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

[Username17]

Because then there are racial weaknesses that actually MEAN something, instead of become totally irrelevant the instant "Can I play one?" is said by a player.

No. That's the exact opposite of a racial weakness that means anything. A meaningful weakness is by definition one that comes up in the game. Like being unable to attack a ringbearer or something. A limitation on what you are allowed to play isn't a disadvantage that will ever come up in a game and therefore means nothing.

If the Warrior and the Wizard are balanced choices, and the Orc must choose the Warrior option, he hasn't actually lost anything. The Player has lost the ability to play an Orc Wizard, but the actual Character is an Orc Warrior so he's fine.

Character generation limits may frustrate players, but they have no effect whatsoever on game play. Which means that they don't do any ofthe things you are claiming for them.

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

Not if you actually make the advantage wind up as small instead of "a little bonus, and another little bonus, and a third little bonus, and a fourth, and a fifth, and soon you have a BIG BONUS".

The only way to totally avoid that problem is avoiding bonuses (new abilities -or- bigge numbers).

It's not going to work out as long as we have people like you thinking that it's okay for elves to be the best archers, even by the smallest margin. Ever.

You wanna know why? Because when they print the next batch of archery feats they're going to aim them towards the people who are already good at archery. Of course they're not going to waste time giving tieflings and dragonborn archery feats--that's a fucking waste of time and effort.

So you've just made it that more punishing to play anything BUT an elf archer.

[Elennsar]

Presumably, orc -2 Intelligence limits the fighter less, just like +X Strength helps the fighter more, so that the orc is better off choosing fighter (and set up to balance based on choosing something where his advantages are relevant)

So orcs are inferior at Intelligence driven things. Some of this involves wizard stuff, so orcs are just plain not going to be wizards.

Not all Intelligence driven stuff is wizard stuff, however.

You wanna know why? Because when they print the next batch of archery feats they're going to aim them towards the people who are already good at archery. Of course they're not going to waste time giving tieflings and dragonborn archery feats--that's a fucking waste of time and effort.

Not really, no. If Elves were better archers inherently, I'd focus -less- on "even more bonuses for elves (and no one else)" than otherwise...their edge is represented by the modifiers already stated.

WotC might do differently, but we agree WotC is stupid.

[Lago PARANOIA]

So orcs are inferior at Intelligence driven things. Some of this involves wizard stuff, so orcs are just plain not going to be wizards.

So just save everyone the trouble and ban orc wizards in the game.

Seriously, just do it as a kindness. Even if someone overcomes the -2 intelligence hurdle (which is not going to fucking happen in a fixed statpoint system) they get screwed out of appropriate magic items, feats, and paragon paths.

So fuck it. Stop pretending to be fair and openminded and just be honest about the petty roleplaying tyrant you are.

[Username17]

Ha!

You just made the claim that racial weaknesses are only meaningful when they affect different character builds asymmetrically and the players are expected to min/max those weaknesses to the point where they affect their character the least.

You do understand why that is a priori false, right?

-Username17

[Elennsar]

No. If orcs never became wizards at all, I'd ban them. And listen to you howl that your individual orc should be an exception to the racial norms just like how he should be able to ignore any penalties that are justified by orc weaknesses at things wizards depend on.

"This isn't playable." doesn't mean "this doesn't exist."

If you are determined to be level inappropriate despite it being stated a given choice makes you such, that is your damn problem.

Frank: No, I claimed that they're only meaningful when they affect characters meaningfully, and that its assumed that the penalty balances out with the strengths within "what orcs do reasonably often, which by sheer noncoincidence is what orcs do reasonably well."

So -2 to Int is balanced out so that its even with the 8 or whatever classes orcs have as viable, not as the two that -2 to Int is more serious than normal.

So to use the Fighter class, -2 to Int is a hindrance, but is less of a hindrance than when it is a primary requirement to do well.

Curiously, orcs (like just about every other being I can think of) prefer doing things they do well. So they focus on Strength stuff.

Are there fighter things where lacking intelligence is a problem? Yup.

Are those just options or are they part of what the class does? The latter.

