They aren't replacing it with something new or different, there's just fewer options than there used to be.
I suspect the number of people who prefer orc to half-orc exceeds the number who prefer half-orc to orc, the majority of "half-orc" art I see online is really just orc art.
Ironic considering the new 2024 official artwork of orcs has them looking just like grey skinned humans with pointed ears. They look more human than some half-orc artwork I see.
Ironic considering the new 2024 official artwork of orcs has them looking just like grey skinned humans with pointed ears. They look more human than some half-orc artwork I see.
Where is that released? The grey skinned humanoid with pointed ears in the species reveal article is a goliath.
What added? There was already aasimar and Goliath right? I think in over the last five years I haven't played a campaign that didn't have an orc or Goliath or aasimar in it. So to me it doesn't feel like anything new is being gained, only that things are being taken away.
I'm not sure how differences between different species is 'race essentialism'. These aren't human ethnicities, they're a bunch of completely separate species who all happen to be sapient. A hare being faster than a tortoise isn't racism. It's simply two species evolving to use different strategies to be successful. An aarokokra flying while a human can't isn't racism. It's just one species has wings, the other doesn't.
Sure, I think that's a perfectly reasonable good-faith question. There's two levels of answer for it; Watsonian, or in-universe, and Doylist, or out-of-universe. I'm going to start with the Watsonian explanation.
D&D's default fiction assumes that most humanoids can have children with most other humanoids. We don't know that genetics works quite the same in the Forgotten Realms as it does in our universe, but since half-orcs, half-elves, half-dragons, half-giants, etc all display a mix of their parents' physical traits, we can assume there's some kind of heredity there that shapes physical characteristics. If humans and aarakocra can have children, who's to say one such child shouldn't have wings but otherwise appear human? That's even leaving aside the large number of other species who could easily add flight to their repertoire with little additional explanation: tieflings and kobolds are said to sometimes have wings, Aasimar always have wings, Air Genasi can already levitate temporarily; it's a short jump for any of these species to have a flight speed as one of their origin features. Furthermore, literally any individual of any species could have been altered permanently by some kind of magic, be it a curse or a boon. Biology need not be a limitation in a world where magic is a real and present force in people's lives.
The Doylist explanation is a little simpler: D&D's fiction is whatever we want it to be. For a long time, all orcs were genetically evil. Then they weren't, and that was better. Goblins used to have long, hooked noses and a culture based around slavery, until Monsters of the Multiverse came out and showed some of them weren't like that, and that was better (but not better enough, in my opinion). The game's concept of what species is has changed before and will no doubt change again; fully customizable lineage traits would allow the game to better recognize the uniqueness of each character, and would avoid a number of pitfalls that keep coming up in regards to the way the game currently handles species.
Ironic considering the new 2024 official artwork of orcs has them looking just like grey skinned humans with pointed ears. They look more human than some half-orc artwork I see.
Where is that released? The grey skinned humanoid with pointed ears in the species reveal article is a goliath.
Compared to older orc designs, it's been 'humanised' a massive amount.
I'm extremly glad that orcs no longer have to be evil or 'savage'. However I dislike how this has been accompanied by making them look more human. It feels like it pushes the narrative that something has to look 'pretty' to human eyes to be morally good.
Compared to older orc designs, it's been 'humanised' a massive amount.
I find it funny that this artwork fits perfectly with my homebrew setting which was based on steampunk world in the image of 1888. Also my Orcs were based on a book from the 90s called "Grunts" by Mary Gentile where the Orcs become US Marines. So I designed the Orc society of my World to be culturally like the USA and the Orcs to be lawful by nature.
I’ve noticed the new handbook lacks half orc and half elf. This surprised me as I always thought half elves were pretty popular (don’t know how people feel about half orc though). Is there a reason as to why they are missing from the new handbook? I also remember reading about a “half dragon” in the monster manual but we have Dragonborn’s and they’re already super cool.
(That being said I’ll probably continue to play human for the most part because I’m boring like that)
I'd be happy if they actually did do away with them given, with the exception of Half Elves, other Half anything (Orcs, Ogres, Tieflings etc.) implies an unwilling target.
Compared to older orc designs, it's been 'humanised' a massive amount.
