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

[Kaelik]

Talisman, apparently you don't want to play D&D.

One of the fundamental conceits of D&D is that Monsters can be PCs to.

Some of them might suck, some of them might be accepted into non-monster school, but really, they can be PCs.

[Elennsar]

Kaelik: Do you mind posting (or linking us to the post of) Fundemental Conceits of D&D?

Is this a personal list, or something WotC produced, or Frank, or...?

[Crissa]

No, Talisman really is telling us the truth: D&D isn't, (and the people who own the name) and doesn't seem to want to support monster PCs.

If the races don't have PC stats, they're really not playable. The fact that they sold us books saying it was possible while in fact writing rules that made for a poor outcome was just sadistic on their part.

But in the PHB there are things which stack and things which don't. Look at the title of the thread. That's something that shouldn't happen. Just because you chose to play the tomboy Drow shouldn't mean that you're mechanically inferior.

Yes, that probably means coming up with something for the Dwarven Ranger to do. But you know what? There's an underground, mountainous, stone related skill for every tree one. There's no reason a Dwarven Ranger should suck compared to an Elven one, over a series of challenges.

If you want to know what challenges, go back to see the challenges we came up with for testing New Edition.

-Crissa

[Elennsar]

If Drow get bonuses for dancing around in mail bikinis, then why should they get equal bonuses for being Tomboys?

Insisting that someone be able to play the archetype/norm/stereotype/whatever and be able to play the freak means that there's no reason other than a lack of desire to do something different to not do something different.

And presumably, most drow do what they do because they feel its a good thing to do. Having that be even in all ways with being an oddball is weird.
(As an oddball human, I hope its at least possible to play one, if not necessarily desirable, though.)

Still. If Drow tomboys are meant to be unsupported, that requires setting things up so that this premise is accepted as one of the factors of drow, rather than designer fetishs.

Personally, I'd rather support Tomboy drow, but that's a seperate discussion.

Also, a note: All comments on Dwarves as inferior (as in penalties by race) rangers are hypothetical. I'm not sure if that's been as emphasised in my writting as in my head, however.

So an Elf might make a better-than-standard ranger in some specific skills, and then there'd be some situations elves handle better and some dwarves do, and some dwarf things that rangers would find useful.

Ideally, there are more desirable options than undesirable, overall. At least in regards to the standard PC races (which may or may not be at all like the PHB's races, but an illithid is probably not going to be adventuring with an elf, a human, and a kobold nearly as often as a half-orc, for instance.)

[Crissa]

What good does it do the game to have one special combo get a bonus?

Why is A + 1 win while B + 1 blah?

How does this make for a better game?

This is just going around in circles again.

-Crissa

[Talisman]

Talisman, apparently you don't want to play D&D in the way that I, Kaelik, believe it should be played.

Fixed it for you.

One of the fundamental conceits of D&D is that Monsters can be PCs to.

Some of them might suck, some of them might be accepted into non-monster school, but really, they can be PCs.

Crissa got it right. Monster PCs in 3.x are a trap, just as much as a half-elf monk is. You can play one. You can take Toughness as a feat eight times, but if you do you're an idiot.

Monsters have totally different requirements from PC races. There will be exceptions - there always are, especially in a game as big as D&D - but at least 95% of the monsters with LA suck if played as intended.

[Elennsar]

Because presumably, if you want to play an elf, you want some trait (not necessarily an advantage, but something worth making a point of) that you can't get playing a human.

So an elf should have that.

And if its just "elves are good in the woods, dwarves are good in the mountains, and humans can pick -anywhere-", that's not really fufilling the role of "I am a nonhuman, that means something that being a human wouldn't duplicate."

Beyond that, there does need to be support for at least, assuming a race with a minimum of atypicals, the 90% scenario and the 10% scenario.

The overwhelming majority of drow may use rapiers...but if your drow is strong enough to use a longsword effectively, then he should be able to compete at CR fitting stuff without being gimped, even if its not quite playing to his racial strengths as much.

Whether "drow with greataxe" needs to be a viable option is another story entirely (to be discussed as part of drow racial creation, rather than a generalization, because while some races do go for "broad" more than "deep", some do the reverse).

Talisman: Does any race manage to avoid sucking as a monk?

[Talisman]

Talisman: Does any race manage to avoid sucking as a monk?

No, because the monk class sucks. I used that example deliberately, because it's a weak race and a weak class, both of which are perfectly legal (they're in the freakin' PHB) both in combination and separately.

They are a trap because a newbie will see them and think "Hey, that sounds like a cool concept - I'm a half-blooded outcast, but I kill people with my bare hands!" And that is a cool concept - it should be possible - but half-elf monk is still a trap.

