Orcs were made a playable race in 5e in Volo's in 2016.  They were still in the MM along with other humanoid races including humans.

From what I have read, they have gone for generic humanoid statblocks that the DM is supposed to flavor to be various races like orcs.  I haven't see any mention of guidelines of what makes the generic statblock an orc or a drow or whatever.  You just give them what you think they should have I guess.  I have also seen nothing about any guidelines about how these charges would affect the creature's CR.  Giving the generic warrior statblock pack tactics to make it a kobold would make them considerably more dangerous in numbers.  Pack tactics is a nasty ability at low levels.  I have seen some people saying that you can add significant extra abilities like pack tactics or innate spellcasting without mipacting the creature's CR.  How does that work? 

I don't mind orcs as a player race but I don't really like dropping half-orcs and half-elves.

Quote from: Ruprecht on February 02, 2025, 09:44:15 AMI don't mind orcs as a player race but I don't really like dropping half-orcs and half-elves.

Can't say I'm a fan either.

My personal favorite version of the half-elf is actually the 4E version who wasn't a straight 50/50 average, but had a bonus to Constitution to reflect the concept of hybrid vigor (ex. how ligers are often bigger and stronger than a lion or tiger, or how mutts are often healthier than purebred dogs).

The official 2024 way to do a half-elf or half-orc is pick either a human, elf or orc and say you're a half-elf or orc (your traits just favor one parent or the other). Which... works... I guess... if you have to.

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 01, 2025, 09:37:40 PM

Quote from: RNGm on February 01, 2025, 09:10:07 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 01, 2025, 09:03:53 PMHalf-Orcs were a player race in 1st edition AD&D. Hearsay, but I've heard that the reason why is that they were a compromise because even back then players were asking for orcs as a player option.
 

Thanks.  I wasn't aware of that.   Third edition was my real gateway into playing D&D but I did buy books for 2e just for the art/lore (and two ultrashort clueless demo games one on one with my buddy as an equally clueless first time GM).

Same, actually. I suspect that's part of why playable orcs don't move the needle for me. The great Orc heel-face turn was really kicking into gear around the time third edition was out.

Orcs were playable as effectively an unlockable race if a player could recruit them as henchmen first. OD&D orcs could be Neutral or Chaotic. Contrary to what the SJWs love to claim. Half orcs indeed were in AD&D and Orcs and a other monster races made it in 2e. Motr in BX/BECMI with the Creature Crucible series.

Quote from: Ruprecht on February 02, 2025, 09:44:15 AMI don't mind orcs as a player race but I don't really like dropping half-orcs and half-elves.

But who really plays a Half-Orc now that they no longer have the Strength bonus?

Dragonborn are the new hotness; because they breath fire.

When their fire breathing ability eventually gets taken away, people will move on to the next new hotness...

We also really need to see the physical MM before we start digging at WotC over the Orc listing.

Knowing WotC they will have it 'listed' in some indirect fashion so they can say: "See, look, right there, Orcs are were not taken out of the MM." "Suck it CHUDS!!"

But if they really did take them out...

Quote from: Jaeger on February 03, 2025, 12:09:38 AM

Quote from: Ruprecht on February 02, 2025, 09:44:15 AMI don't mind orcs as a player race but I don't really like dropping half-orcs and half-elves.

But who really plays a Half-Orc now that they no longer have the Strength bonus?

Obviously, biracial latinx folx.   Did you not see the orc pride month gallery picture!?! 

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 01, 2025, 12:11:03 AM

Quote from: Tristan on January 31, 2025, 11:44:43 PMOh and liches have Spirit Jars not Phylacteries.

To be fair on this one at least, unless it's literally two leather boxes containing parchment with Hebrew scripture and strapped to the forehead and left arm for morning prayers... Spirit Jar is probably a more accurate term given that in D&D since at least 3e the device could be practically anything and was rarely if ever actually carried by the Lich.

I think all the humanoid races should have their own entries though, just because they're playable doesn't make them universally allies. Look at how much we humans seem to love going at each other.

Phylactery was a word that existed before that.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 02, 2025, 07:49:05 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 01, 2025, 09:37:40 PM

Quote from: RNGm on February 01, 2025, 09:10:07 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 01, 2025, 09:03:53 PMHalf-Orcs were a player race in 1st edition AD&D. Hearsay, but I've heard that the reason why is that they were a compromise because even back then players were asking for orcs as a player option.
 

Thanks.  I wasn't aware of that.   Third edition was my real gateway into playing D&D but I did buy books for 2e just for the art/lore (and two ultrashort clueless demo games one on one with my buddy as an equally clueless first time GM).

Same, actually. I suspect that's part of why playable orcs don't move the needle for me. The great Orc heel-face turn was really kicking into gear around the time third edition was out.

Also worth noting is that orcs, goblins, ogres, and trolls (non-regenerating) had been playable from the start in Palladium Fantasy along with humans, dwarves, elves, wolfen, and troglodytes).

