mechanicalmaniac wrote:Hill Orc does not have a single positive casting aptitude.
Fire +1.
The worst thing about a HOFE (for example) is that right out of the gate, you have greater than 10% failure on flame tongue and (IIRC) only 2 MP. After the
very early game (like D1 and half of D2 maybe) your ability to cast your core spells is only
slightly worse than a high elf (fire +1, conj 0 vs. fire 0, conj. +1, but HE have better intelligence and—far less important—better spellcasting apt). On the other hand a HO has much better HP and can pick up weapon skill and fighting more easily, and your aptitudes and stats tend to push you more toward a focus on armor.
But more to the point, I think you are putting too much emphasis on (positive) aptitudes. For the most part, if a species has reasonable stats and hp/mp, and you take the average aptitudes for the main skills you are interested in developing for certain play style that you have in mind, and the number comes out to around -1 or better, and none of those main skills are at lower than -2, then you shouldn't have problems staying ahead of the curve.* Draconians, gargoyles, hill orcs, humans, demigods, merfolk, demonspawn, etc., all have at least a few book backgrounds that they are solid in, to start, and all of them can pick up weapons and take a hit well. Of those, some will tend to gravitate toward wearing heavier-than-leather armor, as well.
*Note: Some species like Trolls and Naga have other stuff going on that overwhelms consideration of aptitudes, so I didn't include them, but actually trolls (for instance) make for great "tanky casters" as well, even if, on paper, the aptitudes would not seem to support it.