If something is presented as a valid option (not necessarily optimal; just viable) and it sucks, it's a trap. E.g., monsters-as-PCs are a big, ugly trap.

[Crissa]

Look, Elennsar, you're spouting gibberish again.

You used percentages. There are no percentages in the game. The character is in the game 100% of the time, and is not another character any percent of the time.

This:

And if its just "elves are good in the woods, dwarves are good in the mountains, and humans can pick -anywhere-", that's not really fufilling the role of "I am a nonhuman, that means something that being a human wouldn't duplicate."

Contradicts this:

...then he should be able to compete at CR fitting stuff without being gimped, even if its not quite playing to his racial strengths as much.

Hence: Gibberish.

Look, some people really do want to play Elves and Dwarves as just being different humans. I'm okay with that. Personally, I don't care if your goblins are blue, they're some sort of human to me because they have two arms, two legs, and a head with a human face or mask thereof.

But that's not what we're talking about, and it's gibberish for you to bring it up. We're talking about being to fulfill the roles in the game - and if the Drow needs that +5 that they only get from using chainmail to compete, then the classes that don't get chainmail are shafted, and shouldn't even be an option for the Drow.

-Crissa

[Elennsar]

Yeah. That is cruel.

If the half-elf race was a little better and the monk a lot better, it wouldn't need to be optimal at all.

As is, its somewhere between laughable and depressing.

Seriously. What did they do to playtest this crap? It was produced by drunken lemurs (cookies for reference).

All options should be (and clearly be) one of:

Optimal. (guys with high Wisdom and Dexterity make the best monks)
Desirable. (guys with Strength and Constitution bonus have aren't bad monks, but its not ideal)
Valid. (It doesn't help directly to have a high Cha or Intelligence, but there are things you can do that are very useful with them while being a monk. It just doesn't directly help "hitting fools with your barehands")
CLEARLY A BAD IDEA STAY AWAY. (guys with a Wisdom or Dexterity penalty)

Unfortunately, in order to play a monk that doesn't suck so badly as to be more of a drain on party resources than he contributes, you have to be optimal (and even then you probably still are because the class gets so little of any value).

And that is fail. "Less than ideal" should never fall into "unable to perform at all" unless D&D is far more competitive than I think at least some of us want to play it as.

Look, some people really do want to play Elves and Dwarves as just being different humans. I'm okay with that. Personally, I don't care if your goblins are blue, they're some sort of human to me because they have two arms, two legs, and a head with a human face or mask thereof.

But that's not what we're talking about, and it's gibberish for you to bring it up. We're talking about being to fulfill the roles in the game - and if the Drow needs that +5 that they only get from using chainmail to compete, then the classes that don't get chainmail are shafted, and shouldn't even be an option for the Drow.

-Crissa

Thank you for pointing out what you're objecting to! To (hopefully!) clarify...


If you could do exactly the same thing with "human", you wouldn't be writting "dwarf" on your sheet. Something about saying "I'm a dwarf" is cooler. It may not be better in any situation ever, but its cooler.

If being a human will be absolutely identical in all ways and all you did was write "dwarf", there's no point having nonhumans. You gained nothing by having the 'option' of saying you're a dwarf.

As for the roles in the game:

You could design things so that you get +5 (which is a higher bonus than I'd assign with the way things are set up, but that's a seperate problem from "any bonus") for wearing chainmail, but you get +0 for most other options, and only if you do something like "wear plate armor" do you get a penalty.

That would be how I'd do it. You get some actual advantage to wearing chainmail/being an elf scouting/a dwarf with runes/whatever, do just fine without that, and only suck if you pick a sucky option, like a race with an Intelligence of 6 being a wizard.

The overwhelming majority of options should be "you won't regret picking this race", unless we have racially specific classes/kits to a far greater extent than I think we want to create.

That any clearer?

[Kaelik]

Crissa got it right. Monster PCs in 3.x are a trap, just as much as a half-elf monk is. You can play one. You can take Toughness as a feat eight times, but if you do you're an idiot.

Monsters have totally different requirements from PC races. There will be exceptions - there always are, especially in a game as big as D&D - but at least 95% of the monsters with LA suck if played as intended.

You and I are clearly using different definitions of Monster. Yes anything with LA is a trap. But LA =/= monster. Half the things with LA are just big humans. Or big humans from space.

I am talking about Kobolds, Spellscales, every lesser planetouched (cause if I talk about the actual ones, you'll yell trap and ignore my point), Druids, anthro creatures, cat people, psychedelic color dwarfs, big fat ugly people, insects, whatever. D&D goes out of it's way make playable races that look, act, and think like monsters.

