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

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 12:22 am

Is a whale a player option in your PHB?

-Crissa

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 12:27 am

Is it even a vaild point in the first place? A whale that can move on land isn't water-bound, but it still dwarfs trucks, it's still a predator of massive numbers of tiny things, though those might not be krill, it still can't fly, it still can't riot and burn it's cities on account of not having hands, and it will still smash your large vehicle to bits if you piss it off, but it doesn't attack macro-scale things without a reason, and it doesn't even need to act differently.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 12:28 am

No.

However, half orc wizard is an option that is not level appropriate, but not an option that is entirely impractical, like being a whale.

Its marked with the "if you want to be underpowered" sticker, instead of "not involved in the adventure at all most of the time" sticker.

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 12:31 am

Elennsar wrote:No.

However, half orc wizard is an option that is not level appropriate, but not an option that is entirely impractical, like being a whale.

Your analogies suck.

Its marked with the "if you want to be underpowered" sticker, instead of "not involved in the adventure at all most of the time" sticker.

Since a whale is not one of the options, it doesn't matter if it's balanced. If someone was to make a game where they are an option then they should be balanced (You can play a whale in Rifts)

koz · Post by **koz** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 12:33 am

**ASIDE**

Leress wrote:If someone was to make a game where they are an option then they should be balanced (You can play a whale in Rifts)

I never thought I'd see the day when 'balanced' and 'Rifts' would be used in the same sentence.

**/ASIDE**

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 12:36 am

My analogy is that removing orcish weaknesses leaves them as "orc-like" as removing whale weaknesses does for whales.

What makes a whale a whale is both its strengths and its limitations (no hands eliminates "can do this" rather than penalizes it) and weaknesses.

You can use your off hand to fight with. Its not a good idea, but I'm nor prohibiting the right handed from fighting with their left hand anytime soon.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 12:38 am

Where is the 'you want to be underpowered' sticker?

Because I totally have this player thinking a Dwarven Ranger would be bad-assed. You know, climbing hills, resisting frost, tracking through stone halls and having a gryphon pet. Knowing how to survive on the edge of the trees in alpine wilderness.

And yet, Elennsar says it's okay for his character to suck, for flavor. There's no badge on his character, in his book, that says 'you will suck'. There's just some numbers that will suck if the DM doesn't tweak the world, because the game failed.

See that last sentence? The game failed this player, by giving him what looked like an option, when in fact, it was not. He won't be good at anything; his cross-class bonuses won't ever matter, etc, etc. It would've been better if he took an Elven Ranger down to track in those stone halls, because Elennsar said it was okay for a dwarven ranger player character to suck.

Because of flavor.

And that sucks. Back to page five here, right?

-Crissa

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 12:38 am

Elennsar wrote: PS. No, Elennsar is saying that negative traits are as much a part of what makes a species what it is as the positive traits. Buying off "I can't move on land" for a whale means it isn't a whale any more.

Right.. Its now a LandWhale. So its actually useful in some fashion for going on adventures.

Your obsession with positive and negative numbers in place of roleplaying is getting rather sad.

Whats worse, you don't even seem to understand how those numbers impact the game in any way.

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 12:39 am

Mister_Sinister wrote:**ASIDE**

Leress wrote:If someone was to make a game where they are an option then they should be balanced (You can play a whale in Rifts)
I never thought I'd see the day when 'balanced' and 'Rifts' would be used in the same sentence.

**/ASIDE**

Woah, that is not to say that the whale in Rifts is balanced.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 12:41 am

Well, Rifts makes the assumption that no characters are balanced, and that you have to live with that.

Obviously there are people like Elennsar who like the game, because it keeps being sold.

...But those guys would come into the shop, buy Rifts, and that would be it. We'd never see them except when they had to get something for Rifts. They played nothing else, and wouldn't play with other people. They didn't even play the other variants of Palladium. It was kinda creepy.

-Crissa

koz · Post by **koz** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 12:42 am

**CONTINUING ASIDE**

Leress wrote:Woah, that is not to say that the whale in Rifts is balanced.

I never said that. What I meant was that using the words 'balanced' and 'Rifts' in the same sentence is ironically amusing, much like the fact that the CIA HQ is titled the 'George Bush Centre for Intelligence'. It is not supposed to be a literalist comment on the balance of the whale in Rifts; on the contrary, it is amusement at the word combination.

