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

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:35 am

Your race is a factor in what your character can and will do.

No one's disputing that. what we are disputing is that your race making your dwarf who isn't gimli be at -1 to a noteworthy part of his character without +1 to an EQUALLY IMPORTANT part of his character is a good idea. it'd be like making protoss units cost more than terran units but have the same stats. Who cares if they cost 5% more for no advantage? Everyone. And giving marine-analogs two more units of sight range isn't going to change that. Because the baseline for a good character isn't +0 to somthing, it's really how good somthing is compared to whatever you give to people without receving penaties that balance that out.

Also, i seem to have trouble with analogies.

EDIT: I already pointed this out, but what's good for stratagy games (Night elf archers being the best of the four races) is bad for RPGs, because it means that if you play a dwarvan rifleman then you lose to a night elf archer of the same level. If they average to get two more points of damage over five turns, and you only have 6 more hit points than they do, and most archery duels last twenty turns, then they kill you and take your stuff.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:40 am

You could be a worse archer, be better at runes, and wind up being an equal character.

So a dwarf who isn't Gimli should have something he can do from the "dwarf list" that applies. And by that, I mean the "I'm a dwarf. My racial features are _____ and (?) of the following:" list.

As for the rifleman example: Yeah. But if you are tough enough that your inferior archery is compensated for, it wouldn't be as bad.

Or had something that you could do with a rifle that a bow doesn't provide even if an archery duel winning thing isn't it.

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:42 am

that only works if dwarf features and ranger class features mesh just as well as elf features and ranger features.

If that's what you mean, then i'm glad that you've actually come around.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:47 am

Elves do better at "being rangers" due to having a couple bonuses to things that rangers rely on. They do not do better at "proficient adventurer" since dwarves have things they do that being a ranger isn't helping (or hindering).

Being able to work out as equivalantly effective just means that while you might be a worse "Can you snipe this?", you can be a better "I shoot holes in its hide because my thing can penetrate its armor."

However, if you ask someone who is a better archer, "guy who pierces armor" is not usually how we describe what makes Robin Hood the best archer.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 4:08 am

Elennsar wrote:Elves do better at "being rangers" due to having a couple bonuses to things that rangers rely on. They do not do better at "proficient adventurer" since dwarves have things they do that being a ranger isn't helping (or hindering).

So "being a ranger" isn't 'doing what a ranger does in a party', it's 'doing the intersection of what a ranger does in a party and what an elf is better than a dwarf at'.

I think I understand why this argument has been so circular: nobody else has been using that definition.

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 4:09 am

Let's say that being a dwarf makes you get +3 to appraise. Let's say that that somehow makes them better rogues because rogues need appraise at level*3. let's say further that rangers need spot, listen, and hide to be effective with ranks plus bonuses equal to 2*level, and have appraise as a cross class skill. let's say that each time a ranger levels up, he gets 7 skill points.

Now let's say that elves get +2 to spot, listen, and hide checks.

Result? The elf gets a cool six skill points to spend on cool things that a dwarf doesn't, or is 10% better than said dwarf at doing things that keep the dwarf from spending those six points without getting screwed if he feels like it.

Meanwhile, we'll give dwarves +3 Use Magic Device and +3 to swim checks while wearing armor and +3 tumble so the dwarves are as better at being rogues than the elves as the elves are better at being rangers and give the elves some skills which are cross-class for rogues so they've got neutral backround skills.

The elven bonuses are nicely stacked with being rangers and the dwarven bonuses are not. The elven bonuses don't stack as well with being rogues as the dwarven bonuses. The other side powers either of them has is like being able to give +1d6 to your melee weapon attacks as a wizard. They're cool, but you're focused on other things to the extent of them not mattering.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 4:18 am

So "being a ranger" isn't 'doing what a ranger does in a party', it's 'doing the intersection of what a ranger does in a party and what an elf is better than a dwarf at'.

Rangers do multiple things, but "scout and track" are a bigger part of "I am a ranger, which means I can do this (and someone else focused on another class can't)" than how well you make gadgets (equally useful), so a guy with bonuses to scouting and tracking is better at that as a ranger than a guy who has penalties.

