STR made you hit more often for more damage - it did not do anything about doing more damage to foes than yourself. Which is why there were ways to make fighters that did the same damage over time but had lower STR scores.

The problem is that is much more difficult for a Wizard because they only have one number.

We touched on this before.

If you changed the spell system so that a wizard needed two stats to buff their spells - wisdom for number of spells, int for to hit of spells, etc - maybe you could talk about letting players have negatives in the three 'mental' stats.

But it's not that way. Having a disadvantage in any of those three permanently sets the character behind on the treadmill, with no real way to keep up - a character without that disadvantage will always do better.

And you know what? That sucks. And you shouldn't do that to a player.

So long ago, we decided that it was best to leave off huge bonuses to combat from race - to try to mitigate it as much as often - and go with adding flavor options instead.

In other words, to differentiate between characters by the tactics they took instead of the stats they had.

4e sorta did this and sorta didn't do this. They didn't do it, and there's optimal races. They did do that, and made abilities out of things which really shouldn't be abilities (hide behind a hostage?).

So, how do we make your orc wizard player character dumb without hazarding his viability vs the human wizard?

-Crissa

RandomCasualty2 wrote:

Elennsar wrote:No, if he's not conforming to the traits that make orcs orcish.

Seriously, where are you getting that it's some innate trait of an orc to be stupid? Remember, we want to change the rule that orcs get a -2 to intelligence.

We're proposing that orcish stupidity is just going to be a stereotype.

Elennsar wrote:If its a stereotype, see my comment on if its just a product of blindness by nonorcs...it shouldn't come up more in orcs than anyone else.

PC OR NPC.

I think RC misspoke here. I thought the idea was that we want to make all differences between races cultural. So orcs have lower Int on average because orcish culture doesn't value knowledge.

Ideally, part of it -would- be the Int and Wisdom thing.

"Orcs have a harder time." is one thing. "Orcs can never hold their own to begin with." is terrible.

As stated, my preference for the orc would start with "No -x to Cha and Wis if we're already giving one to Int."

Subsitute one of the other three if you prefer Orcs suffering in one of those areas...Int drives the things orcs struggle at in terms of what I was picturing.

But making sure the penalty is no worse than the bonus is good is a vital start.

Wizard: Ahh.

So the question is. How do you deal your culture's penalty?

I mean, okay, YOU value knowledge. Fine. But orcs don't -have- libraries for you to benefit from, so you suffer from that.

Be raised by another race. Run away to civilization several years before the game starts. Or you're just so supernaturally gifted. But of course I misspoke when I started talking about stat modifiers. I am on board with the idea that the orcish disregard for knowledge should be reflected in ways other than attribute penalties, and I misstated RC's position by conflating the two in that post, since he clearly comes out against attribute modifiers as well.

Elennsar wrote:If its a stereotype, see my comment on if its just a product of blindness by nonorcs...it shouldn't come up more in orcs than anyone else.

PC OR NPC.

Huh?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Look. Yao Ming is really really tall. But that still doesn't change the fact that on average, asians are shorter than other races. But being short really does come up in asians more often than anyone else.

Why can't it be the same for orcs and intelligence?

Because it's his opinion that the -2 Int penalty on their racial stat block MUST be a genetic imperative. Being 2 points lower than humans at smarts is as fundamental to their being as a whale with fins!

He's also decided that the 18 on a human is as far an outlier from the statistical norm as it is for Yao to be the height that he is amongst Chinese.

It's not even hard to make a whale have legs.

Also: do we believe that if we bring a couple child soldiers with some years of "experience" from Sudan to the U.S.A., and try to teach them the local supposedly civilized lifestyle, it's gonna go well? If not, is it because they're members of an inferior race?

Be raised by another race. Run away to civilization several years before the game starts. Or you're just so supernaturally gifted. But of course I misspoke when I started talking about stat modifiers. I am on board with the idea that the orcish disregard for knowledge should be reflected in ways other than attribute penalties, and I misstated RC's position by conflating the two in that post, since he clearly comes out against attribute modifiers as well.

Then, assuming it is cultural, the first two are awesome. The third...not necessarily.

In any case, accepted.

