4E Drow in chainmail bikinis should get a +5 damage bonus.

[Talisman]

Talisman: If you set things up so that +2 vs. a -2 is enough to make the difference between a power band (a +/-2 modifier, not a +2 to an ability score), then the power bands are too narrow.

Agreed. I never said 2 points (or even 4 points) of stats differentiated power bands. I was comparing a half-orc bard (weak race + weak class), an elf barbarian (moderate race + halfway decent class) and a dwarf wizard (strong race + strong class). It was a deliberately exaggerated example.

As for second edition: I don't see what's wrong with that unless you want to allow every possible race-class combo.

Nothing at all. The point is, if you don't want half-orcs to be wizards, just flat-out tell people "half-orcs can't be wizards in this campaign." Don't sabatoge the race/class combo then leave it open...this just creates a trap for newbies.

I don't think anyone is saying a half-orc wizard has to be optimal, just that (if allowed) it has to be viable. I don't demand a +2 Int race to play a wizard, but a -2 Int race with no synergystic features is not viable.

Elves make good archer-rangers because they get +2 to Dex, a stat archers need, and +2 to Spot and Listen, two skills rangers typically have. Humans also make viable rangers despite the fact that their Dex, Spot and Listen will never be as high - their racial features make them viable, if not optimal. This, IMO, is an example of good class/race balance.

So, do you (plural) want every race to be identical except for cosmic fluff that will mean literally nothing whatsoever except possibly which minature (for those who use minatures) you use?

That's what it would take to have no one ever superior to anyone else of their level. Everyone would be absolutely identical except for the dice rolls.

No. That's Option #1 I described a while back, and by far the worst IMO.

I'm okay with some races being slightly better or worse than others at certain classes. I'm not okay with Race A being so much better at a given class that no one picks anything else, or Race B sucking so hard that no one ever picks it.


J_E: I think you broke the thread.

[Crissa]

If an option is worse than another option, it really shouldn't be an option.

While you may want Human Warriors to be the best in the world... If you allow Elven Warriors in your game, they need to be able to step up to the plate and overcome the same challenges. This means they need to have the same basic bonuses, or get some other bonuses that balance out elsewhere.

The reason this is, is because this is a game first, and a story second. There's nothing stopping you from giving out some sort of bonuses or limitations on NPCs... But when you give a player a less optional choice from the basic set they have to choose? It isn't fair.

I hate this argument. We've had it before. Successful games have differences without making races or classes less optimal at their roles.

...If only Wizards had taken that lesson from Blizzard, instead of the aura one...

-Crissa

[Elennsar]

Ahhh. Misread your point.

As for leaving it open: The point is, if you say "Technically, a minotaur could be a wizard, but wizards require Intelligence and minotaurs have -4 to Intelligence.", the kind of newbie who would fail to recognize that means the "There are no known minotaur wizards." isn't just "until the PCs come along!" is literally too stupid to play.

As for the balance in general...I agree. I'd make elves get a slightly bigger advantage. But not much more. (Assuming I wanted elven archer-ranger to be better). +1 with bows, yes. +4? Sounds too generous.

So I think a +2 is enough to be "better but still even with", and -2 is probably "this is a bad idea but survivable" (though that I'm not as sure on).
Beyond that, its really a "Technically, nothing stops a minotaur from being a wizard." thing that needs to be made clear (which I think is doable without saying "You cannot pick the wizard class as a minotaur.")

The trick, though, is that if minotaurs are supposed to be a playable race, to make sure that they have something equally good to balance out being bad wizards.

Now, if a race is better than its class level would indicate, what do we do?

Seperate discussion. ECL as written is a bad idea. But some sort of ECL system might be good if it really is equivalant to a class level.

[Gelare]

There's a point here I think I'm missing. I see stuff like this:

The point is, if you don't want half-orcs to be wizards, just flat-out tell people "half-orcs can't be wizards in this campaign." Don't sabatoge the race/class combo then leave it open...this just creates a trap for newbies.

And this:

If an option is worse than another option, it really shouldn't be an option...when you give a player a less optional choice from the basic set they have to choose? It isn't fair.