**/CONTINUING ASIDE**

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 12:50 am

Because I totally have this player thinking a Dwarven Ranger would be bad-assed. You know, climbing hills, resisting frost, tracking through stone halls and having a gryphon pet. Knowing how to survive on the edge of the trees in alpine wilderness.

And if dwarves are supposed to be bad rangers, you put "Dwarves suck at being rangers." with the "Dwarf" description and the "ranger' description.

Personally, "Dwarves make bad rangers" was and remains purely hypothetical.

I like the idea that dwarves make awesome rangers. However, since minotaurs are unplayable at the moment (the ECL does not work), using "minotaur wizard" wouldn't work as well for the point of "playable race, playable class, but not playable character necessarily if A+X combine".

Your obsession with positive and negative numbers in place of roleplaying is getting rather sad.

You can roleplay a whale presumably any way you want, within the limits of whale personalities and your ability to imagine how those are like.

However, you can't remove "hey I have no hands" without making it something other than a whale.

You are missing my point.

Obviously there are people like Elennsar who like the game, because it keeps being sold.

I -don't- like the game. What I do like is "hey. Some options that you could pursue if you wanted to are bad options."

As stated, I COULD fight or write with my left hand, but it would be stupid. And a game making me okay at it because it sucks to be inept anywhere would be stupid for that.

If Dwarves are supposed to make good rangers, they should be good rangers. There is no requirement that dwarves make good rangers, only that if we make them "cannot do level appropriate stuff" that it is labeled as such and explained as to why if necessary.

But the game does not have to have "CANNOT BE A RANGER" in the dwarf description or "CANNOT BE A DWARF" on the ranger description to make it clear that underpowered characters can be produced by dwarf+ranger.

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 1:21 am

If you want, you can weaken any character you have just by making it weaker. You don't need a trap for it.

"An orc wizard isn't level-appropriate" - an orc wizard 11 must be exactly as good as any other character with 11 levels. That's what a leveled system is.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 1:23 am

Saying "orcs get -X to Intelligence." is NOT A TRAP when it is clear as day and when it as clear as day that wizards need Intelligence.

And if an orc wizard must be exactly as able as any other level X wizard, then you have NO WAY to represent someone being a better or worse wizard in any way shape or form without "higher level".

How boring and annoying.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 1:23 am

Elennsar wrote:Since orcs are a fictional race, you certainly could create an orc race that is "just some other color human", but if you want orcs to be something more different than that, you need the differences we have mechanics for.

So... what is an orc in your world? A twenty foot tall feathery bird monster with 3 heads, wings and 19 tentacles?

Generally around here when someone says "Orc" its a basically human shaped creature with basically human size, and pretty much human bits. It is also green or something. And maybe its nose and ears are funny looking or something.

But its so TOTALLY just a human with green skin and a rubber mask. If you were telling a child what an orc looked like those are the damn words you would use "ugly green human".

You are advocating a world where you can't wrap your head around a character described like everyone here would describe an orc unless it gets an intelligence penalty, AND a whole bundle of other enforced mechanical differences.

You are seriously saying the orc should get enforced mechanical penalties because its nose looks funny.

It's like demanding all PCs take int penalties and a fixed bundle of other enforced mechanical differences every time they write "blonde" in their character description. Because otherwise they just lack quantifiable "blondeness".

PS. No, Elennsar is saying that negative traits are as much a part of what makes a species what it is as the positive traits. Buying off "I can't move on land" for a whale means it isn't a whale any more.

PhoneLobster is saying Elennsar is referring to himself in the third person again.

Are you more than one person? It might explain a lot. Though not enough.

Also. Whale? No really?

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 1:28 am

But its so TOTALLY just a human with green skin and a rubber mask. If you were telling a child what an orc looked like those are the damn words you would use "ugly green human".

A lion and a tiger are two different animals with two different sets of abilities.

An orc and a human are as well.

Does that mean orcs need to suck? No. It means that orc strengths and orc weaknesses are different and sometimes favor one class over another.

If all orcs are is "have a funny nose", then its a group of humans with funny noses. If orcs are a different race, that's not the only difference and some of those differences are drawbacks humans don't share and some are advantages humans don't share.

