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

[Crissa]

Generally there are less roles than classes - so that your team has someone who can do each role while your team doesn't contain every class. At least, that's the idea, tho really there's many tasks and you hope your team contains the ability to do all the tasks.

There's nothing cosmetic about races being balanced. The idea is that if you have characters come to the table, they should be playing the same game. It gives the GM more time to balance things out to player foibles instead of being busy trying to make sure some character doesn't fail the test that another can't fail.

It may make a great story to have all bowmen be elves... But it makes a terrible game if your personal character can't succeed if you didn't make the first choice correctly before the game started. It may sound fun in a story that Legolas is untroubled by two feet of fresh snow and Gimli has to swim through it. But it's bad game mechanics for Legolas to be untroubled by everything the group comes across while Gimli fails to match up against any obstacle.

So the game mechanical solution to that is that Legolas is still slowed by the snow - he must walk carefully - but has the special effect that he makes it look easy. The two characters are at the same negatives, but appear different when the story is told.

The thing is, -2 Int in D&D limits the total potential of a character. -2 Str or Dex does not.

You can make differences in races be mechanical without limiting the story choices. And you can limit the story choices without gimping players.

The whole point of this thread is that all big player character options must create balanced potential.

And yes, by this definition, Kevin Siembieda is an asshole for giving options that suck without showing how to bring characters to the table with the same amount of screen time. This is an argument that he would agree with, he's a bit arrogant that way.

-Crissa

[zeruslord]

So yes, my elf makes a better archer-ranger than your dwarf, but your dwarf does equally well somewhere else and we both have a natural environment we rock in.

Gee, thanks Elenssar. Now I know that my dwarf archer-ranger isn't actually best as an archer and should run around underground waving an ax and drinking beer!

Also, these are the same species.

[PhoneLobster]

That's species for you. A thing in no way defined by how Ellinsar is feeling today (unless you are Ellinsar in which case it is probably defined by exactly that on a moment by moment basis)

My point back in flower post being that to go round moaning about how minor cosmetic difference doesn't seem like a different species to you is just plain ignorance of the term.

And really shouting out "species" or "not species" doesn't have dick all to do with RPGs and "Race" mechanics either.

I'd hoped a graphic representation of the absurdity of his claim might get through. It didn't. He is just that damn thick. The pretty dogs won't help him either.

[Bigode]

It may make a great story to have all bowmen be elves... But it makes a terrible game if your personal character can't succeed if you didn't make the first choice correctly before the game started. It may sound fun in a story that Legolas is untroubled by two feet of fresh snow and Gimli has to swim through it. But it's bad game mechanics for Legolas to be untroubled by everything the group comes across while Gimli fails to match up against any obstacle.

So the game mechanical solution to that is that Legolas is still slowed by the snow - he must walk carefully - but has the special effect that he makes it look easy. The two characters are at the same negatives, but appear different when the story is told.

Hell no. The solution's to give Gimli an advantage catered to an equal amount of time - not having characters equally good at something look of different ability; yay for an example of setting incoherency I didn't expect anyone to advocate. Well, unless you actually want them to be equally good at the task for some reason, in which case they ought to seem equally good unless deception (an ability in itself, thus a balance factor) is involved, or some kind of "looks more awesome than is" or "looks crappier than is" trait's involved.

The thing is, -2 Int in D&D limits the total potential of a character. -2 Str or Dex does not.

Is that for any reason other than "no one cares what non-spellcasters do"?

You can make differences in races be mechanical without limiting the story choices.

No, you can't. You can lower the limitation intensity to hard-to-notice levels, but anything you change (or don't) shapes what stories you can tell. For example, a measly +1 to whatever rules out the possibility of those of same level without the source of the +1 being as good as those with. And while "I can't be exactly as good as [someone] because they train as much as me and have [advantage]" might be crappy, small, insignificant, whatever, it can be a component of a story - one with it and one without just aren't (exactly) the same. BTW, I think there's a couple of stories out there that're about essentially a bunch of bonuses.