Now, if I have two choices, A and B, and I like A better than B, I will pick A. If someone adds a third choice, C, that I don't like at all, I can still just choose A.

I'm sure you all have some good reason for saying that D&D must make all race/class combinations balanced, I just honestly don't know what it is. Is it really, as Talisman said, to prevent newbies from getting lured into the trap of picking an inferior race? If so, why not just stick a warning label in the half-orc race description or wizard class description that says, "It is highly inadvisable to play a half-orc wizard unless you want to be gimped"? I mean, what if my group this week has decided to play an interlude to our typical plane-hopping, world-saving heroics called "Gimpy character festival" where we each choose the options that we know are ill-advised, where the kobold fighter and the dwarf sorcerer and the half-orc wizard and the half anthropomorphic baleen whale bard all get together and stomp intentionally ridiculous encounters? Why on earth would you say that people are not allowed to play those characters, rather than just note that they are, in fact, generally ill-advised? That's without getting into the fact that what we all agree is sucktastic tech might combine with some obscure sourcebooks we haven't perused recently to give a character access to kickass synergies? Why should we presume to know better than everybody who might actually want to play a half-orc wizard? Yeah, you're right, some race/class combinations do seem to be generally inferior, but why not just tell people so rather than forbidding them from choosing them?

[Elennsar]

Regarding an option that is worse: Its not an "option". Its a "Yes, you could pick up a bow as a dwarf, but you'd be a bad archer."

And as for differences: Blizzard only managed perfect equality (or near it) in Warcraft 1 by making humans and orcs virtually identical. And even there, there are things orcs couldn't do and humans could that may or may not be perfectly equal...though I think they're pretty close, overall. 2 broadens the "different to the point orcs are better at some things and humans are at others". 3...I'm not sure on 3, don't ask me. Starcraft, on the other hand, is a nice balance. More or less.

So elves may make sucky Fighters. Elves are good rangers. So an elf can compete at the same level a dwarf can, even if an elf can't do the same stuff.

Gelare: I don't know. Saying that "dwarves cannot become psionics because the talent does not exist in the dwarven race." is a cannot I can understand.

Same with anything else requiring something that may not even be present in order to do at all.

Personally, I'd go with the warning label. Anyone who cannot tell that a race with an Intelligence penalty is bad at being a wizard is too dumb to play D&D.

Or reading a truly badly written book.

Now, the fact half-orcs are only decent at classes that suck is a problem, but that's because every fighter sucks compared to the wizard. Not because half orcs thusly suck.

[Gelare]

Now, the fact half-orcs are only decent at classes that suck is a problem, but that's because every fighter sucks compared to the wizard. Not because half orcs thusly suck.

No contest there. It just seems to me that variety, at the very least, does not make you worse off, because you can always just choose whatever your favorite option was before the variety was introduced, and it has the fringe benefit of possibly making someone somewhere who has different preferences than you better off.

Allow me to give an example that will probably be summarily rejected: speeding tickets. Roads have speed limits. When I'm driving and see a sign that says "Speed Limit 45", that sign does not say, "It is absolutely forbidden to drive above 45 MPH, under penalty of death." It says, "If you have a very good reason, you are welcome to choose to exceed the posted speed limit of 45 MPH, but be warned that you run the risk of being ticketed and fined if you do so." This is, I should stress, not a perfect example of the point I wish to make, and is not the basis of my argument, but I hope that will be illustrative to people who might not get what I'm thinking about.

[Elennsar]

It seems to be a reasonable example if not taken too literally to me.

Sure, you could ignore the warning, but you'd suffer the consequences.

However, you would do so because either you were an idiot (in which case there's not much to be done to help you) or you chose to accept them.

I'd say "penalty of instant death". As in, you hit 45.1 mph and you explode (picked because...well, let's just say you don't want to know it and it isn't relevant).

Just to make it a little clearer.

[zeruslord]

The option to be different from the stereotype is a good thing. The problem with Drizzt is the sheer amount of ripping off that occurs, not anything inherent in the original character. In your "perfect" world, all dwarves may be heavily armored, bearded axemen, but everyone else wants to at least be able to deviate from the stereotype.