I find it funny that this artwork fits perfectly with my homebrew setting which was based on steampunk world in the image of 1888. Also my Orcs were based on a book from the 90s called "Grunts" by Mary Gentile where the Orcs become US Marines. So I designed the Orc society of my World to be culturally like the USA and the Orcs to be lawful by nature.
Grunts was a fantastic book, I'd totally forgotten about it so thanks for a sudden rush of memories
As someone who is multiethnic, I have expressed my displeasure on how WotC is doing this. [REDACTED] It's pure frustration at this point for me. Because no one wants to listen to us on it.
You are exactly right.
I haven’t ’voiced my displeasure’ but as someone who is also multiethnic I have certainly disliked it as well. And if it is all gameplay oriented why go back and change NPCs in things like the Shattered Obelisk? Couldn’t they just keep the description the same and say (use elf stats)?
To me it is a bit of an insult to those who are biracial (or multiethnic, which most Americans already are), taking out the half-races, and telling players they can "flavor" their characters as half-whatever, but use only one of the two races as the character's race.
That's not what they've done. They've just taken out half-elf and half-orc and said nothing at all about playing a hybrid -- which means the way you do it is "Ask your DM".
Which is the right way to do it. There are 45 possible hybrids just using PHB species, it doesn't make sense to list them all, and letting players mix and match is just asking for even more munchkinism than is already possible.
Ironic considering the new 2024 official artwork of orcs has them looking just like grey skinned humans with pointed ears. They look more human than some half-orc artwork I see.
Where is that released? The grey skinned humanoid with pointed ears in the species reveal article is a goliath.
Compared to older orc designs, it's been 'humanised' a massive amount.
I'm extremly glad that orcs no longer have to be evil or 'savage'. However I dislike how this has been accompanied by making them look more human. It feels like it pushes the narrative that something has to look 'pretty' to human eyes to be morally good.
If you want brutish/muscular orcs you can still do that, just like the book has art of brutish/muscular dragonborn, humans, and dwarves.
This piece of art is not the only one we will get for orcs in the entire edition. If it doesn't appeal to you, try turning the page.
To me it is a bit of an insult to those who are biracial (or multiethnic, which most Americans already are), taking out the half-races, and telling players they can "flavor" their characters as half-whatever, but use only one of the two races as the character's race.
That's not what they've done. They've just taken out half-elf and half-orc and said nothing at all about playing a hybrid -- which means the way you do it is "Ask your DM".
Which is the right way to do it. There are 45 possible hybrids just using PHB species, it doesn't make sense to list them all, and letting players mix and match is just asking for even more munchkinism than is already possible.
i think not adding in some type of point system to build your "half race" character the way you think they would be when being mixed from two different species was just lazy on their part. Other systems have been able to make half races work amazingly and no one has a problem with them. i really hope in the DMG or Tashas 2.0 or some other book they fix it and add something like it in.
i think not adding in some type of point system to build your "half race" character the way you think they would be when being mixed from two different species was just lazy on their part.
A point system for constructing species is absolutely a valid design, but it has unavoidable side effects related to synergies and anti-synergies (if you give a species two traits, depending on their synergies, they may wind up being better or worse than would be expected by looking at each trait in isolation; if you try and retrofit a point system to some pre-existing options you inevitably wind up with some of those options just not working within the budget) that they may not have wanted to deal with.
Plus, there's the simple fact that while a build-a-bear point system is one valid option, that doesn't make static blocks invalid. Some systems use one, some use the other.
They could have developed a point-based system, but it's quite naive to say that not doing so is "lazy." It would be a significant design problem, and amateur designers have been flailing at it, for D&D specifically, for decades.
Also, a sizeable contingent of their market would rebel at the idea, because "it's not D&D!" or some other hidebound response. Lots of people want it to be the way it is (or was), where "choose a species/background/whatever to go with your class" has better/worse answers, that reinforce the stereotypes of the world (elves are wizards, orcs are barbarians, that sort of thing).
Thank you for swooping in to speak to the motivations of all of us uncultured grognards, but it's not about specifically having "natural wizards" and "natural barbarians" and suchlike. It's about races having a distinct identity as one of the "roles" people are choosing to assume for this roleplaying game. If every character is just an individual chimera of attributes on that front, there's no roles to build from.
They could have developed a point-based system, but it's quite naive to say that not doing so is "lazy." It would be a significant design problem, and amateur designers have been flailing at it, for D&D specifically, for decades.
