Why the hell is this hobby so fucking retarded?

[Lago PARANOIA]

This is beyond the point of the thread, but I'm against racial bonuses for games like D&D because it enforces a low-level mentality on higher ranges of play.

Sure, when you're level 1 the difference in strength between an orc ranger and an elf ranger is significant enough to note. Sure, fine. But at level 16, when rangers seriously have enough strength to juggle four oliphants in full-plate why should the fact that the juggler is an elf make that much of a difference?


Now, in practice, I'm still against racial bonuses because D&D has two competing needs. The desire to be effective in gameplay and the desire to be effective in story. Having orc wizards have an intelligence penalty doesn't hurt (and might even help) the latter but it's all bad for the former. So what ends up happening is that everyone plays elf wizards and the stories you can create are that much more predictable and boring.

[Previn]

There's no way a player could figure out for himself means that "-2 intelligence" means that orcs are less intelligent, so this is a trap option, and needs to be removed, or just make it impossible for orcs to be wizards.

What in the world are you talking about? I mean, sure, somewhere out there there are going to be players that don't associate -2 to intelligence as being less intelligent, but they have to be in the vast minority.

Heck, you've got the charts in the abilities section showing what ability scores mean, which includes intelligence, and you've got the racial modifier line of the half-orc as saying that "Half-orcs are strong, but their orc lineage makes them dull and crude." You've got a flat out penalty to your intelligence.

I can somewhat buy the argument that there don't need to be penalties because it limits what the players can do or what stories they can tell, but I will never buy catering to a handful people who can't think their way out of a paper bag to figure out what -2 intelligence means. That's a road that leads to 4e.

[Murtak]

So would that mean that you'd prefer an orcs can't be wizard line over you gain stats that aren't as good for wizards as what other races give you?

Why limit yourself to two equally shitty options? In this specific example I'd say "fuck that shit, +/- 1 modifiers are useless bookkeeping which we already have too much of".

Ideally all races would have abilities that matter to all builds and you'd have to weigh which specific situations you value most. Technically this is already true, but situations where a wizard values a strength bonus might not come up in an entire campaign arc, while an int bonus may be valuable every other minute. Dex vs con is a more interesting tradeoff, but is still way too one-sided for many characters. So if I were to redo DnD from scratch, racial ability modifiers would probably disappear for good, to be replaced by more interesting racial abilities.

Some possible examples:
- Berserk: You feel no pain. Once per day, as a free action, you may keep acting despite being at negative HPs, for 1d3 rounds.
- Resilient: The effects of abilities that force you to take a fortitude save are delayed until the end of your current turn (or next turn if it is not your turn).
- Stubborn: You may reroll all will saves against mind-affecting effects.

Any of these are valuable to any type of character. None of them are strictly better than the other, even though all of them are useful against a similar class of effects. You can of course add much more variied abilities:

- Naturefriend: Once per day you may cast a Summon Nature's Ally spell appropriate to your level. If you can cast spells, up to three times per day, you may instead cast a Summon Nature's Ally spell of the same level.
- Subtlety: Once per day you may cast a Charm person spell. All of your charm and hypnotize spells are cast as if affected by the still spell feat.


Now choosing a race for your wizard is much more interesting. Would you rather have the orc's ability to not immediately die, the dwarf's ability to ignore most charms or be able to summon unicorns on the fly? Conversely, if you like the idea of being a an orc wizard the game no longer kicks you in the nuts for it. Depending on the campaign your racial ability may be more useful or less useful than that of another race, but in almost any campaign there will be times when you are thankful to be an orc.


And if your world states that there are not many orc wizards around, go right ahead and simply have there be few orc wizards. But do not penalize players for chosing an option the game presents as being valid and equal. If you don't like orc wizards or halfling fighters in your party, disallow them. If you do like them, don't make them worse than other party members.

[Prak]

Ok, I know this seems stupid and overly complex, but given that penalties to ability scores are supposed to represent averages rather than maximums, what if instead of "-2 int" orcs had "roll [dice with an 8 average and an 18 max] for Int"

Could work? Or unnecessarily complicating. I know Runequest does non-standard monsters that way. Not that I'm saying it's good. I can't even remember what humans roll for abilities...

[virgil]

If orcs must be dull and crude, then that is an argument for stat maximums, not a penalty. A wizard with 16 intelligence is not stupid, and is still viable. The penalty actually just enforces a 'no 18 int orc wizard' rule and makes any other wizard orc objectively weaker by requiring more resources for the same result. Arguing that working harder for the same result does not work, because the 16int orc was that smart from the start from its perspective, just like a 16int human was. So all the penalty does is say that orc wizards are weaker for their level, not necessarilydumber.