In addition, you are making different characters in the same party unbalanced. This is a Bad Thing.

[Elennsar]

The option to be different than the "stereotype" is a good thing. The option to be different than what the race actually does.

So in my "perfect" world, most dwarves are heavily armored, bearded (as a racial thing, dwarven beards are thick...as a cultural thing, dwarves consider "gray" to mean more than "long", however), and use short swords and spears not unlike the Roman legions. Entirely seperate discussion, that, however. (If you're curious, Longstreet: http://ngeorgia.com/ang/James_Longstreet is actually a pretty good, if too tall, image of what I think a dwarf should look like. Note the beard, especially. Thick but not all that long.)

But there are dwarves who are different than that. It is not necessarily true that every single dwarf has a beard reaching to his waist, an axe, and heavy armor for that to be what dwarves do best and/or most often.

There probably are dwarven rangers, even if they're not as good as elven rangers, and some dwarves use crossbows (they're too short to use longbows effectively and shortbows are ineffective weapons on foot...their advantage is that you can use them on horseback).

Treating it so that you should run away screaming from the idea that dwarves are more likely to be bearded axemen (and that PCs should actually be reflective of their race, not something freakishly uncommon, to some extent) is as unreasonable as insisting that every dwarf be exactly the same. Maybe more so, because that ensures Drizzt clones.

As for unbalanced: No, you're making it so that some characters actually do better some of the time. This is a GOOD Thing.

If the elf ranger is so much better than the dwarf ranger that the dwarf just plain sucks, but an elven archer-ranger should be a better archer-ranger (and maybe even a ranger in general) than a dwarf archer-ranger...the dwarf is better at something else equally good and we'wre all happy.

But PCs who are freaks being the most common form of PC ensures that the ripping off of Drizzts is commonplace.

You can't have "unusual" actually be atypical unless "usual" is actually common amongst PCs as well.

[Crissa]

Humans vs Orcs contains nothing that Wizards took for 4e.

You're just being a hard-headed story troll, Elennsar. Give it up. Like I said, we've had this discussion many times, and you're just making for a game that will upset players.

Go back to the beginning.

[*]What advantage does the game gain that there are poor choices in the basic categories of race and class?
[*]What advantage does the game group get, when a class or race gets a 'bonus' used with one other class or race? If you have two elves and two dwarves and four classes; but the players chose the 'wrong' combos, why should the group be mechanically inferior?
[*]Why should there be a basic flavor choice which is suboptimal for a player to use?

The answer to these questions would lead you to using far less words to explain your position.

-Crissa

[Elennsar]

No. Which is unfortunate, because 4e manages to be both uninterestingly bland and still unbalanced.

As for advantages:

Why should they be equal to the point that it is completely irrelevant in every single class?

I'm all in favor of having elves be slightly superior at being rangers (for instance), dwarves, humans, half-orcs and gnomes being average, and halflings being inferior (their bonuses do not compensate for their weaknesses).

Assuming halflings are a playable race, they'd do well at something else, which elves would do poorly at. Meanwhile, the other races would also have their area/s of strength and their area/s of weakness.

What I'm interested in making is a game where one's choices actually have something to do with something, instead of a form of Monopoly where all choices are identical so it is completely irrelevant whether you have a dwarf or an elf.

If you give dwarves "different but equal" advantages, you wind up with "what if the group is in situations where these come up more often?" to "unbalance" things.

So long as the dwarf and elf are each able to do interesting and useful things, and the classes are equal, that an elven archer is a better archer than a dwarf is only upsetting if you want to be both a dwarven archer and the best archer.

Unless a dwarf is an inferior archer (as in, -1 to use bows), its still level fitting, and if the penalty is small enough, it may be level fitting even with the penalty.

The game gains nothing but blandness from making it so neither race is better at archery or rangery.