D&D is about letting you be whatever fucked up concoction you want, and so yes, playing PCs on team monster, or goody two shoes defects from team monster, is part of D&D.

[name_here]

Okay, try this idea: The elf ranger gets a list of elven rangery powers. the dwarf gets a list of dwarven rangery powers. they can each pick from these lists. an example dwarven ranger power is, "For the purpose of ranger class features, all armor you wear counts as being one class lighter than it actually is and the armor check penalty to move silently is reduced by two, to a minimum of 0" An example elven ranger power is, "You treat all cover short of full cover as 1/2 of the actual cover value for ranged attacks, rounding up."

Okay, i doubt those two are even close to balanced, but it's the general idea. My original example was just intended to show the idea that the races are better at some things than others, but average out to hopefully be as useful overall.

[Elennsar]

That'd work. I would not say that we should avoid having some options be bad, but since "Dwarves are bad rangers" is hypothetical, that is the actual ranger list I'd want.

Maybe elves are better scouts. That's only part of the class. The "shsoot fools in the teeth" part may also be an elf thing.

I would not want to get within axe reach of the dwarf, and I would expect him to be be able to laugh off attacks, natural and otherwise.

However, "I'm too tough to hurt." isn't the mental image of "master ranger" nearly as much as "I can hear you breathing."

[Talisman]

Crissa got it right. Monster PCs in 3.x are a trap, just as much as a half-elf monk is. You can play one. You can take Toughness as a feat eight times, but if you do you're an idiot.

Monsters have totally different requirements from PC races. There will be exceptions - there always are, especially in a game as big as D&D - but at least 95% of the monsters with LA suck if played as intended.

You and I are clearly using different definitions of Monster. Yes anything with LA is a trap. But LA =/= monster. Half the things with LA are just big humans. Or big humans from space.

Yes, we seem to be using different definitons. Here's mine.

A monster is a creature that exists to be a challenge or a plot point. Mind flayers are monsters. Dragons are monsters. Angels are monsters. Werewolves are monsters.

A race is a creature that is designed to be compatible with a party of humans. Planetouched, kobolds, spellscales, half-giants and so on are races, because they were designed as races, not as monsters.

Orcs are also a race, because their mechanics, while not great, are functional for a PC. They can serve as a challenge, but so can any race. A race can fill a monster's role to a certain extent, but a monster can't fill a race's role.

Taking a creature that is intended as a challenge for a party, tagging a number on it, and saying "there, be a PC" is wrong. 95% of the time, it doesn't work because races and monsters have different requirements.

D&D is about letting you be whatever fucked up concoction you want, and so yes, playing PCs on team monster, or goody two shoes defects from team monster, is part of D&D.

So it claims. However, for an ogre PC to work well, the ogre species has to be designed as a race first and a monster second. A laudable goal, but not an easy one, especially if you demand that Stonehead the Ogre Barbarian have the same mechanics as the Faceless Ogre Guards of the Evil Giant King.

[Crissa]

When you write 'dwarf' on your paper you gain flavor. It's the same flavor as writing Arabic or Korean, but it's a flavor, nonetheless.

That's all around a positive aspect. There doesn't need to be a mechanical or stat difference for you to have a reason to write something different atop your sheet.

Now, if your dwarf has the option to be a ranger, but is denied a chest of tools that all go to elves that become ranger, that sucks. Because the elf that becomes a ranger will in all ways be better than the dwarf. And that makes a poor game via spotlight mechanics, CR mechanics, and heck, 'what makes a fun game' mechanics.

-Crissa

[Elennsar]

Not arguing, but if you had exactly the same traits in every fething way and it was literally irrelevant whether you put "Arabic" or "Korean", you'd have to convince me to bother.

Whether you accept your culture or reject it, it shapes you in ways that other cultures would not shape you.

It just does have to offer something that being human doesn't. Flavor is quite sufficient if you have a cool enough flavor. But it has to have that, at least.

Okay. My bad for not clarifying better.

As for dwarves and rangers: Here's the thing.

If "Bad choice" is a possible outcome, that means that "minotaur wizard" is only an "option" in the sense "cripple" is an "option".

However, while dwarves may not get some (limited) bonuses, they might have in the "do dwarf things" things that elves don't have access to that are still CR fitting, even if the things they have in common (Perception, Survival, etc.) the elf could/would win at.

But yes. If you say "this is playable. Honest.", you had damn better not be lying. Doesn't have to be the best to be playable, but it must be able to do the level appriopriate stuff. If you run into AC 25 at level 7, then anyone meant to hit fools with weapons needs to be able to hit AC 25. Even the archer dwarf if possible (though it might be a bit harder, it has to be something he can do without natural 20s breaking the usual dice+mods system).