[Artless]

An Orc being dull and crude is an element that should be determined by how the stats are spread out. The stats that they choose and the points they allocate are what should be reflective of the flavor of their character, not a race-wide penalty or bonus. It may be that the average Orc just doesn't put points into Intelligence, wisdom and charisma and prefers to work up Strength, but a player should not be hindered or deterred in any way from putting as many points into a stat as they wish and they should not be penalized after they put a ton of points into a stat by having an automatic -2 to the final product.

And placing a cap on a stat based on race doesn't address the problem, which is that odd race and class combos (Orc Wizard or Halfling Barbarian or whatever) are inferior to all others, and they will always be inferior as long as there are limits imposed regardless of how the player chooses to spend their resources.

[Murtak]

Ok, I know this seems stupid and overly complex, but given that penalties to ability scores are supposed to represent averages rather than maximums, what if instead of "-2 int" orcs had "roll [dice with an 8 average and an 18 max] for Int"

That averages out to a -1 penalty instead of a -2 penalty, but is still just as bad in principle. Mechanically speaking that is similar to rolling a die for each orc character and only giving them the -2 penalty if an odd number comes up - and that is obviously bullshit.

If orcs must be dull and crude, then that is an argument for stat maximums, not a penalty. A wizard with 16 intelligence is not stupid, and is still viable.

Cap bonuses and penalties instead of attributes is certainly an option worth considering. But wizards being the one-stat ponies they are, this still would not work for this specific example.

[Kot]

Isn't it a half-orc actually? We're talking standard 3.x DnD races here, right? Just to be clear.

And I don't really see a problem here. Not at all. You want to play an half-orc wizard? Go on, do it. You won't get the magical '18' on Int, yes. But you'll have a Strength bonus to carry more books with you. It fits. You can even say 'Well, my Master needed a servant, but since I was so smart, he decided to teach me Wizardry.' Voilla. You got from a lowly book-stacking handyman to adventurer-Wizard with just taking your stats into account.

So, no, this hobby isn't retarded. People playing half-drow half-deamon Fighter/Mage/Thieves are. I've met enough of those in my time to be pretty sure, sadly.

As for other things, treat ability score modifiers as guidelines. That -2 penalty to Intelligence means only half-orcs have an Int range from 3 (there are smarter things growing on moist bread, to paraphrase Pratchett) to 16 (the half-orc genius, who can easily outsmart even those 'smart' humans). It is a challenge too, yes. But so is playing an elven Fighter (-2 to Constitution, oh my), or dwarven Bard (i'm not sure of that one. I gave away my DnD3 rulebooks a long time ago). And don't forget about the fact, that you can raise you ability scores with practice (levels), or magical items. So a level 8 half-orc Wizard will be as smart as a genius human or elf Wizard on his first level. But being an half-orc he can probably beat them in a fair challenge on first level. With his fists if needed...

As for the story, well, most people use that as an excuse. But there are many, who can find a story in a simple stat penalty, or bonus. And they can as gladly juggle stats and dice, as they write detailed backgrounds and character profiles. So next time when you decide that something 'is retarded', take a few deep breaths, step back a little and look at the problem from another angle. It might not be a problem at all...
But again, those who are 'retarded' are clearly louder and memorable. Guess why gaming has a bad rep...

P.S. If this sounds weir to you, take into account that I'm a) tired and sleepy, b) on meds, my surgery wound aches like crazy while the muscles are healing, c) English isn't my first language

[CapnTthePirateG]

Isn't it a half-orc actually? We're talking standard 3.x DnD races here, right? Just to be clear.

And I don't really see a problem here. Not at all. You want to play an half-orc wizard? Go on, do it. You won't get the magical '18' on Int, yes. But you'll have a Strength bonus to carry more books with you. It fits. You can even say 'Well, my Master needed a servant, but since I was so smart, he decided to teach me Wizardry.' Voilla. You got from a lowly book-stacking handyman to adventurer-Wizard with just taking your stats into account.

So, no, this hobby isn't retarded. People playing half-drow half-deamon Fighter/Mage/Thieves are. I've met enough of those in my time to be pretty sure, sadly.

