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

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 2:28 am

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?

Assuming dwarven rangers are supposed to be equal rangers instead of inferior at the ranger role but equally good at another role, then yes.

Both elves and dwarves, fighters and rangers, etc. should be equally good adventurers. However, what a given race does may or may not be equally good or bad for all classes.

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.

And those humans would be wrong. In a species that is not like ours, they could EASILY be true. As for "total fluff"...no, they couldn't. When Strength is a game stat, "I am stronger than you." needs to be represented in that stat. Same with more or less Intelligence. Personality...depends on the game. Pendragon style traits and you would want to note it as different. D&D doesn't have those (and I'm not sure it would be good for the intended game to add those), but they can be used..."personality has no impact on anything with numbers" is untrue.

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.

They are a different race because there is something about being an orc that is not simply having purple skin, the vast majority of the time.

There may be fluff differences that don't alter anything (orcs tending to bald earlier), but the mechanics are meant to represent the fluff of "Stronger" or "dumber" or those sorts of things, and orcs usually are those sorts of thing in regards to being different.

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 2:34 am

Elennsar wrote: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.

Actually from a SRD stand point tigers are better than lions. Not so much that they always win but if one had to choose one as a pet then tiger would be there better choice

/Aside

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 2:37 am

Yeah, which is okay for unplayable beings, not okay for pets or PCs.

But having a tiger be better at being sneaky and a lion being better at brute force (for instance), if both were equally valuable, would be okay.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 2:38 am

Elennsar wrote:Assuming dwarven rangers are supposed to be equal rangers instead of inferior at the ranger role but equally good at another role, then yes.

Both elves and dwarves, fighters and rangers, etc. should be equally good adventurers. However, what a given race does may or may not be equally good or bad for all classes.

Or in abridged form. "Yes. Yes. Yes. WAIT I MEAN NOOOOOOOO!"

And those humans would be wrong. In a species that is not like ours, they could EASILY be true.

Not in a playable game it can't.

As for "total fluff"...no, they couldn't. When Strength is a game stat, "I am stronger than you." needs to be represented in that stat.

Er. Sorry but you are again making one of those fundamental "2+... er... ... =PINEAPPLE!" moments.

You are trying to represent "My brother is stronger than you" with a need to represent that as a strength bonus for that character with the strong man brother.

The strength bonus goes to the strong man NOT THE ENTIRE EXTENDED FAMILY.

They are a different race because there is something about being an orc that is not simply having purple skin, the vast majority of the time.

There may be fluff differences that don't alter anything (orcs tending to bald earlier), but the mechanics are meant to represent the fluff of "Stronger" or "dumber" or those sorts of things, and orcs usually are those sorts of thing in regards to being different.

You are now arguing that orcs need mechanical differences because you saw games where orcs had like totally these like mechanical differences.

You aren't even arguing that those were good games, you just saw them and stuff so it must be true.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 2:44 am

Not in a playable game it can't.

Yes, it can. If Bob is stronger and dumber and Joe is smarter and weaker and both are equally important, then they're balanced.

The strength bonus goes to the strong man NOT THE ENTIRE EXTENDED FAMILY.

And if the RACE is stronger than the human RACE, it goes to the RACE.

You are now arguing that orcs need mechanical differences because you saw games where orcs had like totally these like mechanical differences.

You aren't even arguing that those were good games, you just saw them and stuff so it must be true.

I am arguing that orcs need mechanical differences if there is anything other than "green skinned guy with big nose". Usually there is. If you're representing a kind of orc that is only a "green skinned guy with a big nose", go ahead and ignore the mechanical differences.

That's not what I'm modeling, and thusly it has mechanical differences.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 2:53 am

Elennsar wrote:Yes, it can. If Bob is stronger and dumber and Joe is smarter and weaker and both are equally important, then they're balanced.

GOOD GOD. You are right! That statement is entirely true.

As long as we ignore every single other word from this entire massive thread, including everything you have ever posted!

The strength bonus goes to the strong man NOT THE ENTIRE EXTENDED FAMILY.
And if the RACE is stronger than the human RACE, it goes to the RACE.

Or in other words if the race contains large numbers of strong men IT GOES TO ALL THEIR ENTIRE EXTENDED FAMILIES.

edit: We already know that in the minority strong man scenario you in fact are actually giving the strong man a penalty to strength because his entire extended family has one.

I am arguing that orcs need mechanical differences if there is anything other than "green skinned guy with big nose". Usually there is.

Again you argue that if orcs are going to also have mechanical differences then then need to also have mechanical differences, which you noticed somewhere that they do in fact have THUS PROVING YOU RIGHT!

I think you should just repeatedly post "Is Not!".

Though then I suspect you'd find it hard not to yourself alternate by posting repeatedly "Is Too!".

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 2:57 am

PhoneLobster wrote: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...