[Koumei]

I stopped paying attention long ago, but just referring to the basic ability scores (which, in D&D, can make or break a viable choice), perhaps we could learn from Iron Kingdoms:

You have eleventy billion varieties of human in that (and only two elf types. SUCK IT, ELVES!), which different cultures and "general builds". If you play one of these, they have an optional ability score change of +2 X and -2 Y. If this were applied across the board, then you could have the following:

Most elf NPCs are +2 Dex -2 Con, and prance about in the trees.
If you decide to be a wizard or ranger or whatever, you probably accept the +2 Dex and -2 Con.
But here's where it changes: If you're that one of a kind elf barbarian, you say "No, screw you" and don't have racially adjusted ability scores.

This is very similar to just saying "Most NPCs of X race will put their points into this spread, but you don't have to because you're a PC". And that works pretty well, too.

[Crissa]

Hell no. The solution's to give Gimli an advantage catered to an equal amount of time - not having characters equally good at something look of different ability

It's a solution. But saying that Gimli suffers no limitation from narrow spaces and Legolas suffers no penalties from difficult terrain would be another, yes. Of course, you'd have to make sure they were in narrow spaces as least as often as difficult terrain.

The thing is, -2 Int in D&D limits the total potential of a character. -2 Str or Dex does not.

Is that for any reason other than "no one cares what non-spellcasters do"?

No, spellcasters are in D&D literally limited by their main stat of how many levels of spells they can learn, how hard they hit, etc. There is no similar restraint on physical combat.

You can make differences in races be mechanical without limiting the story choices.

No, you can't. You can lower the limitation intensity to hard-to-notice levels,

Having a mechanical representation for Slithering for Nagas or Centaurs being better at grappling doesn't stop you for telling stories. Stopping them from playing whole classes, does.

Of course, you should check your bonuses and negatives to make sure they don't interfere like that.

-Crissa

[Talisman]

Random thought I just had...

What if, instead of bonuses (however small), races get certain free skill ranks or proficiencies? Say, instead of +2 to Spot and Survival and +1 to hit with longbows, all elves get 2 free ranks of Spot and Survival and proficiency with longbows.

Thus, Elves on average are better rangers - but an elf specifically is not a better ranger. An elf ranger has 4 free skill points to spend on other stuff, but a dwarf's Spot and Survival bonii can be just as high as an elf's - his free ranks are in some other skills. Balance and Search, maybe; I dunno.

(Obviously this presupposes the skill ranks go into skills of roughly equal value...if elves get Spot and Listen, and dwarves get Craft (blacksmith) and Profession (miner), that ain't right.)

Elves already get free proficiency with longbows, and to me, that demonstrates the "race of archers" concept better than any bonus. Elf monks can use longbows. Elf wizards can use longbows. Elf commoners can use longbows.

However, a dwarf archer can equal an elf archer...because if he's going to be an archer, he's going to take a class that grants longbow proficiency. Dwarf monks, wizards and commoners, however, won't use longbows...they'll use battleaxes, because dwarves are axemen.

I think this could demonstrate racial tendancies very well, while still allowing PCs to be unusual and exceptional.

[Elennsar]

Gee, thanks Elenssar. Now I know that my dwarf archer-ranger isn't actually best as an archer and should run around underground waving an ax and drinking beer!

If you don't want the racial strengths of your race, the racial weaknesses of your race, or the racial traits that aren't in the mechanics of the race, you don't actually want to be a member of the race. You just want to claim you're a ____ even though it means nothing other than that you wrote "orc" (or whatever).

Having a mechanical representation for Slithering for Nagas or Centaurs being better at grappling doesn't stop you for telling stories. Stopping them from playing whole classes, does.

Not all stories should be told in all settings or even by all games. A game about action and adventure won't be good at (and shouldn't be used for) backstabbing doubledealing.

Talisman:

That's not a bad idea. My only problem with it...

What if I'm a member of a class that already grants me those proficiencies?

The skill bonuses works fine, however. Kudos! But...