Do fighters rely on Int as Stat #1? No.

[Fuchs]

Elennsar, your failure is your inability to see past your bias. You want elves to be the best arches, and orcs to be stupid, and you even want that to count for all PCs, and then construct your arguments around that.

But it all comes down to "I want orcs to be stupid - all orcs, PCs too!" - and "I want elves to be the best archers, so an elven archer PC is better than anyone else at archery"

[Elennsar]

No, my "failure" is my refusal to pretend that "Elves make good archers" is okay to leave as totally meaningless flavor text.

If elves are strong at X, they should be strong at X. If orcs are weak at Y, they should be weak at Y.

Should elves have "best archers"? Or even "archers to any great extent"? That's another question entirely.

And not relevant to how to balance it with anything else if they do have it.

[virgil]

I was going to say that Elennsar's failure is in the fact he's arguing on two points, one of a race being being better/worse at a certain task, and another of a race being better/worse at a certain class. While related, they are most assuredly different points. The former is fine, the latter is not if it's to be a fully accepted PC option.

[Fuchs]

And again Elennsar fails to see that almost no one agrees with his opinion that "If elves are strong at X, then elf PCs are strong at X and no other PC can be as strong at X as an elf PC" or "If orcs are bad at X, then Orc Pcs have to be bad at X as well".

He's basically going from an assumption almost no one shares, which is based upon his own personal bias.

[Elennsar]

If you can find a way for a bonus to -anything- to be equally useful to all classes (and equally useless doesn't count), I'd love to hear it.

Because I'd be willing to deal with that.

[Fuchs]

That's why I vote for race "traits" only for NPCs, with all PCs able to pick what traits they want. So, while all elf NPCs might have the "archery package", every PC, regardless of race, can pick that at chargen. It keeps the game world flavor, backs it up with mechanical consequences in game, yet does not restrict PCs.

I really do not get how this harms anyone - other than the pricks who simply cannot, will not accept any orc PC being as good a wizard as an elf.

[Elennsar]

It harms "orc traits actually are characteristics of orcs" instead of "characteristics orcs have more commonly than is standard".

And why any given orc should, by virtue of being a PC, totally ignore his racial norms is a mystery.

Not "overcome if desired". He's not affected at all.

[Ice9]

I was going to say that Elennsar's failure is in the fact he's arguing on two points, one of a race being being better/worse at a certain task, and another of a race being better/worse at a certain class. While related, they are most assuredly different points. The former is fine, the latter is not if it's to be a fully accepted PC option.

Why? Let's say Race X isn't bad at being a Fighter, but is bad with the two-handed weapon style. If someone is the type to play a counter-effective race/class when those exist, they're probably also the type to pick two-handed weapon style as Race X.

People either have the option to play less effective characters or they don't. Saying "but they could be playing an effective character of that same class" is a purely aesthetic concern, because they could be playing an effective character of a different class.

[Bigode]

A human warrior who can beat a 20 ft. tall giant has to be high(ish) level. A half orc who wanted to be a better wizard than an elf with the same assumptions would have to be higher level.

Level 10 human melee combatants have a 50% chance of beating CR 10 giants (even if they're 200 feet tall instead of 20) in melee.

If you are determined to be level inappropriate despite it being stated a given choice makes you such, that is your damn problem.

Level-inappropriate means "different level". So, will your orc wizards have negative LA?

[Psychic Robot]

Here's an interesting tidbit that relates to all of this:

I used to play a game, MUME. It's a LotR MUD. You can either play the Free Races or the BIG BAD EVIL GUYS. The BBEGs are objectively statistically inferior to the Free Races. Orcs in particular are very weak: they take massive penalties in the sunlight, they have low casting stats, their equipment sucks, they have low mana. And yet people would play orc casters. Why?

Because it's fun even if you're not as good as an elvish wizard.

[Orion]

It harms "orc traits actually are characteristics of orcs" instead of "characteristics orcs have more commonly than is standard".

This. This is why you fail.

[RandomCasualty2]

No, my "failure" is my refusal to pretend that "Elves make good archers" is okay to leave as totally meaningless flavor text.