So, orc == green human?

Elennsar: they are supposed to. Leveled system.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 3:00 am

If you want to represent a race of orcs with no differences on a mechanical level, then don't give them a mechanical difference.

I do want to represent that kind of orc, which appears to be more common than the kind that doesn't have one.

Elennsar: they are supposed to. Leveled system.

If that means that the ONLY way to be better than anyone else anywhere is to be higher level, we need to drop both classes and any bonuses whatsoever, including things like Weapon Focus as much as racial modifiers.

Nevermind making it so that +1 with bows and +1 with axes (or +2 with axes if necessary) are equivalant and thusly the characters are equal. NO ONE can have more than anyone else can.

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 3:05 am

Argh. I meant equally valuable as characters, with whatever class and race they have.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 3:08 am

So long as some options for class with some races can be inferior choices, I think we agree.

Having a bonus with bows doesn't help a wizard nearly as much as a ranger.

But those ought to be called out. Saying "Dwarves make worse rangers" is one thing. But never, ever make something appear good and suck.

zeruslord · Post by **zeruslord** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 3:10 am

Elennsar wrote:If that means that the ONLY way to be better than anyone else anywhere is to be higher level, we need to drop both classes and any bonuses whatsoever, including things like Weapon Focus as much as racial modifiers.

We do need to drop weapon focus. It gives a flat, always on bonus to attack, and a character with Weapon Focus: My Weapon has the attack bonus of a character a level higher, which is total bullshit. If you trained hard with your weapon to the point that it increases your combat numbers, you should gain a level. This is what levels mean.

In fact, if an elf gets +2 to bows, he has the attack bonus of a character two levels higher, which just makes it worse. Once again, the characters at the table become unequal, because +1/+1 does not balance out with +2/+0, because the elf has an attack that is better than anything my dwarf can do. If an elf is supposed to be better with bows, give him a real ability that I care about. Let him shoot from farther away or ignore light cover from branches. These at least don't make my character less able than the elf at every single facet of archery.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 3:12 am

We do need to drop weapon focus. It gives a flat, always on bonus to attack, and a character with Weapon Focus: My Weapon has the attack bonus of a character a level higher, which is total bullshit. If you trained hard with your weapon to the point that it increases your combat numbers, you should gain a level. This is what levels mean.

PART of what levels mean. Being better at archery is not enough to make my ranger better than your ranger if you're better than me at something else we both do that's equally important.

You might be a worse archer, but you're a better _____. And both are equally important. What's the problem?

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 3:13 am

Elennsar wrote:If you want to represent a race of orcs with no differences on a mechanical level, then don't give them a mechanical difference.

I do want to represent that kind of orc, which appears to be more common than the kind that doesn't have one.

So to challenge my accusation that you are conflating the choice to add mechanical differences with the need to add them you present this?

So if you chose to have mechanical differences you must have mechanical differences but you COULD choose to not have mechanical differences and then go ahead and not have them and THAT justifies your argument for having mechanical differences and that being a good thing.

Then you once again point at some orcs you saw this one time which like had these mechanical differences and so totally prove the point in practice.

If that means that the ONLY way to be better than anyone else anywhere is to be higher level, we need to drop both classes and any bonuses whatsoever, including things like Weapon Focus as much as racial modifiers.

Or in other words "If I can't have her, no one will!" then to prevent the elf ranger girl from running away with the uppity civil rights dwarf ranger dude you set them both, yourself, and the entire world on fire.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 3:16 am

So if you chose to mechanical differences you must have mechanical differences but you COULD choose to not have mechanical differences and then go ahead and not have them and THAT justifies your argument for having mechanical differences and that being a good thing.

Since I don't agree that orc equals human with funny skin, and you think it does, the reasons why the stats need to show the benefits and penalties if they're given different benefits and penalties won't convince you to do orcs with them.

Or in other words "If I can't have her, no one will!" then to prevent the elf ranger girl from running away with the uppity civil rights dwarf ranger dude you set them both, yourself, and the entire world on fire.

No, in other words, if you can't stand to have anyone ever be at an advantage vs. someone else at any skill when at the same level, give everyone a bonus equal to their level (or whatever number you want) at "succeeding at stuff". It applies to anything from romancing the opposite sex to playing cards to shooting bows to anything.

There. Now no one can be better without gaining a level.

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 3:21 am

zeruslord: I consider whether +2/+0 balances with +1/+1 an open question, but regardless, it balances with +0/+2, right?

Elennsar: worse options are unplayable/lower-leveled.

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 3:27 am

Bigode wrote:zeruslord: I consider whether +2/+0 balances with +1/+1 an open question, but regardless, it balances with +0/+2, right?

If we're assuming that the +2/+0 and the +0/+2 are both to things the class relies on equally, yes. If the first one is to bows and the second one is to HP on a class that relies almost totally on non-HP defenses, not really.