Those proficiences being wasted means that of the "abilities you can have as an elf", some are irrelevant. Which, if I'm able to use a bow from training all elves get and from training all fighters get, means that "Hey I am an archer." is irrelevant. I am EXACTLY as good as if my race did nothing for me. That's not fun. But that may be something we need to deal with in regards to proficiencies, rather than this option.

But I like the sound of it otherwise. It means "an elf" has an advantage that a "a dwarf" doesn't, but my elf and Bigode's dwarf could be identically good at it, which he wants more than I do (I'd rather have the "seperate but equally useful abilities").

It'd work, however, which is important.

[Crissa]

Like I said, Talisman, I do skills different; you don't have ranks, you merely have focused skills at level+3 and secondary skills at half that. So races get extra focused skills preselected instead of bonus ranks.

But that doesn't stop Elennsar's suggestion that some races should be better with some specific weapon. I'm not sure I want to do that. All Elves have a bow around? Are you going to have a weapon for every race? Will that weapon work in every class? I'd really think you'd want to make sure that all classed could use the racial weapon, so no one gets stuck being a Rogue trying to backstab with a two-handed flamberge.

-Crissa

[Bigode]

But saying that Gimli suffers no limitation from narrow spaces and Legolas suffers no penalties from difficult terrain would be another, yes.

The part of my post that you did not quote said it would, as long as you forgot any idea of making them seem to have different levels of ability. If you'll reply anything, go read the original if you missed it.

Of course, you'd have to make sure they were in narrow spaces as least as often as difficult terrain.

Given that you'll have to do that for every single choice you allow, either you're telling me nothing or you're advocating not giving choices.

No, spellcasters are in D&D literally limited by their main stat of how many levels of spells they can learn, how hard they hit, etc. There is no similar restraint on physical combat.

"How hard they hit"? I thought that was what Str's for! Levels of spells: that's what I shoved under "no one cares what non-spellcasters do" with regards to official material. Tome does create what you describe to some extent.

Having a mechanical representation for Slithering for Nagas or Centaurs being better at grappling doesn't stop you for telling stories. Stopping them from playing whole classes, does.

Centaurs being better at grappling cuts off the story of a centaur being outwrestled by someone of the same caliber (i.e. level). Stupid example? Sure, but "not limiting stories" doesn't actually exist - just "good enough" approximations.

But I like the sound of it otherwise. It means "an elf" has an advantage that a "a dwarf" doesn't, but my elf and Bigode's dwarf could be identically good at it, which he wants more than I do (I'd rather have the "seperate but equally useful abilities").

I like the latter too, actually. The actual problem's your retarded thinking that simply dwarves being as good fighters as elves are rangers' meaningful balance. If fighters/rangers of any race (lower/higher level if they happen to have - workable - LAs - a.k.a. racial levels) are all balanced on average in different ways, great.

[Judging__Eagle]

I think that the big problem Elennsar is that you keep going on about "Elf archers > Dwarf Archers"

Fine. That's not a problem.

Except that there's no ancient or historical source that says this is true. Even Tolkien never said this.

In The Hobbit, they go on about the dwarven archers, while they only talk about the Forest Elf host with its spears.


If anything, whatever the fuck you do to decide that one race is good at "something", don't make it a number. That's, like, the one thing that we keep talking about here over and over and over: "don't make shit numbers, make them options instead."

When you just give numbers, you fuck up balance. When you give options, you make it so that


Seriously, Elves should get something like:

Elves

Elves are dirty fucking gits and hide behind trees when fightin' like propa' ladz. We hates dem.

"Elves live a long time in somewhat hostile territory that they often have to engage guerrilla warfare inside of. They appreciate the need for attacking without being seen. Elf Rangers count any cover (including an other creature) as concealment when attacking at range and gain +4 to their hide checks for every portion of cover that they currently have (+4 partial, +8 half, +12 3/4)."

Dwarves

Stunties is like us ladz, but dey's got no teef. You need to smash 'em ded 'ard and take der gubbins. Stunties got nise gubbins, an' dey shoot real good

"Dwarves don't have many resources to make tools, but have lots of gold to make sure that their tool are really well made. Dwarf Rangers may re-roll one missed ranged attack per attack that you would be granted by your Base Attack Bonus when using a ranged weapon that launches projectiles."

