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

[Elennsar]

Let's see. Some races are bad at some things.

It is not a trap to not say "and you are FORBIDDEN TO TAKE THOSE THINGS".

I'm a bad archer because I took the Shaky flaw. Should I be unable to use a bow AT ALL so that I don't fall into the "trap" of thinking I'd be an okay archer?

Baaaaad idea.

Now, being bad at archery ought to be made up for elsewhere, but a class dependent on archery is really not a good option for me.

And if my race has a trait like Shaky, then gee, it ought to be pretty goddamn clear that being an archer is not really a good option.


I've answered this before and if you're determined to pretend this isn't an answer, that is on YOU.

[Crissa]

Did Elennsar say anything that made sense?

'Cause I'm totally not sure what their position is, after that post. Well, after many of their posts. Usually there's a second post where they take a position, unlike the prior post.

-Crissa

Oh, there they go, they're back to saying traps are okay in games, but I don't see an answer of why or how that makes it a better game in any measure. Maybe. I dunno. What do you think Elennsar said?

[zeruslord]

The problem is, in fact, that when Elennsar says that dwarves make bad rangers and elves make good rangers, he does not mean that elf rangers are more powerful characters than dwarf rangers, he means that elf rangers are better at the subset of Adventurer schticks that we have labeled as Ranger Things. However, dwarf rangers are better at things that are not Ranger Things, making them equally good at Adventuring, which is capitalized for a reason.

OHMIGOD, COMMAS!

[Elennsar]

Did Crissa read anything Elennsar wrote, or did they make a reference to something I don't get to make a (not) witty comment?

If your race has "-2 with bows", it really, really, really, really should not need to have "FORBIDDEN TO TAKE DEEPWOOD SNIPER" for someone to get that "Hey. I'd suck at that." to penetrate the skull of anyone who can read and add.

And if you can't read and add, having +2 with bows wouldn't help you.

Zerus: If we were talking face to face I could hug you. Failing that, have an e-cookie.

Yes. Ranger Things are a -part of- what you need to be level appropriate. So the dwarf ranger does more of something else that is also necessary so even if he can't compete directly with the elf, its an apples and oranges, not a rotten apple vs. a fresh one.

Now, the minotaur is an unplayable wizard, which is okay, because minotaurs were on our "not really playable anyway" list.

If he is a playable option, we need to ensure he has other stuff to make it so that "can't be a wizard" is an "oh well" instead of eliminating one of the few things out there.

Or make him like the dwarf in the ranger example, but that'd be a different minotaur.

[Crissa]

Where'd Elennsar say that, zerus, and where was that related to the discussion at hand, anyhow?

Remember, Elennsar is tossing around bonuses equal to two levels to some races using their preferred weapon. You know, that one number that makes up the majority of a physical damage class rolls.

So either you're a level 3 character out of the shoot, or you're a level 1.

Did Elennsar ever say why this was a good thing, Zerus? 'Cause that's what I've asked in my last I've-lost-count posts.

-Crissa

[Elennsar]

Well, I presume that we want bonuses to things you do well large enough that you care to have them.

As for related to the discussion at hand:

The discussion at this moment is what I said and what I mean by what I said.

If you want to ensure that a race that is good at archery is no better than any other race at archery except by being higher level, then you have removed "better at archery" from the options.

Why not remove Weapon Focus, while you're at it? That gives you a level's advantage over someone who took another feat, too.

And Improved Initiative. That's +8 to Dex for purposes of Initiative. Damn. BROKEN POWER!

[Crissa]

When faced with a question, we get evasion again. Instead of answering, or wondering, we get...

And Improved Initiative. That's +8 to Dex for purposes of Initiative. Damn. BROKEN POWER!

I mean, what does this have to do with races and classes that are given as approved options in the game, anyhow?

-Crissa

[Elennsar]

When faced with an answer that doesn't fit your preprogrammed "acceptable answers", its rejected.

The reason is that you need to get a modifier large enough that "good at" actually MEANS anything.