Because it's his opinion that the -2 Int penalty on their racial stat block MUST be a genetic imperative. Being 2 points lower than humans at smarts is as fundamental to their being as a whale with fins!

Not "must be". "Is". Since most of you don't want it existing, your arguements that "its really cultural (in 3e)" have not been...very noticable.

If you think the only mechanical differences between orcs and humans are cultural, though, I'd like to know what "orc blood" and the fact some things work for (or against) "orcs" means to you, then.

He's also decided that the 18 on a human is as far an outlier from the statistical norm as it is for Yao to be the height that he is amongst humans.

Fixed. No, seriously. In a world where "Chinese" was a choice that influenced anything about Yao that wasn't covered with "he's human and humans vary", maybe it would be an issue.

As for 18 on a human: Personally, I prefer setting the human "best you can be before we start thinking something freakish is going on" to 20. 18+1+1 (from level). Anything beyond 18 is the result of a bonus. Any height beyond 6'6" or so is "Really tall. Really." bonuses.

Also: do we believe that if we bring a couple child soldiers with some years of "experience" from Sudan to the U.S.A., and try to teach them the local supposedly civilized lifestyle, it's gonna go well? If not, is it because they're members of an inferior race?

No, but its not likely to be something that would work better for "PCs".

Psychological issues (from being child soldiers AND from any adjustment to a radically foreign culture) for the lose.

Elennsar wrote:

Also: do we believe that if we bring a couple child soldiers with some years of "experience" from Sudan to the U.S.A., and try to teach them the local supposedly civilized lifestyle, it's gonna go well? If not, is it because they're members of an inferior race?

No, but its not likely to be something that would work better for "PCs".

Psychological issues (from being child soldiers AND from any adjustment to a radically foreign culture) for the lose.

My point was about how one can have varying class availability and ability scores in a race without it having anything to do with mechanics (at D&D granularity; we both know it's mechanically represented in GURPS). Members of a race in general can have biased class lists and attribute priorities for purely story-related reasons like that. And then it's not even hard to then come with all kinds of exception (say, a Sudanese child spared from big traumas might be perfectly able to become a diplomat - and even pacify Sudan - in fiction, unfortunately). So races can lack classes because of where they live, cultural history, some other races attempting monopoly, and so on - no rules needed, and no rules broken when someone simply decides to play something a bit uncommon.

This assumes free multiclassing, but something that may or may not work.

In the Conan d20 RPG, certain races cannot become (at least without exposure to the environment where they exist, which in their own culture is "never"), certain classes.

There are exactly zero Cimmerian nomads other than those who left there and went to nomad lands and were around nomads long enough to justify taking the class as a multiclassing thing.

Naturally, if you grew up amongst people other than your own, you probably have their cultural traits (or some "outcast" cultural traits) rather than your original people's.

So that would be an excellent way to eliminate orc wizards most of the time while still leaving the "if it ever comes up, an orc isn't unable to learn wizardry." opening.

How this would work with racial benefits or flaws that actually do limit them in some pursuits more than others, I don't know.

But its something that would go along very nicely with what you said.

How to deal with racial bonuses/penalties so that they're balanced overall is something needing a discussion on balance, rather than options.

Naturally, if you grew up amongst people other than your own, you probably have their cultural traits (or some "outcast" cultural traits) rather than your original people's.

This approach could work. It would be analogous to Yao Ming having a "freakishly tall" trait because you couldn't generate his height on any system that limited itself to a 1 in 216 or better chance.

You could do that, I think.

Personally I'd say he'd have the maximum "possible" height and a "Freakishly tall." trait that would be say, an additional foot and a half taller.

But that's me prefering to have "Really Freaking Tall." be an advantage that he took (since being taller than average NBA players is an advantage) and it happened to push him well beyond the normal realm.

Either way, it allows for freaks to come about through appropriately freakish circumstances, which is the goal.

Obviously, normal does not generate them, so we need something to represent "Okay, normal doesn't apply. What happens?"

Elennsar wrote:In the Conan d20 RPG, certain races cannot become (at least without exposure to the environment where they exist, which in their own culture is "never"), certain classes.