Gadget man makes up for it as a character because his gadgets do things worth doing.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 5:10 am

IF ( [ {Ranger} + {Elf} ] + [ {Fighter} + {Dwarf} ] ≠ [ {Ranger} + {Dwarf} ] + [ {Fighter} + {Elf} ] );
THEN
Unbalanced();
ELSE
Balanced();
END

Okay? If these two parties are not equal, then you, as a DM, as a game designer, have failed.

You can totally say one of the parties cannot exist in your game. Please don't bring up that side argument again.

Please don't bring up the 'works on a 15 vs works on a 17' or the percentages - because that means that 10% of the time, one group succeeds where the other one fails. That's important in the long run.

Please don't bring up 'other dwarfy things'. Those other Dwarfy things can and must matter as much as the Elfy things do. If that means making race skills into class skills or axes as useful as bows... Then so be it.

But if you make it so that it's unbalanced, at the most base of choices you give your players?

I haven't called you an asshole yet, but you're racking up the people who are.

-Crissa

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 5:19 am

Code: Select all

Error&#58;
  Function applied to incorrect argument.
    expects&#58; &#91;<equality>&#93; * &#91;<equality>&#93;
    but got&#58; &#91;<non-equality>&#93; * &#91;<non-equality>&#93;

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 5:20 am

Because the idea that anything might actually be INFERIOR in ANY WAY that actually slows down anything is being an asshole. Right. Uh huh.

No. Fuck that.

Just because pikes exist doesn't make them good weapons for adventurers to use and I refuse to either eliminate them or make them useable.

You have two things as an adventurer.

Your class features.
Your racial features.

A member of a sneaky race does better at being a class involving sneaking, a member of a nonsneaky race does worse at it.

However, the nonsneaky guy has SOMETHING ELSE he does that is equivalantly useful.

And if the elf succeeds at scouting and tracking on a X and you need an X+2, unless you have nothing equivalant, that is FINE.

Overall "I can face things at a reasonable level of proficiency for my level" should be the same unless you make a rotten choice (and those are like pikes.). Your ninjutsu may be weaker as a race that makes a poor ninja. Good thing your kick-fools-in-the-teeth is stronger, you wind up as equal if things add up right.

So a race with +1 to hit fools with axes should wind up being able to adventure with a guy who gets +2 to Stealth (assuming those two are balanced).

If they're not balanced in terms of things you do, that's a seperate problem from whether or not guy #2 makes a better ninja (which relies a lot more on your Stealth roll than your to hit roll).

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 5:28 am

Elennsar wrote: Just because pikes exist doesn't make them good weapons for adventurers to use and I refuse to either eliminate them or make them useable.

Maybe that would be a valid argument if you could pick up or put down "dwarf" or "ranger" as easily as a pike.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 5:33 am

The point is, things that are not advantageous 80% of the time exist because 20% of the time they are.

Being a guy who can only use a pike would be pretty terrible in a rpg (or even a dungeon crawl...pike usefulness really is that limited)

Its not like there aren't people who learn how to use pikes, however.

So a dwarven ranger is at a disadvantage 50% of the time. And since we want to be at a disadvantage more like 10% of the time if that*, we stamp "You would be well to avoid this."

Some dwarves do become rangers and manage to survive because they're able to avoid the majority of situations they fail in.

After all, while a giant ninja is a pretty bad ninja amongst humans and halflings, he might be sneaky enough amongst other giants.

*: No option is always going to work well, since we want to give other people a chance to shine if nothing else.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 5:41 am

...And instead of fixing the balance error, Elennsar goes ahead and leaves it in their game for people to trip into, like some forgotten pit trap behind the goblin lair.

Not because they couldn't stop people from choosing it.

Not because they think choosing it would be un-fun for someone.

Not because it would leave two players, two groups playing on different power levels.

So, why do you leave it in the game? Because it's useless? What does that mean?

You want some characters to be full of fail? Why?

-Crissa

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 5:45 am

If you are "tripping into" "Hey I get a penalty to do things that are important to this class, maybe I should take this class anyway!"

Then I don't think you're able to recognize what a weak point is to work around it if there was an option to use your Con mod to Stealth or something.

Not all things should be useful the same amount of the time. As stated, pikes exist and are used despite the fact they're useful less of the time.