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 1:48 am

In a leveled system, "better" <==> "higher-leveled" and "worse" <==> "lower-leveled". Period.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 1:51 am

Add that to the list of reasons levelled systems need to die, then.

Now, if an elf with ranger levels can't be better overall than something meant to be equally viable, that's fine.

But if an elf who practices archery can't have a bonus to archery that a human archer lacks, that's stupid.

Let me make sure I have this straight, however.

Elf doing archery = better archer, equivalant character (because of things they lack). This is okay.

Elf doing archery = better archer, not equivalant character (no shortcomings to make them overall still level appropriate). This is not okay.

Because if we agree on #1, we've been arguing entirely too long about...um, nothing.

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 1:58 am

Elennsar wrote:Add that to the list of reasons levelled systems need to die, then.

Yeah, fuck fairness.

Now, if an elf with ranger levels can't be better overall than something meant to be equally viable, that's fine.

Okay

But if an elf who practices archery can't have a bonus to archery that a human archer lacks, that's stupid.

If they both practice archery and are the same level they will both be an even match to each other. "Practicing archery" is under getting levels or getting feats.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 1:58 am

If all orcs are is "have a funny nose", then its a group of humans with funny noses.

It IS the only god damn difference. Orcs don't have claws, wings, or breath under water.

Orcs are funny looking green humans. You are incapable of describing them otherwise without describing something that people won't dispute as a weird variant like a giant tentacle bird.

If orcs are a different race, that's not the only difference and some of those differences are drawbacks humans don't share and some are advantages humans don't share.

You seriously just fucking said "If Orcs are more different, therefore they must have more differences!"

How dumb are you?

A lion and a tiger are two different animals with two different sets of abilities.

An orc and a human are as well.

Oh. That dumb.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 2:04 am

Yeah, fuck fairness.

No, fuck having "You're talented, but that means NOTHING WHATSOEVER in regards to your ability at this thing you're 'talented' at."

If they both practice archery and are the same level they will both be an even match to each other. "Practicing archery" is under getting levels or getting feats.

Fuck. That. If you are from a race that is more talented at archery, you SHOULD be a better archer for the same amount of individual work.

Otherwise, "talented" is meaningless fluff, which is not desirable. You want hawks to see as well (poorly?) as bats in a game where we're all birds and other animals? Ew.

Orcs are funny looking green humans. You are incapable of describing them otherwise without describing something that people won't dispute as a weird variant like a giant tentacle bird.

They are physically stronger, weaker at logic and abstract thought, and generally more impulsive and impaitent.

So, no, that's NOT the only difference.

Orcs are traditionally a different race. So something other than an issue with their noses makes them NOT human.

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 2:09 am

Here is a Lion

SRD Lion wrote: Size/Type: Large Animal
Hit Dice: 5d8+10 (32 hp)
Initiative: +3
Speed: 40 ft. (8 squares)
Armor Class: 15 (-1 size, +3 Dex, +3 natural), touch 12, flat-footed 12
Base Attack/Grapple: +3/+12
Attack: Claw +7 melee (1d4+5)
Full Attack: 2 claws +7 melee (1d4+5) and bite +2 melee (1d8+2)
Space/Reach: 10 ft./5 ft.
Special Attacks: Pounce, improved grab, rake 1d4+2
Special Qualities: Low-light vision, scent
Saves: Fort +6, Ref +7, Will +2
Abilities: Str 21, Dex 17, Con 15, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 6
Skills: Balance +7, Hide +3*, Listen +5, Move Silently +11, Spot +5
Feats: Alertness, Run
Environment: Warm plains
Organization: Solitary, pair, or pride (6-10)
Challenge Rating: 3
Advancement: 6-8 HD (Large)
Level Adjustment: —

Pounce (Ex)

If a lion charges a foe, it can make a full attack, including two rake attacks.
Improved Grab (Ex)

To use this ability, a lion must hit with its bite attack. It can then attempt to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. If it wins the grapple check, it establishes a hold and can rake.
Rake (Ex)

Attack bonus +7 melee, damage 1d4+2.
Skills

Lions have a +4 racial bonus on Balance, Hide, and Move Silently checks. *In areas of tall grass or heavy undergrowth, the Hide bonus improves to +12.