[Ice9]

Any kind of ability you give to a race is going to be more useful for some purposes than others. Let's say you give Elves something like "Hide in Shrubbery". That's still going to help a sniper Rogue out more than, say, a Knight who must issue a challenge before attacking. So Elf Knight is - to a small degree - a less powerful choice than Elf Rogue. And so by some people's logic, it is a horrible newbie trap that should be purged with fire.

And as far as "all bonuses, no penalties" goes - that doesn't actually fix anything, it just puts a different face on it. In fact, it can limit choice more, because where previously the suboptimal choice for Wizard would have been races with an Int penalty, now it's everyone without an Int bonus.


I'd like to note that complete creative freedom and gameplay are, to a certain extent, mutually exclusive. Because height/weight/hair-color have no mechanical effect, there's no penalty for picking whatever you want. There's also no gameplay involved. If class choice didn't change what abilities you had, you would be totally free to pick whatever class you felt like, and play it however you wanted - a Wizard who exclusively used fisticuffs, for example. It would be meaningless from a gameplay perspective, because gameplay means meaningful decisions, which means that - at least for a given goal - there are right and wrong choices.

[Crissa]

You could, I dunno, actually answer the questions instead of sliding past them.

Different and interesting is one thing.

However, mechanically inferior is not.

Please, take more time to answer my questions, Elennsar.

-Crissa

[Elennsar]

Different in any way worth remembering will inevitably mean something at some point.

Because it is so insignificant in D&D as written, I literally don't care whether my character is short or tall.

3e was a tiny bit better in this regard. I think 3.5 and 4e have nothing where my height will ever matter, unless the DM says so.

So if it doesn't matter at all what race my character is...I'll be exactly as good a ranger in all scenarios...and I'm playing a ranger...

I'm going to have to be persauded to even write it down. Because I won't waste brain cells remembering something that won't matter at all.

It'd be like coming up with whether my character is gay or not for a dungeon crawl campaign. I would be literally wasting pencil lead and note taking space and brain cells.

As for answering your questions:

#1: It gains the advantage that the races are actually different from each other, with different strengths and weaknesses.
#2: As above, it means that your choices actually matter. You actually benefit from playing a race familiar with certain things.
#3: See above.

Otherwise, you play Monopoly pieces, or wind up with potentially interesting details being lost in the sea of "totally irrelevant so you don't need to note it".

Borrrrrrringggggggggg.

Now, if being a dwarf or being a fighter is an inferior choice, then that is a problem.

But if being a kobold fighter is a bad choice, that only eliminates one thing from a list of a dozen possibilities for kobolds and as many for fighters.

Still plenty of choices other than "I guess I'll do a dwarven fighter...again."

If the AC I have as a guy using a rapier and no armor is the same as a guy with heavy armor and a shield, why would I bother using heavy armor and a shield? Because I like the look?

That's not very appealing.

[Kaelik]

Yeah, I haven't seen anyone addressing the "Fight in Different ways, but equally" argument in pages.

Apparently it wasn't an easy enough target, so Elennsar went back to decrying Phone Lobster's idea from page 2 some more.

[Elennsar]

"Fight in different ways that are identically effective" is the same as going to Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay's "hand weapons" for every standard melee weapon.

There are times two handed is better, there are times one handed with shield is better, there are times that swords beat axes, there are times axes beat spears...

But if those times never come up, then you're doing PL's all-things-are-clones.

Now, if sword and shield is superior all the time in all possible scenarios, that's unbalanced, but having it be better defensively is unbalanced in the same sense that elves being better at one class is.

In other words, it isn't.

[Psychic Robot]

Shouldn't "different but equal" be the standard? It's boring to have everything be the same (4e), but it sucks to have a vast power disparity between classes (3e). Why not give players enough options to so that even an unconventional fighter (such as an Int-focused character) can function?

[Elennsar]

Because that essentially means "it doesn't matter what choice you make" at all.

You'd do just as well doing a "conventional" fighter (Str, Con, dex in that order) as a Con-as-a-dumpstat.

And that means that there's no reason other than "Ummmm, I feel like an Int fighter today. Just because...well, I haven't played an Int fighter in a while."...just like picking the hat for a change when you usually play the dog.