"Pikeman" is not a class, because the ways it is useful don't assist an adventurer nearly often enough to make up for the ways it sucks.

Its not even a very desirable choice for an individual soldier.

Doesn't mean there aren't pikemen, however.

And eliminating the pike is not a solution.

So how is it a "trap" when it is actually visible that "Dwarf+Ranger=inept more of the time."?

Because people won't read "Hey. Unwise to build an army around my town's ranged attackers when playing the Warlock in Heroes II"'s equivalant in a rpg?

If that's the case, I hope they suck. I didn't write something about what works (or doesn't) for it to be ignored.

zeruslord · Post by **zeruslord** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 5:48 am

Elennsar wrote:
If I sit down and play a dwarven ranger and my friend plays an elven warrior in the same game, we need to be equally good at adventuring. Not at whatever is officially The Ranger Schtick, but my dwarven ranger and his elven ranger need to average out across the board. I don't care how it happens, at least in this debate, but it does need to happen. I don't give a crap that there's a guy out in California who has a dwarven fighter who's better than his friends elven fighter. That in no way repairs the fact that I am sitting down at a table and playing a strictly inferior character to other characters at the table.
Bolding the part I'd like to have happen in any "I'm not as good at this class" that isn't "avoid this!"

If Dwarves are bad at the "Ranger Schtick", then unless "Dwarven ranger" is "Sure, you could take it. You could ask to use 2d6 to generate stats, too.", the other things Dwarves do need to keep up with it. Class=all your skills and abilities is probably not a good thing.

Did you even read past the bold part? Because your response is to say that my post is correct and then totally contradict my entire point. I don't care if dwarven fighters keep up with elven rangers, because I will never play a dwarf fighter.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 5:56 am

Ignoring the right-angle derail that is the pikemen - like I said, Eliza all the way.

What does the game gain for having these traps?

-Crissa

...Is this the fourth or fifth time I've asked that question?

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 5:57 am

Then do something else dwarves do well at.

If you don't want to do a dwarven fighter, and there are fighters/clerics/rogues/wizards, and dwarves make bad rogues, then you have two other choices that have different abilities.

The "fighter niche" is not the "ranger niche", which is why we have a ranger class and a fighter class.

If none of the niches that your race can do well at appeal, then play another race.

The reason for the bolded part is that my point is that while you might be worse at some specific aspect, your "I am an adventurer. I have +x to solve stuff." should end up being equal.

If you are inferior at class A, you should have something you do that is good enough to make up for inferiority at class A, if taking class A isn't a "Don't do this! We warned you!"

You could still be an inferior class A, however.

Crissa: Stop using the word "trap" for "any option that is less than optimal".

It is not a trap when it is "Yes, you will suck at this." clear as day. It is not some invisible "Ha! Gotcha!". It is "If you want to be a good _____, you need ______. Race _____ doesn't have _____."

What does the game lose for having some races be inferior at some classes that must be addressed by prohibiting any minotaur from taking any wizard levels ever (if minotaurs as poor wizards is one of those things)?

If half-elves are said to be proficient monks, they damn well better be. But if they're -bad- monks, that is not necessarily a problem.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:00 am

Okay, fifth time.

What does the game gain for having these traps in it?

Because it's kinda a strange RPG where your Dwarven Ranger gets to be a Wizard tomorrow and a Ranger today and a Ranger the day after that - like using that Pike.

-Crissa

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:04 am

Fifth time. It gains that "Hey. Maybe being a half-orc ISN'T a good idea." without a totally arbitrary "NO! NO HALF ORC MAY EVER TAKE WIZARD LEVELS!"

It is not a trap.

zeruslord · Post by **zeruslord** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:13 am

I think the problem may actually be a failure to communicate.

When we say that race A is an inferior class X to race B, we mean that a race A class X character is a worse adventurer than a race B class X character. If you don't use these terms on this board, there is a risk of having a 15 page thread devoted to telling you that you are wrong. It's like saying that greater and less don't include any multiplication.

Talisman · Post by **Talisman** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:14 am

Two points:

Regarding pikes: pikes are a trap. They appear to be a valid option, yet they do not live up to the claim. Seriously, who uses a pike? Nobody.

