Please take a look at my Half-orc class

[vivsavage]

Please give me feedback on this half-orc class. Thanks!

[vivsavage]

Anyone?

[bitflipr]

I like all the descriptions and abilities of the Half-Orc described here, other than Brutish Deeds of Arms. I don't care so much for another deed mechanic, since the Warrior and Dwarf already implement this so well. Is this one supposed to be limited to only what is listed? I ask because the Warrior/Dwarf one seems like it could include these as well.

Other than that, good job!

[vivsavage]

I like all the descriptions and abilities of the Half-Orc described here, other than Brutish Deeds of Arms. I don't care so much for another deed mechanic, since the Warrior and Dwarf already implement this so well. Is this one supposed to be limited to only what is listed? I ask because the Warrior/Dwarf one seems like it could include these as well.

Other than that, good job!

Thanks for the feedback!

The brutish deeds are an attempt to make the half-orc a hard luck case and yet still be able to do awesome stuff. I'm not 100% keen on the deeds in DCC since they involve no risk. The half-orc's deeds involve a certain degree of risk and hopefully lend flavor to the class.

[Vanguard]

I didn't want to be the first to respond because I posted an Orc not too long ago. I like that your Orcs have tusks. Wish I had remembered all those hours pouring over illustrations of in the Warcraft books back in the 90s to include that detail myself.

But I agree with bitflipr about the Brutish Deeds. More importantly, they lack the fluid quality that makes the Mighty Deed system work, in my opinion. I don't want my players to have to spend too much time figuring out what they need to roll in order to succeed. I think it would be easier to shoehorn a mechanic for failure onto the existing system and give them a slight bonus (maybe they roll a d4 at level 1 and progress up to a d12?) to make up for this.

Some of the other abilities are a little too fiddly, as well. Particularly their scent and brawling.

What's to stop a Half-Orc from feeling disrespected when they feel like it? I would just change the ability to always be "on". Something like, "Half-Orcs are naturally inclined to conflict. When brawling, they add their level to the subdual damage dealt."

For the scent ability there's too much going on. I personally think 300 feet is a little much, but just allow them to smell when other creatures are nearby. Maybe make it function like Elfs and secret doors,that when passing within X feet, the DM rolls a luck check in secret to see if they pick up the scent.

I like the initiative ability, but I feel something is missing. It's supposed to be both intimidating and disgusting, no? I would add an effect, like -1 to attack rolls to show the target has been demoralized in addition to grossed out. If you make this change, I feel the save should be Will, not Fort, though.

Keep working on it.

[vivsavage]

But I agree with bitflipr about the Brutish Deeds. More importantly, they lack the fluid quality that makes the Mighty Deed system work, in my opinion. I don't want my players to have to spend too much time figuring out what they need to roll in order to succeed.

Its the same as the standard deeds system; a 3 or better on the deed die does the trick!

This system just adds a failure mechanic which, again, adds an element of risk that isn't there in the current system. It underlies the concept of the half-orc being a hard luck case.

Can you expound on what you mean by "lacks the fluid quality that makes the Mighty Deed system?"

Thanks for the feedback; I agree with your other points about the scent ability and the brawling.

[vivsavage]

Anyone else? Please?

[Raven_Crowking]

I was glad to see that you altered the Mighty Deed mechanic, rather than simply used it as-is.

Stench-based special attacks are also appropriate for the sort of half-orc you are describing here.

[AJClark]

I like the brutish deed tables also. it takes that option of creating a signature deed and applies it to the race. Plays on the fact that they are not trained fighters such as warriors or dwarves, but are just relying on their brute nature.

[Vanguard]

But I agree with bitflipr about the Brutish Deeds. More importantly, they lack the fluid quality that makes the Mighty Deed system work, in my opinion. I don't want my players to have to spend too much time figuring out what they need to roll in order to succeed.

Its the same as the standard deeds system; a 3 or better on the deed die does the trick!

This system just adds a failure mechanic which, again, adds an element of risk that isn't there in the current system. It underlies the concept of the half-orc being a hard luck case.

Can you expound on what you mean by "lacks the fluid quality that makes the Mighty Deed system?"

Thanks for the feedback; I agree with your other points about the scent ability and the brawling.

That was not clear, I apologize. Mighty Deeds is essentially a fiat feat/combat maneuvers system. Off the top of my head, they include: blinding, disarm, trip, pushback, and precision attacks, as well as offensive, defensive, and rallying maneuvers. The book also specifies that situation appropriate deeds can be tailored to situations on the fly. I'm okay doing that as a DM because of the scope of the mechanic.

I don't feel that way about Brutish Deeds. The three you've outlined have pretty rigid uses, it seems. Hack and Slash is a damage booster, Dirty Deeds establishes that Half-Orcs fight Dirty but is more or less a blinding attack, and the Bonecrusher feat is like a mini-crit table in terms of effects.