When your armor class goes to 52, the +2 to HP matters much less.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 3:30 am

Elennsar wrote: Since I don't agree that orc equals human with funny skin, and you think it does, the reasons why the stats need to show the benefits and penalties if they're given different benefits and penalties won't convince you to do orcs with them.

This is actually rather remarkable, because here you are effectively being consistent in the application of an argument.

Your theory of choice of mechanical difference equalling justification for mechanical difference has now evolved.

Now you declare since I disagree with that theory it will not convince me to apply it.

Its like things like theory, conclusion, evidence. They are all interchangeable and can go in basically any order. Right?

No, in other words, if you can't stand to have anyone ever be at an advantage vs. someone else at any skill when at the same level, give everyone a bonus equal to their level... ...to anything.

Well anyone else here would point out that you are now confusing "any" with "all". Again.

But maybe we should use your own argument methods. Anyone includes Dwarf Ranger and Someone Else includes Elf Ranger AND everyone includes Kobold Wrestler and including is the same as being therefore...

No, in other words, if you can't stand to have Dwarf Ranger ever be at an advantage vs. Elf Ranger at any skill when at the same level, give Kobold Wreslter a bonus equal to their level... ...to anything.

Good GOD this methodology is powerful. It destroys all logic in a wail of insane nuclear fire. Anything can mean anything else, or even everything else at once!

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 3:36 am

Your theory of choice of mechanical difference equalling justification for mechanical difference has now evolved.

Now you declare since I disagree with that theory it will not convince me to apply it.

You don't want orcs that are fundementally different than humans, correct? You don't want "orcs are always stronger and humans are always smarter" or anything like that?

Than the fact that I am representing orcs that DO have those traits and thusly SHOULD have higher Strength and lower Intelligence is irrelevant to you.

It won't benefit "orcs that are just funny looking humans", but that's not the kind of orc that would be written up with a racial bonus or penalty.

So nothing I say will convince you because you don't want to use the option in question.

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 3:42 am

Elennsar wrote:
Your theory of choice of mechanical difference equalling justification for mechanical difference has now evolved.

Now you declare since I disagree with that theory it will not convince me to apply it.
You don't want orcs that are fundementally different than humans, correct? You don't want "orcs are always stronger and humans are always smarter" or anything like that?

Than the fact that I am representing orcs that DO have those traits and thusly SHOULD have higher Strength and lower Intelligence is irrelevant to you.

It won't benefit "orcs that are just funny looking humans", but that's not the kind of orc that would be written up with a racial bonus or penalty.

So nothing I say will convince you because you don't want to use the option in question.

And the same in reverse for anything you say to us. Does that mean you'll stop talking now?

It'd be nice, this is the fourth-longest thread on this forum, but if we keep talking it might overtake the threads that make us laugh, cry, or both threads. and achieve nothing.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 3:47 am

No, because to those who would be interested in what bonuses may want to hear what bonuses I would do.

Differences in playstyle between two reasonable people can still lead to reasonable discussions on the playstyle and why you prefer one over the other and so on. After all, I'm curious why someone would want minotaurs as a playable race (minotaurs in particular, that is. Or any other particular race, but minotaurs have come up more in this thread.) and would like to know what you get other than the specific "I want to play a minotaur" people getting one. Obviously it is a different setting, but how is it different.

However, PL isn't being reasonable and isn't interested in orcs being different than merely different colored humans.

So, there is not much to say to him.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 3:48 am

Elennsar wrote:You don't want orcs that are fundementally different than humans, correct?

No. I am telling you that they flat out objectively aren't in any kind of usable RPG.

I know, a remarkable claim since they don't actually exist.

But we are fortunately arguing in a rather specific context!

That of the mechanical representation of orcs for player characters in a playable game with playable options!

Throw in the most widely used description of an orc and the ability to differentiate between average and individual and its a simple set of steps to the conclusion.

So we kind of go
Orcs: "Ugly, green, mostly a bunch of savages"
Individual Orc: "Ugly, green, might be a savage, or not"
Player Orc: "Ugly, green, doesn't have to be a savage"
Unavoidable Stuff Player Orcs Have that defines their Orcness...
"Ugly, Green"

And like I said even the ugly and the green are probably still negotiable.

Than the fact that I am representing orcs that DO have those traits and thusly SHOULD have higher Strength and lower Intelligence is irrelevant to you.

Choice == Justification
Has == Must
Do == Should

You live in a strange world.

So nothing I say will convince you because you don't want to use the option in question.

The raw assumption that everyone else also puts Conclusion ahead of Evidence and Theory and all that other crap.

The sheer intellectual arrogance of your arguments is awe inspiring.

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 3:51 am

green's completely open. the elite of the original orks were the black uruks of Mordor, who i presume were colored black like the background of moon landing photos.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 3:55 am

No. I am telling you that they flat out objectively aren't in any kind of usable RPG.