It may or may not be necessary to make you equivalant to a higher level, but it has to be better to have a racial bonus to Perception than to not for purposes of Perception or you're not getting any benefit to Perception from it.

If I wanted to be able to pick something else because my "maximum possible bonus at level 1" was filled up that easily, I'd pick something else to excel at -to begin with-.

[Crissa]

One would expect you'd answer related to the question.

How does this imbalance make for a better game?

-Crissa

At this point, Elennsar is mostly showing an example of 'It makes the game better because it makes me feel good to see players win or fail to see the combos I made into the character creation metagame' or 'I feel good to notice there are good and bad choices in the most very base flavors'

And this leads to, 'flavor should be an option, flavor should cost power.'

[Elennsar]

It makes the game better for your choices to actually mean something about your abilities instead of having "hand weapons" to avoid the issue of balancing axes and swords.

That means there will be times one thing is inferior. That is true of BOTH things. So long as both are overall useful, they are good enough.

"Elves are good at being rangers, half orcs are bad at being wizards" is something that is part of the setting and is represented BY the bonuses or penalties.

Not some metagame exercise totally unrelated to the setting.

If you are unable to tell that wizards need Intelligence, and unable to tell that half-orcs lacking Intelligence hurts half-orc wizards more than +2 to Strength helps wizardry, then you are not likely to wind up with a good wizard regardless of whether half-orcs have "can only be ____" or not.

Flavor doesn't have to cost power, but insisting that all possible people have to be equal people is absurd. If you ask to play a runaway serf, you are asking to play something less powerful and you will be told that.

Doesn't mean there aren't runaway serfs in the world.

[Crissa]

So, what do the choices say about the game designer who put in deliberately bad choices that a player cannot pick up sometime later in the game?

What does it add to the game table that you all come to the table, and then laugh at the poor sap who's playing a character two levels behind everyone else?

-Crissa

[Elennsar]

What does it add to the game table to eliminate strong options by ensuring picking "elf" adds nothing to your archery ability when elves are supposed to be good at archery as one of their strengths (and not so good at something else so that they're even with others)?

[Lago PARANOIA]

What does it add to the game table to eliminate strong options by ensuring picking "elf" adds nothing to your archery ability when elves are supposed to be good at archery as one of their strengths (and not so good at something else so that they're even with others)?

Because elves being good at archery is just stupid setting-based flavor text.

Seriously. There doesn't have to be a genetic reason why elves are so good at archery. It could be something as retarded as Spartan-style training camps or the fact that all of the other races think that it's too cowardly to shoot people with wooden sticks.

Let me stress that. There DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A RACIAL REASON WHY ELVES ARE GOOD AT ARCHERY.

[Lago PARANOIA]

So what does this mean if you want to simulate a race of elven archers in this world? It's really fucking simple.

The vast majority of elves in the world really prize archery over any other kind of fighting style. So if you metagamed and looked at an elven militia's character sheets, you'd see the most of them took the fucking point blank shot and rapid shot feats.

I really don't see what's so hard about this.

[Elennsar]

So let's say elves have England's longbow law in effect (all sports but archery are banned on Sundays so that you must practice the longbow).

That WILL MEAN that elves become good archers.

Now, if you grow up raised by something other than elves, you don't get that, because it was a cultural thing. But most elves are raised in elven culture.

However, it could be a bonus because elves have the genetic traits that make good archers to a stronger extent than humans do...better eyesight etc.

Lago: The fact that it does NOTHING to make "elves BETTER archers". It means elves are merely "more often" archers.

[Fuchs]

I strongly suspect that Elennsar's problem is not rooted in philosophical difficulties, or game concept differences, but in one thing:

He can't bear the idea that an elf is not the best choice for his vision of a ranger (Which seems to be mostly "archer in the woods").

The very idea that a dwarf PC could be as good at "ranged attacker in the forest" as his own elf PC ticks him off, no matter if all other dwarves in the game world - the NPCs - would be incompetent with bows.