I also don't think you should write the effects of failure into the table and just use a catch all mechanic for any deed that doesn't succeed. For example:

-If any attempt at a Brutish Deed results in a natural 1, roll on the fumble table using +1d up the dice chain
-If any attempt at a Brutish Deed results in failure, but not a natural 1, roll on the fumble table normally

[vivsavage]

I like the brutish deed tables also. it takes that option of creating a signature deed and applies it to the race. Plays on the fact that they are not trained fighters such as warriors or dwarves, but are just relying on their brute nature.

That was my intent. I was going to use the standard Mighty Deeds mechanic, but they are designed to be heroic in nature; that doesn't suit my visiono of the half-orc. I thought about limiting them to Mighty Deeds that use strength only (so no rallying, etc). But, again, there is no risk involved in mighty deeds. I wanted everything the half-orc to does to be sloppy.

[Raven_Crowking]

I wanted everything the half-orc to does to be sloppy.

When he eats pancakes, maple syrup dribbles down his chin!

[vivsavage]

That was not clear, I apologize. Mighty Deeds is essentially a fiat feat/combat maneuvers system. Off the top of my head, they include: blinding, disarm, trip, pushback, and precision attacks, as well as offensive, defensive, and rallying maneuvers. The book also specifies that situation appropriate deeds can be tailored to situations on the fly. I'm okay doing that as a DM because of the scope of the mechanic.

I don't feel that way about Brutish Deeds. The three you've outlined have pretty rigid uses, it seems. Hack and Slash is a damage booster, Dirty Deeds establishes that Half-Orcs fight Dirty but is more or less a blinding attack, and the Bonecrusher feat is like a mini-crit table in terms of effects.

Ah, okay. So the system lacks an elements of GM fiat, open-endedness, creativity, etc? I could definitely expand it so that the results aren't so cut and dried.

I also don't think you should write the effects of failure into the table and just use a catch all mechanic for any deed that doesn't succeed. For example:

-If any attempt at a Brutish Deed results in a natural 1, roll on the fumble table using +1d up the dice chain
-If any attempt at a Brutish Deed results in failure, but not a natural 1, roll on the fumble table normally

I've considered that. The reason I decided against it is because most fumble results aren't going to reflect the nature of the attempt. Also, I didn't want the player/GM having consult yet another table. Having the results immediately at hand makes it move faster.

I don't suppose you might show this to your fellow players and see what they think (without telling them your views ahead of time)? Or perhaps even playtest it?

[vivsavage]

I wanted everything the half-orc to does to be sloppy.

When he eats pancakes, maple syrup dribbles down his chin!

And leaves sticky, rigid spots all over his shirt.

[bitflipr]

I bet if you just renamed it (Deeds) something different, there wouldn't be the temptation to compare it with the original.

[Vanguard]

That was not clear, I apologize. Mighty Deeds is essentially a fiat feat/combat maneuvers system. Off the top of my head, they include: blinding, disarm, trip, pushback, and precision attacks, as well as offensive, defensive, and rallying maneuvers. The book also specifies that situation appropriate deeds can be tailored to situations on the fly. I'm okay doing that as a DM because of the scope of the mechanic.

I don't feel that way about Brutish Deeds. The three you've outlined have pretty rigid uses, it seems. Hack and Slash is a damage booster, Dirty Deeds establishes that Half-Orcs fight Dirty but is more or less a blinding attack, and the Bonecrusher feat is like a mini-crit table in terms of effects.

Ah, okay. So the system lacks an elements of GM fiat, open-endedness, creativity, etc? I could definitely expand it so that the results aren't so cut and dried.

I also don't think you should write the effects of failure into the table and just use a catch all mechanic for any deed that doesn't succeed. For example:

-If any attempt at a Brutish Deed results in a natural 1, roll on the fumble table using +1d up the dice chain
-If any attempt at a Brutish Deed results in failure, but not a natural 1, roll on the fumble table normally

I've considered that. The reason I decided against it is because most fumble results aren't going to reflect the nature of the attempt. Also, I didn't want the player/GM having consult yet another table. Having the results immediately at hand makes it move faster.

I don't suppose you might show this to your fellow players and see what they think (without telling them your views ahead of time)? Or perhaps even playtest it?

I am in the process of playtesting my own Orc class, but perhaps in a future campaign.

[vivsavage]

I bet if you just renamed it (Deeds) something different, there wouldn't be the temptation to compare it with the original.

Agreed. Any suggestions for other names are appreciated.

[vivsavage]

I am in the process of playtesting my own Orc class, but perhaps in a future campaign.

I totally understand. If you think anyone might be interested in just looking at it, feel free... (this goes for everyone else here as well)

[vivsavage]

I've made a change to the class and would like to hear your responses. I have deleted the Brutish Deeds of Arms ability, since it really steps on the toes of the mighty deeds mechanic enjoyed by warriors and dwarves. This is the replacement:

That Which Does Not Kill Us: When a half-orc is seriously injured, his retaliatory strikes are brutal. Whenever a half-orc is reduced to half his maximum hit points or lower, the damage his blows deliver is always at least as high as the damage received from his opponent’s attack on its most recent turn. For example, if a goblin strikes a half-orc for 8 hit points of damage, the half-orc will deliver a minimum of 8 points of damage to the goblin on his next turn if his attack hits. If the attack fails, the ability has no effect for that round of combat.