Also, a sizeable contingent of their market would rebel at the idea, because "it's not D&D!" or some other hidebound response. Lots of people want it to be the way it is (or was), where "choose a species/background/whatever to go with your class" has better/worse answers, that reinforce the stereotypes of the world (elves are wizards, orcs are barbarians, that sort of thing).
I mean, species that are better or worse at specific classes still exist, it's just not tied to ability scores. A high elf wizard has multiple advantages over an orc one - the orc just isn't starting off with an outright deficiency anymore.
They could have developed a point-based system, but it's quite naive to say that not doing so is "lazy." It would be a significant design problem, and amateur designers have been flailing at it, for D&D specifically, for decades.
Also, a sizeable contingent of their market would rebel at the idea, because "it's not D&D!" or some other hidebound response. Lots of people want it to be the way it is (or was), where "choose a species/background/whatever to go with your class" has better/worse answers, that reinforce the stereotypes of the world (elves are wizards, orcs are barbarians, that sort of thing).
I mean, species that are better or worse at specific classes still exist, it's just not tied to ability scores. A high elf wizard has multiple advantages over an orc one - the orc just isn't starting off with an outright deficiency anymore.
I'm not sure about "multiple"; it's slightly better than Magic Initiate in that it snags a 2nd level spell as well, but you only get one wildcard pick instead of three. It does benefit a class with spell slots more than a class without since it broadens their overall repertoire slightly, but for the purposes of a typical game of D&D I wouldn't say either is clearly "better" by an appreciable margin at this point. Adrenaline Rush and Relentless Endurance don't exactly hurt a spellcaster, giving them extra mobility to attempt to avoid getting boxed in and extra staying power to help compensate for lower HP and AC.
I mean, species that are better or worse at specific classes still exist, it's just not tied to ability scores. A high elf wizard has multiple advantages over an orc one - the orc just isn't starting off with an outright deficiency anymore.
Eh, I'm not particularly convinced by the advantages of a high elf wizard -- yes, they get a few more spells, but a number of other options (including orcs) have significant durability advantages. Looking at the species, the only one that still feels significantly pigeonholed is the dragonborn, because their breath weapon has gone from "useless for all classes" to "useless for classes that don't have extra attack".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ironic considering the new 2024 official artwork of orcs has them looking just like grey skinned humans with pointed ears. They look more human than some half-orc artwork I see.
Where is that released? The grey skinned humanoid with pointed ears in the species reveal article is a goliath.
What added? There was already aasimar and Goliath right? I think in over the last five years I haven't played a campaign that didn't have an orc or Goliath or aasimar in it. So to me it doesn't feel like anything new is being gained, only that things are being taken away.
Not in the PHB. PHB has gone from 9 options to 10.
Sure, I think that's a perfectly reasonable good-faith question. There's two levels of answer for it; Watsonian, or in-universe, and Doylist, or out-of-universe. I'm going to start with the Watsonian explanation.
D&D's default fiction assumes that most humanoids can have children with most other humanoids. We don't know that genetics works quite the same in the Forgotten Realms as it does in our universe, but since half-orcs, half-elves, half-dragons, half-giants, etc all display a mix of their parents' physical traits, we can assume there's some kind of heredity there that shapes physical characteristics. If humans and aarakocra can have children, who's to say one such child shouldn't have wings but otherwise appear human? That's even leaving aside the large number of other species who could easily add flight to their repertoire with little additional explanation: tieflings and kobolds are said to sometimes have wings, Aasimar always have wings, Air Genasi can already levitate temporarily; it's a short jump for any of these species to have a flight speed as one of their origin features. Furthermore, literally any individual of any species could have been altered permanently by some kind of magic, be it a curse or a boon. Biology need not be a limitation in a world where magic is a real and present force in people's lives.
The Doylist explanation is a little simpler: D&D's fiction is whatever we want it to be. For a long time, all orcs were genetically evil. Then they weren't, and that was better. Goblins used to have long, hooked noses and a culture based around slavery, until Monsters of the Multiverse came out and showed some of them weren't like that, and that was better (but not better enough, in my opinion). The game's concept of what species is has changed before and will no doubt change again; fully customizable lineage traits would allow the game to better recognize the uniqueness of each character, and would avoid a number of pitfalls that keep coming up in regards to the way the game currently handles species.