[Elennsar]

Unfortunately, you are incorrect.

My only elf PCs have been melee based.

IF elves have the "good archers" trait, then they should BE good archers.

If it was merely "are more often archers", then they can easily get that without any bonuses to anything to do with archery.

However, that was not the trait desired with "elves are good at archery".

[Lago PARANOIA]

Lago: The fact that it does NOTHING to make "elves BETTER archers". It means elves are merely "more often" archers.

A race that has a higher incidence of picking the archery profession means that they on the whole will be better archers.


That is really as far as you need to go to force the retarded 'elves make better archers' storyline.


What we DON'T need are kobold archers or dwarf archers always being worse than elven archers with an equal amount of training.

That's meanspirited and insulting. If you're going to use the rules to force whatever retarded railroading character development you want, why not just tell players up front 'look, if you want to be an archer in my campaign, you can only do it as an elf'.

If that's what you want, show some fucking balls and cut the bullshit.

[Psychic Robot]

Essentially, the arguments so far have come down to this:

Is it better to eliminate bad choices at the cost of options, or is it better to allow bad choices with the benefits of having a wider array of options?

For me, it's the latter. Your mileage may vary. And before someone screams false dichotomy...

With the D&D stat system the way it is, there's no possible way to ensure that all race/class match-ups are equally viable. Stat boosts and penalties are going to affect the game significantly, especially when they get into the +4/-4 or higher/lower range. Some characters are going to get hammered by their stat penalties, while others are going to be much stronger (a +2 Cha/+2 Int race as a fighter, for instance, just isn't going to benefit that much from his stat boosts).

Then there's the issue of verisimilitude. For instance, let's go back to the minotaur example. A minotaur is a big fellow (Large size) and he's very tough (high Str and Con). This is just part of the minotaur as itself. Now, if we take this race and make it playable, its natural ability scores should--in a game in which being big and tough makes one a better melee combatant--give it a significant advantage over a human fighter. A minotaur fighter of the same level should be stronger, faster, and have more hit points by sheer virtue of its race.

Is this unbalanced? Yes. Would it make sense to reduce the minotaur to a meager +2 Strength, -2 Charisma race? In terms of balance, yes. In terms of sheer "what the fuck?", no, it would not make sense. Minotaurs are big beefcakes that can dish out punishment. It's just what they are. They also happen to be pretty dumb and ugly, so they suck ass as wizards or sorcerers.

Of course, as someone mentioned earlier, a level 1 minotaur is supposed to be the equivalent of a level 4 fighter. Therefore, all minotaurs should start off at level 4, no matter what--their race is just so powerful that it has a base level of 4. Humans, on the other hand, have to fight and train to get that level of power.

At this point, I'm rambling, and it's like 4:00 AM, so I'm going to stop now.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Minotaurs being shitty archers is fine for the setting, but it's not fine for PCs.

If you think that minotaurs should be shitty archers then you should show some fucking balls and tell the PC that non-standard race/class combinations are not allowed at your table: otherwise they'll feel the consequences in a dozen untraceable ways.

You shouldn't present both options as being fair and reasonable while knowing in your heart that it's not! Especially if the reason is as something as self-obsessive as 'that doesn't fit how I imagine the setting'? What kind of snivelling, pussy shit is that?

Why is this issue of basic DM/PC honesty so fucking difficult? Have we grown so gutless that we don't have the spine to tell people that if you don't play the game we want to play with dwarf fighters and elf archers we're going to punish you?

Jesus fucknuts.

[Psychic Robot]

What? I'm fine with non-elven archers. I'm fine with non-standard races. However, those non-standard races are, shockingly enough, not standard, and thus the rules regarding them don't necessarily conform to those by which PC races ought to be balanced: they get higher stat boosts and penalties that make them significantly better (or worse) at certain classes.