The Tolkein-esque only human/dwarf/elf/halfling (plus gnome, half-elf, and half-orc in AD&D) was really just a D&D thing.

Tolkien invented orcs. They literally did not exist before that. The idea of "good" orcs was made up later, probably for the sake of making them a playable race, but it's bizarre to call something Tolkein-esque for not having orcs.

Quote from: Spobo on February 03, 2025, 12:30:10 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 02, 2025, 07:49:05 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 01, 2025, 09:37:40 PM

Quote from: RNGm on February 01, 2025, 09:10:07 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 01, 2025, 09:03:53 PMHalf-Orcs were a player race in 1st edition AD&D. Hearsay, but I've heard that the reason why is that they were a compromise because even back then players were asking for orcs as a player option.
 

Thanks.  I wasn't aware of that.   Third edition was my real gateway into playing D&D but I did buy books for 2e just for the art/lore (and two ultrashort clueless demo games one on one with my buddy as an equally clueless first time GM).

Same, actually. I suspect that's part of why playable orcs don't move the needle for me. The great Orc heel-face turn was really kicking into gear around the time third edition was out.

Also worth noting is that orcs, goblins, ogres, and trolls (non-regenerating) had been playable from the start in Palladium Fantasy along with humans, dwarves, elves, wolfen, and troglodytes).

The Tolkein-esque only human/dwarf/elf/halfling (plus gnome, half-elf, and half-orc in AD&D) was really just a D&D thing.

Tolkien invented orcs. They literally did not exist before that. The idea of "good" orcs was made up later, probably for the sake of making them a playable race, but it's bizarre to call something Tolkein-esque for not having orcs.

I call it Tolkien-esque for not having playable orcs because the races were originally limited to those of the Fellowship of the Ring; humans, elves, dwarves, hobbitshalflings. Everything else was initially NPC-only (Gygax had a bit on how you could play as other things; a Balor was an example; provided you made it have a level progression and certain other restrictions, but there were no actual rules for how to do this; at least until later editions).

Quote from: Spobo on February 03, 2025, 12:27:44 PMPhylactery was a word that existed before that.

The word dates to the 12th Century AD. I guarantee the Jews were using the item before that name got assigned to it.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 01, 2025, 08:43:25 AM

Quote from: Zalman on February 01, 2025, 05:19:31 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 01, 2025, 12:11:03 AM

Quote from: Tristan on January 31, 2025, 11:44:43 PMOh and liches have Spirit Jars not Phylacteries.

To be fair on this one at least, unless it's literally two leather boxes containing parchment with Hebrew scripture and strapped to the forehead and left arm for morning prayers... Spirit Jar is probably a more accurate term given that in D&D since at least 3e the device could be practically anything and was rarely if ever actually carried by the Lich.

Yeah, as a Jew I always found the use of the word jarringly incorrect, but never offensive.

What does offend me is some goy telling me that the word needs to be removed for my sake. Trust me, "some of that guy's best friends are Jewish."

I think it needed to removed for the same reason I don't like seeing claymore or zweihander or brigandine in fantasy equipment lists (unless it's literally historical Earth). In terms of the historic users and their languages they're 'Big Sword' and 'Two-Hander' and 'soldier's armor' (though for clarity I'd call it a 'coat of plates').

So to actually have the feel of a native in the fantasy society (where common isn't actually English except by convention for the audience) those things should be called what they would in the vernacular.

Spirit Jar just feels like what it should be called in a vernacular fashion.

No they shouldn't. The foreign words sound cooler.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 01, 2025, 10:48:50 AM

Quote from: Ruprecht on February 01, 2025, 09:15:35 AM

Quote from: Tristan on January 31, 2025, 11:44:43 PMOh and liches have Spirit Jars not Phylacteries.

My guess is a lot of kids are calling them Horcruxes anyway.

Horcrux sounds cooler too, but I guess "soul jar" gets points for literal functionality.

I don't understand why they don't rename the lich too. It's also linguistic appropriation. The word is a real word in English meaning a regular old corpse. The monster should be renamed to Undead Wizard King or something.

Meanwhile, the name zombie is cultural appropriation from Voodoo. The zombie should be renamed to lich, matching the work of Clark Ashton Smith. Or perhaps animated corpse?

Every word and every concept that currently exists was invented by someone who is dead.
There is no such thing as cultural ownership. Cultures aren't real things that exist in the world, and neither is appropriation. A culture is just a group of people who happen to believe similar ideas about various topics, and appropriation is just people exchanging ideas with each other.

When someone else says a word, that doesn't prevent you from also saying a word. Ideas can't be appropriated. They aren't real. Expressing a preference for a particular aesthetic choice or a way of behaving is morally neutral.