Compared to older orc designs, it's been 'humanised' a massive amount.
I'm extremly glad that orcs no longer have to be evil or 'savage'. However I dislike how this has been accompanied by making them look more human. It feels like it pushes the narrative that something has to look 'pretty' to human eyes to be morally good.
I find it funny that this artwork fits perfectly with my homebrew setting which was based on steampunk world in the image of 1888. Also my Orcs were based on a book from the 90s called "Grunts" by Mary Gentile where the Orcs become US Marines. So I designed the Orc society of my World to be culturally like the USA and the Orcs to be lawful by nature.
I'd be happy if they actually did do away with them given, with the exception of Half Elves, other Half anything (Orcs, Ogres, Tieflings etc.) implies an unwilling target.
Grunts was a fantastic book, I'd totally forgotten about it so thanks for a sudden rush of memories
I haven’t ’voiced my displeasure’ but as someone who is also multiethnic I have certainly disliked it as well. And if it is all gameplay oriented why go back and change NPCs in things like the Shattered Obelisk? Couldn’t they just keep the description the same and say (use elf stats)?
That's not what they've done. They've just taken out half-elf and half-orc and said nothing at all about playing a hybrid -- which means the way you do it is "Ask your DM".
Which is the right way to do it. There are 45 possible hybrids just using PHB species, it doesn't make sense to list them all, and letting players mix and match is just asking for even more munchkinism than is already possible.
If you want brutish/muscular orcs you can still do that, just like the book has art of brutish/muscular dragonborn, humans, and dwarves.
This piece of art is not the only one we will get for orcs in the entire edition. If it doesn't appeal to you, try turning the page.
i think not adding in some type of point system to build your "half race" character the way you think they would be when being mixed from two different species was just lazy on their part. Other systems have been able to make half races work amazingly and no one has a problem with them. i really hope in the DMG or Tashas 2.0 or some other book they fix it and add something like it in.
A point system for constructing species is absolutely a valid design, but it has unavoidable side effects related to synergies and anti-synergies (if you give a species two traits, depending on their synergies, they may wind up being better or worse than would be expected by looking at each trait in isolation; if you try and retrofit a point system to some pre-existing options you inevitably wind up with some of those options just not working within the budget) that they may not have wanted to deal with.
Plus, there's the simple fact that while a build-a-bear point system is one valid option, that doesn't make static blocks invalid. Some systems use one, some use the other.
They could have developed a point-based system, but it's quite naive to say that not doing so is "lazy." It would be a significant design problem, and amateur designers have been flailing at it, for D&D specifically, for decades.
Also, a sizeable contingent of their market would rebel at the idea, because "it's not D&D!" or some other hidebound response. Lots of people want it to be the way it is (or was), where "choose a species/background/whatever to go with your class" has better/worse answers, that reinforce the stereotypes of the world (elves are wizards, orcs are barbarians, that sort of thing).
Thank you for swooping in to speak to the motivations of all of us uncultured grognards, but it's not about specifically having "natural wizards" and "natural barbarians" and suchlike. It's about races having a distinct identity as one of the "roles" people are choosing to assume for this roleplaying game. If every character is just an individual chimera of attributes on that front, there's no roles to build from.
I mean, species that are better or worse at specific classes still exist, it's just not tied to ability scores. A high elf wizard has multiple advantages over an orc one - the orc just isn't starting off with an outright deficiency anymore.
I'm not sure about "multiple"; it's slightly better than Magic Initiate in that it snags a 2nd level spell as well, but you only get one wildcard pick instead of three. It does benefit a class with spell slots more than a class without since it broadens their overall repertoire slightly, but for the purposes of a typical game of D&D I wouldn't say either is clearly "better" by an appreciable margin at this point. Adrenaline Rush and Relentless Endurance don't exactly hurt a spellcaster, giving them extra mobility to attempt to avoid getting boxed in and extra staying power to help compensate for lower HP and AC.
Eh, I'm not particularly convinced by the advantages of a high elf wizard -- yes, they get a few more spells, but a number of other options (including orcs) have significant durability advantages. Looking at the species, the only one that still feels significantly pigeonholed is the dragonborn, because their breath weapon has gone from "useless for all classes" to "useless for classes that don't have extra attack".