Orks

Us flash gitz is de shootiest der is! We're made for fightin' and winnin'

"Orcs are really tough. Their tools may be sub-par, but they put all of their effort into what they do. Orc Rangers add their Constitution modifier (if positive) to ranged damage attacks, as well as whatever Strength score they would be allowed to add."

Humans

Humies is always fightin' 'cause dey's all da same size, and don' know who's da boss.

"Humans are individually specialized, but racially diverse. A Human Ranger may select any other Racial advantage as their racial advantage. Every time a human gains a level, they may change their racial advantage."

Halflings

Dey's like stunties, only stuntier and wit' no beards, so's we call em stuntie younguns. Dey's right hard ta' catch and throw nasty pins and knives

"Halfling Rangers take no penalties for moving while attacking with ranged attacks and may make as many ranged attacks as they would be able to normally while moving at one half their speed as a full-round action. A Halfling Ranger can deal up to their BaB determined attacks when performing this action."



There, each type of ranger is racially distinct, and baring some tightening up, I doubt that any of the above are really out of balance with any other.

Humans make a pretty sweet deal, but chances are that once you've started your build, you probably won't change from your str/dex/con Ork-package Human ranger into one that has the Dwarf-package, so w/e.

[Elennsar]

think that the big problem Elennsar is that you keep going on about "Elf archers > Dwarf Archers"

Fine. That's not a problem.

Except that there's no ancient or historical source that says this is true. Even Tolkien never said this.

In The Hobbit, they go on about the dwarven archers, while they only talk about the Forest Elf host with its spears.


If anything, whatever the fuck you do to decide that one race is good at "something", don't make it a number. That's, like, the one thing that we keep talking about here over and over and over: "don't make shit numbers, make them options instead."

When you just give numbers, you fuck up balance. When you give options, you make it so that...

Tolkien never quite says "Elves > dwarves.", but elves do more impressive feats of archery than we ever see any dwarves doing. Or humans. Or anyone else.

Of course, elves are superior to everyone else, elf to (whatever), as a rule. Every individual elf to every individual human? No. Not necessarily by a large margin, either. But Tolkien's elves almost certainly need a LA. Not sure about his dwarves.

And since elves are fictional, insisting that "they've never done it in any other setting" means "they can't do it in the setting in question" is silly. If I was representing a setting that already existed, I'd model things on how it does it, but that doesn't mean I can't decide dwarves make the best wizards (I don't intend to, but I certainly could).

As for "don't make it a number".

Sorry, no. If you want to remove numbers that badly, then remove anything that can give anyone less than or more than level +3 (or whatever) bonuses.

Anything. Feats, racial features, better quality equipment...anything whatsoever.

No thank you.

What fucks up balance is "they have +1 with this, and you don't have anything equivalant." And things like equipment...last time I checked, the reason to get superior quality stuff is because it gives you an advantage over the inferior stuff. Not just to spend gold.

And is there a reason for using Warhammer (Fantasy) Ork speak to describe the fluff, out of curiosity?

[Crissa]

Centaurs being better at grappling cuts off the story of a centaur being outwrestled by someone of the same caliber (i.e. level). Stupid example?.

Not really. Unless you go back and take Elennsar's position that no one should be better at archery than an elf 'if elves are best' or no man should be able to slay a dragon 'if dragons are more powerful than men'. I forgot what page that was on, but it's in there somewhere.

The thing is, grappling isn't a main schtick, it's a side schtick. Grappling opens up tactics, it doesn't do damage or hit opponents. And it's totally possible to negate a Stability bonus (Grease, for example). It's not in the game mechanics to negate an unnamed untyped racial bonus.

...it would, as long as you forgot any idea of making them seem to have different levels of ability. If you'll reply anything, go... ...either you're telling me nothing or you're advocating not giving choices...

I know I post gibberish sometimes, but... I have no idea what you're saying.

I thought that was what Str's for!