I'm not sure why people are freaking the fuck out over all of this. If a trollgre has a -10 to Intelligence, and a player wants to play a wizard, I'm not sure how retarded he has to be to realize that it's going to fuck him in the ass for spellcasting. Level adjustment is one thing, as that's trickier for new players, but pure stat adjustments? Come on. Give the players a little credit.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I'm not sure why people are freaking the fuck out over all of this. If a trollgre has a -10 to Intelligence, and a player wants to play a wizard, I'm not sure how retarded he has to be to realize that it's going to fuck him in the ass for spellcasting. Level adjustment is one thing, as that's trickier for new players, but pure stat adjustments? Come on. Give the players a little credit.

Halfling sword-based classes. Half-orcs. Half-elves.

You know people played them. You know how much they sucked.


We don't need more bennies going to the haves while more dildoes get shoved into the asses of the have-nots. If you're going to do that as a design basis then why not just cut the crap and go 'hey, if you play a halfling barbarian, you are going to suck a lot of cock and let down your team, because we don't think halflings should be barbarians. Play a dwarf barbarian instead.'

[Psychic Robot]

If you'll notice, all of those are standard races and thus should follow the standard race rules: rough equality between the races.

Although, I'm curious--what's so terrible about halfling "sword-based classes" in particular?

[Absentminded_Wizard]

Lost in the shuffle is the fact that Elennsar actually said something that might advance the discussion about a page ago (though it's easy to overlook in all the stuff he throws at you). He finally admitted that his big problem with having races be good at different aspects of a class is that he wants classes to be more narrowly focused.

Now, how many different talents a class should have is a matter of taste, so I'm not going to say that this approach makes an unplayable game. It's a combination of narrowly focused classes + some races inferior at nearly all aspects of some classes + these same races should be available as PCs that is problematic.

If a given race is across-the-board inferior at a certain class, then, by default those classes shouldn't be available as PCs. The italicized parts are important distinctions. It's okay to have these race/class combinations as NPCs, the same way it's okay to have characters with warrior levels as NPCs but not PCs. It's also okay to have a section in your DMG (or equivalent part of the rules) saying something like the following:

"The race and class combinations available in the PHB are the most commonly occurring ones and are all roughly equivalent in their ability to function in an adventure. Some combinations have been left out because they are somewhat inferior to the others on average and may be taken by new players who don't fully understand the disadvantages or how to overcome them. However, more tactically advance players may wish to take these combinations for the challenge of overcoming those negatives, and you may feel free to allow them to do so. Similarly, you might wish to allow any race/class combination from the PHB if your players don't min-max."

---

Now, on to Crissa's famous question which never gets a meaningful answer. I'll try to phrase it in a less open-ended manner and see if it gets anywhere.

I'll start with the approach to race balance advocated by most people in this thread: making each race good at a different subset of a class's talents. Here's what I think this approach adds to gameplay:

• It allows a players to create a greater variety of characters within the setting, thus increasing roleplay options.
• It decreases the tension between roleplayers and powergamers. Both kinds of gamers can now sit down to play at the same table without the powergamers yelling at the roleplayers for choosing a mechanically inferior combination or the roleplayers calling the powergamers a bunch of filthy munchkins.

So my question to you, Elennsar, would be, what benefits do imbalanced race/class combos to the experience of gameplay? Is there anything that makes playing with these imbalances a good thing for people who aren't Elennsar?

[Lago PARANOIA]

Although, I'm curious--what's so terrible about halfling "sword-based classes" in particular?

???

They get fucked sideways repeatedly.

They got the short end of the magical weapon schtick and the weapon die schtick, famously illustrated in the first OotS webcomic.

They get massive penalties to melee abilities that they care about, like tripping and bull rushing.

They're small so they benefit less from size increasing magic.

Mostly importantly, the expansion options for halfling sword-based classes sucked balls. However, there were so many feats in 3rd Edition and so few slots that by and large 3E racial feats were stupid anyway.

But there you go. What's even more infuriating is that 3E was especially bad about pushing that stupid 'small people can go into melee, too!' meme.