Communication and trade are good.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 01, 2025, 12:11:03 AMTo be fair on this one at least, unless it's literally two leather boxes containing parchment with Hebrew scripture and strapped to the forehead and left arm for morning prayers... Spirit Jar is probably a more accurate term given that in D&D since at least 3e the device could be practically anything and was rarely if ever actually carried by the Lich.

The term "phylactery" is most closely associated with Jewish tefillin, but that's most likely a result of English translations of the New Testament using the term that way.  It's also used to describe amulets (ranging from hollow pendants to inscribed spells or prayers), small Christian reliquaries, Native American medicine bags, and probably more things beyond that (e.g. the Dumbarton Oaks phylactery, the phylactery of St. Margaret, this early Byzantine example, or this pendant).

I don't have the time or inclination to research this in depth, but it seems like the original ancient Greek term was used to describe a protective, as opposed to curative, amulet (we get the term "prophylactic" from the same root: "to guard").  The Greek word entered Latin, where it acquired the connotation of an amulet containing something magical or holy (this is presumably when it came to be associated with tefillin and small reliquaries), and then in the late 14th century it entered English either from Latin or from a French word derived from Latin, where it became associated with tefillin but also retained its other meanings.

Given that the term "phylactery" doesn't just mean tefillin, and it carries with it the connotation of a container for something magical or holy, it's actually not a bad fit for an object that can house the soul of a lich.

What's interesting is that in the original Monster Manual, a phylactery is mentioned as one of the things that allows a lich to maintain its undead existence, but what a phylactery is or what it might do isn't explained.  The idea of an object being prepared for the soul of the lich to flee to when defeated is introduced in a 1979 Dragon Magazine article that uses the term "jar" not "phylactery".  So the precedent for "soul jar" is there, too.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 03, 2025, 04:47:14 PM

Quote from: Spobo on February 03, 2025, 12:30:10 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 02, 2025, 07:49:05 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 01, 2025, 09:37:40 PM

Quote from: RNGm on February 01, 2025, 09:10:07 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 01, 2025, 09:03:53 PMHalf-Orcs were a player race in 1st edition AD&D. Hearsay, but I've heard that the reason why is that they were a compromise because even back then players were asking for orcs as a player option.
 

Thanks.  I wasn't aware of that.  Third edition was my real gateway into playing D&D but I did buy books for 2e just for the art/lore (and two ultrashort clueless demo games one on one with my buddy as an equally clueless first time GM).

Same, actually. I suspect that's part of why playable orcs don't move the needle for me. The great Orc heel-face turn was really kicking into gear around the time third edition was out.

Also worth noting is that orcs, goblins, ogres, and trolls (non-regenerating) had been playable from the start in Palladium Fantasy along with humans, dwarves, elves, wolfen, and troglodytes).

The Tolkein-esque only human/dwarf/elf/halfling (plus gnome, half-elf, and half-orc in AD&D) was really just a D&D thing.

Tolkien invented orcs. They literally did not exist before that. The idea of "good" orcs was made up later, probably for the sake of making them a playable race, but it's bizarre to call something Tolkein-esque for not having orcs.

QuoteI call it Tolkien-esque for not having playable orcs because the races were originally limited to those of the Fellowship of the Ring; humans, elves, dwarves, hobbitshalflings. Everything else was initially NPC-only (Gygax had a bit on how you could play as other things; a Balor was an example; provided you made it have a level progression and certain other restrictions, but there were no actual rules for how to do this; at least until later editions).

That doesn't make any sense. The game you were talking about earlier also had Humans/Elves/Dwarves/Halflings, plus some others. That's a Tolkien thing. Orcs are also a Tolkien thing. Adding more playable races doesn't mean that you've somehow moved past it, you're just adding other fantasy stuff on top of it.
Balors are also a Tolkien thing, they're Balrogs. Treants are Ents. They actually had these original names, including Hobbits, earlier on.

QuoteThe word dates to the 12th Century AD. I guarantee the Jews were using the item before that name got assigned to it.

As Quasquetonian just pointed out, the name was "assigned" to it hundreds of years later in the King James Bible.

Guys, the point is WoTC removed the word "phylactery" and also Orcs as a monster for one reason:

WoTC is retarded.

And we all know....

Quote from: Spobo on February 04, 2025, 07:40:07 AMAs Quasquetonian just pointed out, the name was "assigned" to it hundreds of years later in the King James Bible.

Just so there's no misunderstanding, the first English use was in the Wycliffite Bible, which I think was about 200 years before the King James Bible.

Quote from: Domina on February 03, 2025, 11:57:07 PMNo they shouldn't. The foreign words sound cooler.

They're not actually speaking English, so arbitrarily pulling words from other languages is nonsensical. If I was doing the worldbuilding, then I would have their speech rendered as Anglish to give the desired feel to readers. So no words from Romance or African languages.

Therefore, the Anglish translation would be "soul jug", "walking lich" (reanimated corpse), and "undead wizard king".

EDIT: and "bewitched boneframe" (reanimated skeleton). More examples here: https://anglish.fandom.com/