There are exactly zero Cimmerian nomads other than those who left there and went to nomad lands and were around nomads long enough to justify taking the class as a multiclassing thing.

Naturally, if you grew up amongst people other than your own, you probably have their cultural traits (or some "outcast" cultural traits) rather than your original people's.

So that would be an excellent way to eliminate orc wizards most of the time while still leaving the "if it ever comes up, an orc isn't unable to learn wizardry." opening.

This.

"Bad at wizardry" may be an Orcish trait, but it is not THE orcish trait. It does not define Orcdom.

If an orc loses "bad at wizardry" (and either loses some equivalent advantage, or gains some equivalent drawback), that does not deorcify him. He still has all those other orc traits. Hopefully, a given race will have more than one or two racial traits.

"Good archer" may be an elf trait, but does that mean I can't play an elf swordsman and make him a damn good swordsman? An elf monk? An elf cleric?

The answer had better be no.

Similarly, an orc may be best suited to the barbarian lifestyle (racial skill ranks, whatever), but making a nonstandard orc should not be punished.

How this would work with racial benefits or flaws that actually do limit them in some pursuits more than others, I don't know.

Why do you want to limit them in some pursuits more than others?

Leaving aside discussions as to how many percentage points of difference equate to an unplayably subpar character, there should only be two class options available for any race:

1) Able to compete equally with other races of the same class and level;
2) Not allowed, or unique/NPC only.

That's it. "Noticeably subpar" should not be a playable option except through the player's allocation of resources. I can't stop you from stabbing yourself in the foot with a pocketknife, but I refuse to paint a target on your foot and hand you a knife labeled "footknife."

If you want to make orcs racially dumb, there are ways to do that.
If you want to make orcs racially savage, there are ways to do that.
If you want to make orc PCs universally dumb or savage...I can't help you.

---

A lot of this problem is due to the nature of D&D magic. -2 Int hurts a wizard a lot more than -2 Str hurts a fighter, because there are ways around a Strength penalty. All else being equal, there are no ways around an Int penalty for a spellcaster - you are forever behind other spellcasters of equal level and resources, and that's sad.

"Bad at wizardry" may be an Orcish trait, but it is not THE orcish trait. It does not define Orcdom.

If an orc loses "bad at wizardry" (and either loses some equivalent advantage, or gains some equivalent drawback), that does not deorcify him. He still has all those other orc traits. Hopefully, a given race will have more than one or two racial traits.

"Good archer" may be an elf trait, but does that mean I can't play an elf swordsman and make him a damn good swordsman? An elf monk? An elf cleric?

The answer had better be no.

However, unless the bold part is true, we have a problem. Otherwise, we agree here.

Why do you want to limit them in some pursuits more than others?

Just as the fact dwarves are detail obesssed and suspicious is more useful in some activities than others...it'll benefit a merchant or a detective a lot more than a mountain man (as in, a guy who goes around trapping animals for their pelts etc.), the fact that dwarves are challenged at reaching great heights is more of a hindrance with basketball than football.

All else being equal, there are no ways around an Int penalty for a spellcaster - you are forever behind other spellcasters of equal level and resources, and that's sad.

Yeah. The only way to make it acceptable is if the "non Int driven stuff I do" is important enough and useful enough that the race can be part of the "Bob picks about half combat feats and has a decent but not great Int and that's okay." wizard build/s.

Right now, wizards have damn little that qualifies, which means that everyone is forced to make the "maxed out Int and spellcasting" wizard.

As for orc PCs: If orcs are racially dumb, that should not disappear on PC sheets.

Part of what you agree to accepting as a human is that you have the "No darkvision." trait and the "no improved low light vision" trait.

Any other racial shortcomings should be no more or less serious than that sort of thing of "humans lack these" so far as is possible.

Elennsar wrote:As for orc PCs: If orcs are racially dumb, that should not disappear on PC sheets.

Guess Talisman can't help you then.

Having less of something is a whole lot different than having N/A of something. One is still on the RNG and its value can be slid around, the other is an entire physical capability that's outside the physical condition. The fact you seem to think having less of something (like intelligence) is the same category as having NONE of something (like wings) is...dumb.