As for other things, treat ability score modifiers as guidelines. That -2 penalty to Intelligence means only half-orcs have an Int range from 3 (there are smarter things growing on moist bread, to paraphrase Pratchett) to 16 (the half-orc genius, who can easily outsmart even those 'smart' humans). It is a challenge too, yes. But so is playing an elven Fighter (-2 to Constitution, oh my), or dwarven Bard (i'm not sure of that one. I gave away my DnD3 rulebooks a long time ago). And don't forget about the fact, that you can raise you ability scores with practice (levels), or magical items. So a level 8 half-orc Wizard will be as smart as a genius human or elf Wizard on his first level. But being an half-orc he can probably beat them in a fair challenge on first level. With his fists if needed...

As for the story, well, most people use that as an excuse. But there are many, who can find a story in a simple stat penalty, or bonus. And they can as gladly juggle stats and dice, as they write detailed backgrounds and character profiles. So next time when you decide that something 'is retarded', take a few deep breaths, step back a little and look at the problem from another angle. It might not be a problem at all...
But again, those who are 'retarded' are clearly louder and memorable. Guess why gaming has a bad rep...

P.S. If this sounds weir to you, take into account that I'm a) tired and sleepy, b) on meds, my surgery wound aches like crazy while the muscles are healing, c) English isn't my first language

But you're wrong. If we have an orc and a gray elf wizard, they both roll/point buy 18s and put them into intelligence, the orc will never, ever be as good as the grey elf. No-one gives a shit about strength on a wizard anyway, because after a certain point meleeing shit is not a valid way of life/you can spam Tenser's floating disk/your planar bound vrock is carrying your shit/whatever. So at the end of the day, the orc and the elf ends with the orc discovering he will never be as good as the elf no matter what he does, the advantages he does have don't matter, and then he goes and commits suicide of a drug overdose.

[Prak]

on the bright side, if he chooses the right drug, he can get a +2 to int on his way out.

[Murtak]

If we have an orc and a gray elf wizard, they both roll/point buy 18s and put them into intelligence, the orc will never, ever be as good as the grey elf. So at the end of the day, the orc and the elf ends with the orc discovering he will never be as good as the elf no matter what he does, the advantages he does have don't matter, and then he goes and commits suicide of a drug overdose.

Well, he probably just grumbles about it daily, but this is exactly the point - orcs are strictly inferior to the other choices and that is bad game design. We don't want to punish anyone for playing orc wizards - if we didn't want them to play orc wizards we'd have forbidden that option. So we do want orc wizards (at least as an option for players), we just want them to be different from human or elf wizards. "Different but equal" is our mantra here. This is an issue with pretty much all races by the way. Orcs just stand out the most.

[Gx1080]

Ok, let me see if I understand it.

Since the uneasy compromise between racial bonuses and free class/race choice just creates trap choices, there's only two choices:

a)Race/class locked choices.
b)Giving all races something that is equally good for all classes.

Honestly, I would prefer option a). Is easier to implement and there's a large possibility that with all the effort poured on b) there will be a better class/race choice anyways. Thing is, it doesn't have to be THAT restricted. If there's 8 classes and each race can access 5, then is easier to make sure that each class/race combo is good enough, even if it means introducing specific class/race combo bonuses.

Of course, I don't expect this to be implemented. It would be "too much like WoW".

[ModelCitizen]

a)Race/class locked choices.
b)Giving all races something that is equally good for all classes.

What's wrong with (c) - don't give races stat mods or class-synergy abilities?

[CapnTthePirateG]

Ok, let me see if I understand it.

Since the uneasy compromise between racial bonuses and free class/race choice just creates trap choices, there's only two choices:

a)Race/class locked choices.
b)Giving all races something that is equally good for all classes.

Honestly, I would prefer option a). Is easier to implement and there's a large possibility that with all the effort poured on b) there will be a better class/race choice anyways. Thing is, it doesn't have to be THAT restricted. If there's 8 classes and each race can access 5, then is easier to make sure that each class/race combo is good enough, even if it means introducing specific class/race combo bonuses.

Of course, I don't expect this to be implemented. It would be "too much like WoW".

4e does A, effectively. People fucking hate that.

[fectin]

orcs are strictly inferior to the other choices and that is bad game design. We don't want to punish anyone for playing orc wizards - if we didn't want them to play orc wizards we'd have forbidden that option. So we do want orc wizards (at least as an option for players), we just want them to be different from human or elf wizards. "Different but equal" is our mantra here. This is an issue with pretty much all races by the way. Orcs just stand out the most.

Is this a first principle, or is there logic here? I've seen two claims thrown around a lot: that trap options are bad, and that unequal options are bad. I'll accept the first, but the second has bothered me for a bit.

Why are unequal options bad again?

fixed quote tags --Z

[A Man In Black]

Because unequal options are trap options. Why bother to include an option that simply punishes people if they choose it?