And here is the Tiger

SRD Tiger wrote: Size/Type: Large Animal
Hit Dice: 6d8+18 (45 hp)
Initiative: +2
Speed: 40 ft. (8 squares)
Armor Class: 14 (-1 size, +2 Dex, +3 natural), touch 11, flat-footed 12
Base Attack/Grapple: +4/+14
Attack: Claw +9 melee (1d8+6)
Full Attack: 2 claws +9 melee (1d8+6) and bite +4 melee (2d6+3)
Space/Reach: 10 ft./5 ft.
Special Attacks: Improved grab, pounce, rake 1d8+3
Special Qualities: Low-light vision, scent
Saves: Fort +8, Ref +7, Will +3
Abilities: Str 23, Dex 15, Con 17, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 6
Skills: Balance +6, Hide +3*, Listen +3, Move Silently +9, Spot +3, Swim +11
Feats: Alertness, Improved Natural Attack (bite), and Improved Natural Attack (claw).
Environment: Warm forests
Organization: Solitary
Challenge Rating: 4
Advancement: 7-12 HD (Large); 13-18 HD (Huge)
Level Adjustment: —

Improved Grab (Ex)

To use this ability, a tiger must hit with a claw or bite attack. It can then attempt to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. If it wins the grapple check, it establishes a hold and can rake.
Pounce (Ex)

If a tiger charges a foe, it can make a full attack, including two rake attacks.
Rake (Ex)

Attack bonus +9 melee, damage 1d8+3.
Skills

Tigers have a +4 racial bonus on Balance, Hide, and Move Silently checks. *In areas of tall grass or heavy undergrowth, the Hide bonus improves to +8.

Yeah a whole lot of difference. Give the lion a slight boost and it's nearly the same creature. But since neither is said to be a playable race it really have to do much with anything in this discussion.

Now if I were to make these playable races they better be balance to what ever other races are also choices.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 2:15 am

And tigers will be better some of the time and lions will be better some other part of the time and bears will be better in still other circumstances and as long as each of three trumps no more than the others trump it is all good.

But if bears are better at doing Kung Fu, the bear ought to beat the lion and tiger at Kung Fu all other things being equal.

They'l beat him at something else.

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 2:17 am

Elennsar wrote:Add that to the list of reasons levelled systems need to die, then.

Now, if an elf with ranger levels can't be better overall than something meant to be equally viable, that's fine.

But if an elf who practices archery can't have a bonus to archery that a human archer lacks, that's stupid.

Let me make sure I have this straight, however.

Elf doing archery = better archer, equivalant character (because of things they lack). This is okay.

Elf doing archery = better archer, not equivalant character (no shortcomings to make them overall still level appropriate). This is not okay.

Because if we agree on #1, we've been arguing entirely too long about...um, nothing.

Are you saying that a dwarven ranger should average as an equal character to an elven ranger? If yes, why the fvck do I think you're contradicting some past version of yourself?

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 2:22 am

Elennsar wrote:No, fuck having "You're talented, but that means NOTHING WHATSOEVER in regards to your ability at this thing you're 'talented' at."

It is clear. In order to preserve the meaning of superior talent the level system must die... wait... a... second... WTF?

They are physically stronger, weaker at logic and abstract thought, and generally more impulsive and impaitent.

First of all those are such lame "differences" you could find any number of humans that describe all sorts of other "races", cultures and genders of other humans exactly like that.

Secondly those are so lame a set of "differences" they could all be total fluff without a single mechanic with no discernible problems.

Thirdly those are arguable all cultural and more of your "invariable average" traits. Individuals will vary from those traits AND STILL BE ORCS.

The only part of orc that is unavoidable orcness that once removed prevents you from writing "orc" in a description is "green and funny looking". And even that may be somewhat elastic what with all the albino orcs, black orcs, half orcs etc...

Orcs are traditionally a different race. So something other than an issue with their noses makes them NOT human.

Yeah, they are traditionally a different race with different fluff. That's it, that's the additional difference you are incapable of fricking describing AGAIN. That difference does not automagically spawn further secret mechanical super differences no one is aware of.

You need some logic coaching. 2+2 may well equal 4, but a 2 just hanging around having a smoke after it gets off work does NOT equal a 4.