Pikes in D&D "exist" in the same way that chainmail or half-plate or the Toughness feat "exost:" as meaningless words on a page. They are not valid options, yet they are presented as such. Ergo, they are traps.

Regarding this:

It may not win a shooting duel with an elf, but it is useful for archery things as opposed to "no archer! NONE!"

A dwarf archer who hs practiced long and hard with a bow had damn well better win at archery things against all lower-level elves.

Also, "archer" is a concept, not a class. Not every race can fit every concept. This is okay because classes cover multiple concepts.

And this:

As for players and nonplayers: There ought to be no reason why Joe being a PC suddenly makes him okay when he was sucky as an NPC.

If Joe is of a PC class, he cannot be sucky unless he, personally, was designed that way.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:16 am

Yes, but what does the GAME gain from having that trap in it? In what way is this better? What bonuses does the gameplay have for having this content? How does this make the game faster, easier, more fun to play?

What does it gain from having deceptive options?

What does it gain when one group is not playing at the same level as another?

What does it gain that one player's character is better than another player's character at what limited screen-time it gains?

How does this help the game in any way?

Saying 'The rock is a rock!' says nothing about the rock. It's a rock in the game's shoe. How does that make the game better instead of worse?

-Crissa

zeruslord wrote:I think the problem may actually be a failure to communicate.

Maybe, hence writing it in pseudocode or asking the question in a dozen different ways in this post.

It's not like Elennsar ever changes, aside from mentioning things which are annoying tangents. Hence by page 13, I'm ignoring these tangents instead of engaging them.

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:31 am

I see the problem (well at least one of them). Elennsar, you have a very narrow vision for the ranger (given your examples). There doesn't seem to have much room in creating a place for races to be "equal but in different aspects of class".

Why can't the dwarf be just as good as the elf just in a different aspect?

[ex. Elves are better at surviving in the woods, while dwarves are better in the mountains, etc. While any ranger can survive anywhere you are optimizing if you bring the dwarf to Mount Everest. (This only for one small aspect of the ranger)

Also I suggest dropping the pike analogy since it was pretty weak analogy.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:32 am

When we say that race A is an inferior class X to race B, we mean that a race A class X character is a worse adventurer than a race B class X character.

And if that is NOT the case (which is my desire as much as possible), all is well.

Being a worse ninja doesn't make you a worse adventurer if ninja is a role. Being at -2 to all things you do because you're a race A class X, but you have other things than ninjutsu on your "can do things as an adventurer".

A dwarf archer who hs practiced long and hard with a bow had damn well better win at archery things against all lower-level elves.

Lower level, yes (as reliably as anyone else beats said lower level). Equal level, no.

I say the "as reliably as anyone else" because a +1 edge with the d20's randomness may or may not mean a win in any given archery contest. But that's the d20 at work, not the dwarf's poor archery skills.

On pikes as a trap: They -don't- look desirable if they're actually described in a halfway decent way, instead of being described in a halfassed way.

Same with chainmail (which literally has no reason to exist in D&D...by the time you can afford it, you can afford a breastplate).

Toughness is underpowered, unfortunately there appears to be no consistent standard by WotC of "normal power". There's just the useful feats and the suck feats.

But if a pike has "only useful a very limited amount of the time, and you will never be in those situations", then it isn't a trap. Chainmail is a deliberately inferior option, and Toughness probably is as well.

If Joe is of a PC class, he cannot be sucky unless he, personally, was designed that way.

That ought to be true whether I'm holding the sheet and you're DMing or if you're holding the sheet, however.

If you want Joe the Average NPC Of Your Level to be weaker than us PCs, make him weaker because we are equal to the Above Average mark (say, 30 point buy instead of 25). But an NPC built with the same points as me should not be inferior because "he's only a NPC".

As for a "different aspect"...

Because "reaaallllly broad classes" don't appeal to me.

Or races, or anything else.

"But they do to us!" does not mean that it is better design to have your preferences than mine.

As for the pike analogy: The point is that it exists despite the fact no PC will ever touch one unless trying to suck. It's meant as an example of "inferior so much of the time it is a bad choice except in the specific cases when it comes up as handy".

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 7:21 am

Answer Crissa's fucking question, Elennar, I'm getting tired of you dodging it.