[Gx1080]

People latch on many things to hate 4e, don't see that one being a big one.

[A Man In Black]

People latch on many things to hate 4e, don't see that one being a big one.

It's aggravated by additional, pointlessly race-specific options (feats, paragon paths, etc.) that make it even worse.

[Gx1080]

Still don't see it. The main deals against paragon paths is that they have almost no flavor (unfortunately typicical on 4e) and that they come too late on the level progression. Doesn't seem like much.

[Username17]

I've had 4rries explode in rage at me because one flavor of Elf or another doesn't make a good Rogue or that Dwarves don't make good Rangers or some shit. Despite the fact that this is in no way my fault. The race/class unity in 4e isn't just something haters bring up from time to time to pan the system - it's something that viscerally offends real life 4th edition players.

-Username17

[Zinegata]

Fectin, fix the quote tags please. You're missing an end tag.

[Judging__Eagle]

a)Race/class locked choices.
b)Giving all races something that is equally good for all classes.

I think that b) is part way there.

I'd personally change it to:

"A character's species has powers that make them good at adventuring."

In H<3rtbreaker, Drow-Alfar, Robut-Golema, Dharas-Dorfs, Phyto-Alfar, Am-Goblins, Am-Hobgoblins, all get powers that equate to something like this.

You don't need to eat standard food; sand, ashes, gravel, soil, metal, grass or being part warmed is enough to provide you with your daily caloric needs*.

*: Eating 'adventurer food' heals you at slower rate, with half the healing applied immediately, and half at the climax of the next scene, since it's instantly processable energy, and made from magical produce, but in't grass/granit/silica like your mother prepared it, and you miss home now that you started eating this foreigner food, again. Maybe you'll go home for the yule-solstice-saturnalia.

I think that the Dom3 approach for character powers is the best. Lots of small ones, and creatures get more and more of them as they unlock more abilities. Sometimes it's flight, other times it's dragon mastery, other times it's being (somewhat) immortal, or immune to cold.

[rasmuswagner]

Because most people in this hobby are not game designers. They don't understand how the game rules positively or negatively affect player satisfaction. Even though I think that it is just as important as telling a good story.

I'd have to say that applies to many professional game designers, too.

[Kot]

But you're wrong.

Oh I do love posts starting with that phrase. I really really hope you meant 'I (strongly) disagree.'

If we have an orc and a gray elf wizard, they both roll/point buy 18s and put them into intelligence, the orc will never, ever be as good as the grey elf.

A two-point difference. That's a +1 difference in bonuses. And that's only if we decide both characters had an 18 to put into Int. This is the smallest difference there is in game mechanics. Meaning that half-orc will be almost as good as the elf/human. And he'll have other advantages, like being able to easily take a level of Barbarian, for example. Plus, story reasons. I would say playing a half-orc Wizard who's trying to defeat his own disadvantages would be fun.

No-one gives a shit about strength on a wizard anyway, because after a certain point meleeing shit is not a valid way of life/you can spam Tenser's floating disk/your planar bound vrock is carrying your shit/whatever. So at the end of the day, the orc and the elf ends with the orc discovering he will never be as good as the elf no matter what he does, the advantages he does have don't matter, and then he goes and commits suicide of a drug overdose.

No. In the end the elf falls down of exhaustion/wounds, while the half-orc still stands. Using your own 'logic' against you, the elf has a -2 Constitution penalty, so he will never be as good as the half-orc. Because he's frail, weak and puny. You're probably lashing out with a 'No he's not!' in your thoughts. Notice that it also applies to what you wrote about the half-orc.
When he gets to the higher levels, the difference will be negilible, and will depend mostly on the gear they both sport, and their choice of spells and feats. Higher Int (by just one bonus point, mind you) won't really matter, as their 'planar bound vrocks' and 'Bigby's Middle Finger's' will be the weapon of choice.

P.S. Oh, and if that 'You're wrong.' was fully intentional, consider me slipping away in hope of finding a real discussion, not a monologue where the point is a furious feces-flinging contest. I don't do those.

[ishy]

There is actually a 4 point difference, since gray elves get +2 int.

But the fact that you are changing from the strenght difference to the constitution difference kinda proves the point.

Int matters a lot to a wizard, strength doesn't matter at all that is what bags of holding etc are for.

Pretty much everytime you give different races different bonusses (penalties are basically bonusses for everyone else) some will be better than others for different classes.
You can balance it out though by not making the bonusses matter too much, restricting the choices people can make, making the choices meaningless or indecipherable and many more.

The point is what do different people find more acceptable.