The ideal, in my opinion*, is that that you can build a good ranger (bonuses to stuff rangers care about) without making the "average" ranger too weak for the level, and you can make it so that each class has stuff it does worth doing.

Of course, "a good fighter" might well either be the strength-and-con or a dex-and-wis fighter...there's no One True Fighting Style, after all, so you could build several things that would be viable warrior types.

Sometimes you'd want a knight. Sometimes you'd want a ranger. Sometimes you'd want a barbarian. Etc.

But "I want to play a barbarian who uses the sling" being just as good as "a barbarian who uses an axe"...is a bit much.

*: This is all opinion to some extent, after all.

[Crissa]

#1: It gains the advantage that the races are actually different from each other, with different strengths and weaknesses.
#2: As above, it means that your choices actually matter. You actually benefit from playing a race familiar with certain things.
#3: See above.

How does this benefit a gaming party?

How does this benefit an encounter?

How does this make the game more fun?

Think about my questions - the first set, which you haven't yet answered, please, Elennsar.

-Crissa

[Elennsar]

It benefits a gaming party or an encounter that there are times that it is an advantage to have an elf instead of a human or a human instead of an elf, so a party with an elf benefits from that elf's presence.

Sometimes you're more challenged, which is not a bad thing, assuming it isn't too challenging.

As for "more fun"...

Well, if having to deal with racial strengths and weaknesses is unfun, then why have seperate races?

If its just a roleplaying thing that justifies having nonhuman races, there is no possible personality that you can roleplay an elf having that you could not roleplay a human having.

Assuming you're a human. If not, well, that may not apply.

So either your race actually means something, which is not always a positive something, or your race is irrelevant, in which case there is no reason other than appearance to pick any race over any other.

I did answer your questions, the fact that I think that "your choices actually matter." is a sufficient answer and you don't is a seperate problem.

So here is my question. If the guy with +2 (racial modifier) and the guy with -2 are both able to meet a CR X challenge, where X is their level, but the guy with +2 has an easier time, what is the problem?

[Aktariel]

Sweet fucking CHRIST.

Does anyone have a solid, tenable, defensible, arguable position here? I feel like I'm wading through molasses and spirit gum just trying to figure out who's on what side right now, and it seems like the only point that remains is "Elennsar vs. Almost Everybody Else."

For four fucking pages.

This is like arguing with a wall. You're not going to get far.

Unless, of course, Elennsar is about ready to see the light, but he seems to be arguing for some sort of wishy-washy roleplaying game based on game mechanical effects. Oh, and he wants to play "real-world" or close to it DnD.

I'm not sure why we're continuing to bother, other than the fact that it's always nice to try and convince someone. But since we can't seem to get through to him, and he has a burning conviction about How Things Should Be, I wonder why he's here at all, since we're not particularly going to change. Nor, apparently, is he.

[Elennsar]

My position:

Your choices should matter. Some choices are better than the standard. Some choices are inferior to the standard.

Being an elf, for instance, may make you a better ranger, a minotaur a worse wizard, but an elf would be a worse fighter and a minotaur would make a better barbarian.

Each would have strengths and weaknesses, thusly.

PCs should not (generally) be freakishly atypical.

Humans without powers beyond those we have in real life should have similar abilities and level of ability to what we have in real life. If we assume such powers exist, then fighters should develop them as well as wizards, however, assuming equal level.

A race with a +2 to X is not necessarily overpowered and a race with -2 to X is not necessarily underpowered at doing things at the same level that involve X.


So, if you've a reason other than "but I want to play a minotaur wizard because I want to be atypical and not suck!", I'd like to hear it.

[Username17]

Anything which is supported by the game should be supported. Anything that is not supported does not have to be. If you make will-o-wisps as playable characters, I'm willing to accept that they can only be members of classes that use magic because they can't use swords. Sure, whatever.

But if your game is supposed to support something, then it should be level appropriate. Period. So if there are playable Minotaur Wizards like Canabulum, then they should be playable.

If there are supposed to be Kobold Fighters as playables such as Torgo or Kelly Gavin, then those should be level appropriate as well.