Either say that its unplayable to do a minotaur wizard or make a minotaur wizard playable. The only option 3 is not having minotaurs (or not having wizards).

Whew.

[name_here]

Well, it makes a good stratagy game mechanic for your rangers to be gimped and your fighters to be awesome. But it makes a good RPG mechanic like being gimped with fighting protoss but awesome with fighting zerg makes a good mechanic for the terrans.

[Elennsar]

Assuming being a fighter is just as useful as being a ranger, it meets the "underpowered race?" test.

It may not meet the "but players may want to be rangers" test, but that's a seperate issue from the mechanics balancing.

[name_here]

Assuming being a fighter is just as useful as being a ranger, it meets the "underpowered race?" test.

It may not meet the "but players may want to be rangers" test, but that's a seperate issue from the mechanics balancing.

But we want the players who want to be a dwarven ranger to be balanced, at least at the same level of optimization and in the same game test.

[Bigode]

Assuming being a fighter is just as useful as being a ranger, it meets the "underpowered race?" test.

It may not meet the "but players may want to be rangers" test, but that's a seperate issue from the mechanics balancing.

Are you going to have a playable combination in the game? Then it must as close to as good as anything else as possible, not even a bit less. I don't care how, it must be.

[Elennsar]

Thus the fighter comment.

No, Dwarf+Ranger (and why am I using dwarves an example here, anyway) is not one of the playable combos.

Doesn't mean there aren't playable combos for ranger or for dwarves.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Okay. My bad for not clarifying better.

As for dwarves and rangers: Here's the thing.

If "Bad choice" is a possible outcome, that means that "minotaur wizard" is only an "option" in the sense "cripple" is an "option".

However, while dwarves may not get some (limited) bonuses, they might have in the "do dwarf things" things that elves don't have access to that are still CR fitting, even if the things they have in common (Perception, Survival, etc.) the elf could/would win at.

But yes. If you say "this is playable. Honest.", you had damn better not be lying. Doesn't have to be the best to be playable, but it must be able to do the level appriopriate stuff. If you run into AC 25 at level 7, then anyone meant to hit fools with weapons needs to be able to hit AC 25. Even the archer dwarf if possible (though it might be a bit harder, it has to be something he can do without natural 20s breaking the usual dice+mods system).

So a dwarf ranger is situationally better than an elf ranger, and vice-versa? Sounds good.

Either say that its unplayable to do a minotaur wizard or make a minotaur wizard playable. The only option 3 is not having minotaurs (or not having wizards).

Amen.
Maybe minotaurs don't need Int to make great wizards, because of their crazy good memories. Maybe any wizard is automagically smart, because otherwise she wouldn't have been a wizard in the first place.

[Elennsar]

And some situations elves have bigger numbers but both get the ability (both get Perception, elves just have a Perception bonus), so elves might be superior at the class.

But overall...pretty much. Elves do elven rangery things and dwarves do dwarven rangery things and either is level appriopriate an cool.

Minotaurs...I'm for "not playable" (as a race, they balance poorly with other races and I'm okay with leaving them there), obviously. But if that's done, that has to be done honestly.

I don't like the automagically smart option, because it means that being smart naturally doesn't wind up helping.

But it is a viable option, if we have no positive Int playable races. It certainly means we have more races able to take a shot at being wizards, which is not inherently a bad thing.[/i]

[name_here]

And some situations elves have bigger numbers but both get the ability (both get Perception, elves just have a Perception bonus), so elves might be superior at the class.

But overall...pretty much. Elves do elven rangery things and dwarves do dwarven rangery things and either is level appriopriate an cool.

I'm still opposed to either being better at the class overall, and preferably neither is better at a given level.

And yeah, some races don't really work in the party. It'd be nice for some to be set up like PC races that are more hardcore, though. The monster with fighter levels is traditional. Just ban the players from picking them if they don't work in the party. Those races can be allowed to be better at some classes and worse at others, so long as mixed-race communities of monsters don't show up.

[Elennsar]

I'm starting to hate communicating as if to an alien race (or as one).

My neurosis and its effects on dealing with other humans aside...

Here's the thing.

Elves get elven things.
Dwarves get dwarven things.
Elves get +2 to Perception and Survival, say.
Dwarves get -2 to Perception and +0 to Survival. (assuming we want dwarves to be "bad rangers" as opposed to fair).

Slight advantage to being an elf.

However, "dwarven things' are things that are sometimes necessary, and elven things don't always apply.

So to belatedly respond to this...

But we want the players who want to be a dwarven ranger to be balanced, at least at the same level of optimization and in the same game test.

Not necessarily. Having every race be just as good means that there's no room to have a race that is better at anything ever.

And having a race that struggles at something or doesn't do something at all is also removed.