It isn't meaningless flavor text if it relates to stuff in the world. It's very possible to make elves be the best (read: highest level) archers in your world if you want. It's pretty easy to just never have the PCs encounter a competent orc archer by just having them be low level. As a DM you can totally do that and that's going to depict the sort of racial stereotypes that you want.

But there's really no reason to tell a PC that he can't be an exceptional orc. You keep saying stuff to the effect of "a smart orc isn't an orc, he's just a human in green paint." but seriously, who are we kidding here? If you're playing an orc wizard at all, you're breaking the orc stereotype, because orcs are big dumb brutes. Once you make an orc wizard, clearly you're making a character that breaks the stereotype already.

Really why does the game suffer if PCs don't take a penalty?

It harms "orc traits actually are characteristics of orcs" instead of "characteristics orcs have more commonly than is standard".

You really need to rethink this statement, as I think this is where your problem is.

Fantasy is about exceptions and special people, and what stereotypes apply to most people don't have to apply to everyone, and especially not PCs.

[CatharzGodfoot]

No, my "failure" is my refusal to pretend that "Elves make good archers" is okay to leave as totally meaningless flavor text.

If elves are strong at X, they should be strong at X. If orcs are weak at Y, they should be weak at Y.

Should elves have "best archers"? Or even "archers to any great extent"? That's another question entirely.

And not relevant to how to balance it with anything else if they do have it.

If it really is vital to the elf flavor text that they make better archers than everyone else, just say 'every elf is proficient in the use of bows'. Now the average elf is vastly superior at archery than the average dwarf. If for some reason that isn't enough for you, say that 'every elf has a level of archer'. Now any first level elven archer is superior to any other first level archer, because the elf is actually a second level archer.

[Talisman]

If it really is vital to the elf flavor text that they make better archers than everyone else, just say 'every elf is proficient in the use of bows'. Now the average elf is vastly superior at archery than the average dwarf. If for some reason that isn't enough for you, say that 'every elf has a level of archer'. Now any first level elven archer is superior to any other first level archer, because the elf is actually a second level archer.

Yeah, I suggested that a page or two ago.

As long as 90% of the NPCs fit a stereo/archtype, your game world can progress as though 99% of everyone, everywhere fit the stereotype. Maybe one orc in a thousand becomes a wizard; to most in-game people, that's as good as saying "there are no orc wizards"...until they meet one that is.

Even in the real world, demographics and averages and such apply to large numbers of people. They almost never apply to individuals.

[Elennsar]

And it is really, really, really absurd that somehow NPCs are subject to a given "This is true." and somehow magically a PC can totally ignore it for no better reason than being a PC.

If something is true 95% of the time, that PCs are going to be in that 5% is at best a possibility, not a thing to insist on.

"I want to be an orc, but without orc traits!" is bogus. If you want to be an orc that breaks out of the normal range, you're still within the orc range, which may still be more limiting than the human range at some things.

"My seal should so be able to run as well as your gazelle!" is ewsome.

[Crissa]

I was pretty sure you suggested that ten pages ago, Talisman.

-Crissa

[PhoneLobster]

If something is true 95% of the time, that PCs are going to be in that 5% is at best a possibility, not a thing to insist on.

Could you please stop producing lines we can just point at and say "and this is why you are a stupid dick" to.

Because...

If something is true 95% of the time, that PCs are going to be in that 95% is at best a possibility, not a thing to insist on.

...dumb ass.

[Elennsar]

Could you acknowledge that there is nothing entitiling "PC" to mean "freak with three arms and telekinesis" that is removed from "NPC" for no reason other than stupidity?

You can't be an orc without have the characteristics that make an orc an orc instead of a gnome.

"PCs are unique beings!!!!!!" would work so much better if no one else ever became adventurers to begin with.

[PhoneLobster]

You know if 1 in 20 orcs had three arms and telekinesis then I damn well expect the option to have some sort of support.

But expecting your reply to have any consistency with your previous claims, even directly previous, is like expecting you not to be a dick.