And you are wrong. You can have orcs have more mechanical traits different than humans than in common and still have them be perfectly playable if they're balanced traits.

The raw assumption that everyone else also puts Conclusion ahead of Evidence and Theory and all that other crap.

The sheer intellectual arrogance of your arguments is awe inspiring.

Bullcrap.

Goal: Orcs as significantly different than humans.
Methods: Mechanics, flavor text.
Issue: Flavor text alone not significantly different.
Result: Orcs need more than just flavor text that does not change anything to be sufficiently different.

If you have a different goal, then you won't create the same race, which since orcs are fictional doesn't matter.

So an orc wizard is an unplayable option and an orc fighter can be balanced with a human fighter.

Sounds like we have playable orcs.

Since you don't want orcs being different enough to have mechanical differences, or if they do for them to ever effect your orc PC, then you're doing a kind of "orc" I'm not doing.

green's completely open. the elite of the original orks were the black uruks of Mordor, who i presume were colored black like the background of moon landing photos.

Which means that if representing those orcs we need them colored black, not green, and if representing Warcraft's we need another and so on.

As stated, they're fictional, so there is no "This. Is. An. ORC!" that applies to all settings. There certainly can be and should be something that applies WITHIN a setting, however.

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:08 am

PhoneLobster wrote:No. I am telling you that they flat out objectively aren't in any kind of usable RPG.

I know, a remarkable claim since they don't actually exist.

But we are fortunately arguing in a rather specific context!

That of the mechanical representation of orcs for player characters in a playable game with playable options!

Throw in the most widely used description of an orc and the ability to differentiate between average and individual and its a simple set of steps to the conclusion.

So we kind of go
Orcs: "Ugly, green, mostly a bunch of savages"
Individual Orc: "Ugly, green, might be a savage, or not"
Player Orc: "Ugly, green, doesn't have to be a savage"
Unavoidable Stuff Player Orcs Have that defines their Orcness...
"Ugly, Green"

And like I said even the ugly and the green are probably still negotiable.

Maybe that'll work for orcs because they cleave closely to humans. Playable non-humanoids?

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:17 am

Elennsar wrote:You can have orcs have more mechanical traits different than humans than in common and still have them be perfectly playable if they're balanced traits.

What? 19 pages of reasons why you can't give enforced mechanical traits that favor certain class race combos over others and you can't right now remember even one point to make you hesitate in claiming it is "perfectly playable".

Goal: Orcs as significantly different than humans.

So then clearly not the goal to describe them in a way that most people would recognise, you know, as green ugly savages.

When you say orc you just flat mean something else like an Ogre or a Giant. A thing in fact which bares about as much relevance to PCs as Whales and Tigers. But that hasn't stopped you before!

Methods: Mechanics, flavor text.
Issue: Flavor text alone not significantly different.

Only if your imagination is a withered little raisin that you lost one day on the beach. But the fluff is not enough conclusion justifies itself because that's how conclusions work!

Result: Orcs need more than just flavor text that does not change anything to be sufficiently different.

So as long as you define orcs differently to everyone and include a need for mechanical difference in your description, dismiss everything except mechanical differences off hand, never even consider the existence of anything other than the typical orc, and never even consider the game play implications...

THEN Orcs, or whatever it is you are calling orcs, must have enforced specific mechanical differences!

If you have a different goal, then you won't create the same race, which since orcs are fictional doesn't matter.

And as we know since they are fictional this means that anything justified by referring to them being fictional cannot possibly hurt game play and since they are fictional they are also totally uniform and never vary!

So an orc wizard is an unplayable option and an orc fighter can be balanced with a human fighter.

Sounds like we have playable orcs.

Did Elennsar's alter ego who talks about Elennsar in the third person take over again? Does he know Elennsar one was ranting about how totally unnacceptable that was like five minutes (or ten million posts) ago?

You should exchange summaries or something on shift change.

Since you don't want orcs being different enough to have mechanical differences, or if they do for them to ever effect your orc PC, then you're doing a kind of "orc" I'm not doing.

The ultimate argument in answer to the topic "Why the hell did anyone think this Race+Class=Win bullshit is good for the game?"

is...

"Well I'm doing it my way anyway so screw you."

... OK, nice to know, but really was that especially relevant?

Which means that if representing those orcs we need them colored black, not green, and if representing Warcraft's we need another and so on.

Yes yes, that's right get hung up on some insignificant detail of variation and require a separate inflexible uniform mechanical implementation of each one.

Every single green orc in war craft has Int penalty, every single black orc in war hammer has Wis penalty. No problem. Since even though that is entirely irrelevant it represents er, a solution to all the variety and balance problems with doing that because somewhere in some other game theres something which also uses Orc in the title with the same problems only with a very marginally different spin.