Whatever level something is allowed to be, it should be playable and competitive at that level. That is what a leveled system is. So no, you don't have to let people play a 3rd level Archmage, because Archmages are defined as being 13th level and above. But your game should make an Archmage a viable character for those levels. It's totally fine to set a level minimum for Minotaur Fighters. Maybe even Minotaur Fighter is 4th, or even 6th level just for walking on the field. But that should not make him better than any other character of the same level.

---

Now as it specifically happens, in D&D official rules, a Minotaur Fighter is a very tough fight for a 4th level Kobold Fighter, and may actually be better (having a much worse AC but doing substantially more damage). However, the PC Minotaur Fighter is seriously asked to walk into a game next to an eighth level Kobold Fighter, who will just bind him up and rip him to shreds. The "more levels" advantage that it gives to basic races like Kobolds is so much bigger than the "more strength" bonus it gives to minotaurs that it's not even funny.

But in an ideal leveled system, the Kobold and the Minotaur would both be competitive at the same level in a party. And they would be so at whatever classes were supposedly supported. Now this doesn't mean that every race has to be equally proficient with every action that is available to every class available to it. For example, the Kobold is small and can very plausibly ride a dire weasel into battle and take on larger enemies with a lance - while a minotaur fighter is going to obviously have a very difficult time getting a beast that can be mounted by it into most areas. Only so far you can take the rhino you are riding around if you need to go into a city or a cave. Similarly, the Minotaur Wizard is obviously going to get more synergy from strength enhancing or dependent magics than a Kobold Wizard would be.

If your system claims to support small dex fighters and big strength fighters - and D&D does - then it should actually fucking do so. That should be non-contentious. And this thing where Minotaur Fighters blow and Minotaur Wizards blow even harder is bad for the game.

But remember, while a Fire Giant is on average better in combat than a Dwarf, a Fire Giant character is an 11th level character and a Dwarf character who is in that party is also an 11th level character. So neither one of those specific characters should be more or less powerful than the other. The Fire Giant is from a race that doesn't have 3rd level characters in it, but that doesn't mean that he's any better than a specific example of a character who is in the same party and at the same level as he is. By definition, in a leveled system the less impressive your people are the more exceptional you are. In the Justice League, Superman is a slightly above average Kryptonian. Green Lantern is a one-in-a-billion Wizard who stands far above what any other human is capable of. And they are on the same team, at the same level.

The fact that a Minotaur Fighter can chop his way through the vast majority of Kobolds does not make him exceptional among Minotaurs. And the fact that a Kobold Fighter can keep up with that minotaur makes him very special. If you want to be special among your race, start with a race that normally doesn't amount to much. Otherwise you just get to be Super Girl - not particularly better or worse than any other Kryptonian who happened to come to work that day.

-Username17

[Elennsar]

But if your game is supposed to support something, then it should be level appropriate. Period. So if there are playable Minotaur Wizards like Canabulum, then they should be playable.

If there are supposed to be Kobold Fighters as playables such as Torgo or Kelly Gavin, then those should be level appropriate as well.

But does the game need to support either or both of those in the first place?

Second edition survived quite well without that. And third edition is not written in a way that they're playable, despite being technically permited.

So do we make them playable, or "unsupport", so to speak?

And do we have to have all races who can do rangers (for instance) do it equally well?

Personally, I would want the fire giant to have some advantages over the dwarf and vice-versa, assuming both are meant to be in an eleventh level party together.

Similarly, there are times one is diadvantaged relative to the other even if the other doesn't have an advantage, and that seems fine as well.

Both should be as good overall, but not as good in all ways at all times.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

If you give dwarves "different but equal" advantages, you wind up with "what if the group is in situations where these come up more often?" to "unbalance" things.

Actually, I thought this one was asked and answered a while back too. Over the course of a "typical" campaign with no bias toward a particular kind of encounter, those situations will come close enough to averaging out in the long run. If the DM intends to run a heavily biased campaign, he should tell the players in advance. For example, if the entire campaign is going to take place in a desert region, this should be stated at chargen so people know not to play elven rangers whose racial features are only good in the forest.