EDIT: the ability only works when the half-orc is already below 50% hit points. It does not work on the initial blow that brings him below 50% hit points.

[TheNobleDrake]

Vivsavage, the only problem I see with that change is the half-orc surviving a critical or some terrible monster attack that deals more damage than is even possible with his current weapon.

A dragon claws him for 28 damage that he just barely lives through... and then he swings his trusty battle-axe for the same despite his actual damage with the weapon being 1d10+5?

Seems too... well, I don't actually have a word in mind, but it is definitely too something.

An idea that I had and thought I might offer: utilize the "battle rage" critical result mechanics in some way, such as allowing the half-orc to voluntarily spend points of Intelligence or Personality to add some damage to a hit by flying into a rage that prevents him from telling friend from foe for a brief time. Perhaps just 1 round per point spent, and the damage added could scale by level?

I haven't really thought that out in detail.

[vivsavage]

Vivsavage, the only problem I see with that change is the half-orc surviving a critical or some terrible monster attack that deals more damage than is even possible with his current weapon.

A dragon claws him for 28 damage that he just barely lives through... and then he swings his trusty battle-axe for the same despite his actual damage with the weapon being 1d10+5?

Yep, that's a potentiality. The half-orc dealing 28 points of damage in the example you provide would be effectively reflecting some sort of critical result. This is intentional; while taking 28 points of damage when the half-orc is below 50% hit points would almost always be either lethal or damn-near close, it allows the class to make an amazing, dramatic last-ditch effort to save his bacon and slay the beast. It is designed to boost the half-orc's damage to critical-hit levels, rather than merely giving the class the warrior's increased critical hit range. But in order to enjoy this ability, the half-orc has to be in serious danger of dropping to the ground. I like the balance of drama and danger it offers (albeit without having play tested it one iota).

Regarding your idea of the rage mechanic; I actually considered something just like that! But I have to admit a prejudice against any rage mechanic; they've become too closely associated with orcs and barbarians, and I really want to get away from it.

[TheNobleDrake]

Is the intent that you have to be at 50% or less HP before the hit lands that you will mirror the damage of? That's a bit of a different story than what I was thinking where being reduced to 50% or less HP by an attack qualified you to attack with that same damage.

[vivsavage]

Is the intent that you have to be at 50% or less HP before the hit lands that you will mirror the damage of? That's a bit of a different story than what I was thinking where being reduced to 50% or less HP by an attack qualified you to attack with that same damage.

Yes. Sorry, I should clarify that.

[Vanguard]

I actually started with something similar when designing my Orc class, getting bonuses for taking damage. The details were different, but the concept the same.

The reason I scrapped it was because the very thing it's predicated on (taking damage) is very inconsistent. Those end of the adventure encounters are almost always going to set it off, and your Orc is going to shred them in the retaliatory attacks. However, your average mob is not going to do this with any regularity, which means the core ability of this class is only going to be available sometimes.

Consider this: a Warrior can always attempt a Mighty Deed, a Wizard can always attempt to cast a spell, a Cleric can always attempt to Lay on Hands, and a Thief can always burn luck to increase their odds. Whatever ability the Orc ends up with should be something the player can attempt at-will.

If we're going to link it to HP, I would much rather have a mechanic where the Orc can willingly sacrifice HP to gain bonuses. As more HP is sacrificed, they get better and better bonuses. For example:

1 HP = +1 Attack and Damage
2 HP = +2 Attack and Damage
3 HP = +1d on the dice chain for damage rolls
etc.

[vivsavage]

I actually started with something similar when designing my Orc class, getting bonuses for taking damage. The details were different, but the concept the same.

The reason I scrapped it was because the very thing it's predicated on (taking damage) is very inconsistent. Those end of the adventure encounters are almost always going to set it off, and your Orc is going to shred them in the retaliatory attacks. However, your average mob is not going to do this with any regularity, which means the core ability of this class is only going to be available sometimes.

Consider this: a Warrior can always attempt a Mighty Deed, a Wizard can always attempt to cast a spell, a Cleric can always attempt to Lay on Hands, and a Thief can always burn luck to increase their odds. Whatever ability the Orc ends up with should be something the player can attempt at-will.

If we're going to link it to HP, I would much rather have a mechanic where the Orc can willingly sacrifice HP to gain bonuses. As more HP is sacrificed, they get better and better bonuses. For example:

1 HP = +1 Attack and Damage
2 HP = +2 Attack and Damage
3 HP = +1d on the dice chain for damage rolls
etc.

I see what you mean. Sacrificing HP willingly could indicate the half-orc extending himself a bit far, perhaps fatiguing himself or whatever (thus the loss of HP). And it will generally only happen in dramatic situations. I'm not sure that sacrificing 1 HP for +1 damage is really worth it; I might look at something more. Still, I think your idea is pretty sound!