Strength isn't a perquisite for every single melee or ranged physical damage maneuver. It only gives you a plus to hit for some attacks, and it adds to damage to some attacks. Not all. Con, Dex give different bonuses to physical combat. If you had a minus to most of them, you could make a case, but we're only talking to a minus to one of them at a time, a small fraction of what's used for combat.

-Crissa

[Elennsar]

If all dragons are more powerful than all men, etc.

Be clear on that all, please.

It's not in the game mechanics to negate an unnamed untyped racial bonus.

I'd presume that if elves get +1 with bows (other than +2 Dex), it'd be a competence bonus.

Just to clarify.

[Ice9]

Ok, so far the only actual example of racial abilities that matter without favoring some classes over others is Judging__Eagle's, and that's by giving every race an ability for every class. Not only is this a lot of abilties to write up and balance (80+ for just the 3E PHB), but it means that introducing new classes or races fucks everything up.

Automatic proficiencies instead of bonuses avoids some of the issues, but it significantly limits the range of possible racial abilties. Also, it tends to primarily benefit character who don't focus on what their race is known for - an Elf Rogue or Monk gets free Longbow proficiency, whereas an Elf Ranger gets nothing.

Everyone is arguing whether these perfectly balanced abilities are desirable - I'm not even convinced yet that they're possible.

[Username17]

Tolkien never quite says "Elves > dwarves.", but elves do more impressive feats of archery than we ever see any dwarves doing. Or humans. Or anyone else.

I know that I said I was done with this argument like 10 frickin pages ago, but what the hell dude?

The best and most impressive feat of archery in the whole story is done by Bard. Who is a human. And king of Dale, and as such able to understand the speech of birds.

The most rangerly rangers of them all are both humans in that series. Bard and Aragorn are men. Not elves, and not dwarves.

-Username17

[Elennsar]

Shooting a dragon in his weak spot using a magical (or close enough) arrow doesn't require a GREAT ARCHER.

That's not to say Bard wasn't a good archer, but "he killed a dragon!" would be a lot more impressive if it was harder. In those particular circumstances, a normal Welsh archer who could tell where to shoot would make the shot and possibly even do the trick (Bard is using the arrow to make sure, as I recall, not because "I know nothing else will penetrate even if this is a weak spot", but that I'm not sure about).

As for the rangers: Do we hear any detail on elves as a rule in the Hobbit? No.

The trilogy? Not very much.

The Silmarilion? Yes.

Beleg would kick Aragorn's ass if we had the two opposed to each other, in all likelyhood.

In addition, it is highly probable that he is one of the best archers to ever live in the setting.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

If all dragons are more powerful than all men, etc.

Be clear on that all, please.

But that's a tautology. "If all dragons are more powerful than all men, then no man can slay a dragon singlehandedly." Basically, the statement was meaningless.

Sorry, no. If you want to remove numbers that badly, then remove anything that can give anyone less than or more than level +3 (or whatever) bonuses.

Anything. Feats, racial features, better quality equipment...anything whatsoever.

Actually, a lot of people on the Den would like to go with this blanket ban on extra numbers in favor of extra options/special abilities.

Tolkien never quite says "Elves > dwarves.", but elves do more impressive feats of archery than we ever see any dwarves doing. Or humans. Or anyone else.

And of course, the members of the Fellowship (the book's equivalent of the PCs) are totally iconic representatives of their races.

Realistically, the Fellowship is a mix of iconic and atypical characters for Middle Earth races. Gimli is the stereotypical dwarf, and the hobbits are all exceptional for their race just for the fact that they're willing to get off their butts and try to save the world. And while it's implied that Legolas' keen sight is shared by all elves, if JE is right, Legolas' archery may actually be exceptional for elves.

Besides, why couldn't dwarves be better archers than elves, provided they're using their own racial weapon, the crossbow?

[Absentminded_Wizard]

Ok, so far the only actual example of racial abilities that matter without favoring some classes over others is Judging__Eagle's, and that's by giving every race an ability for every class. Not only is this a lot of abilties to write up and balance (80+ for just the 3E PHB), but it means that introducing new classes or races fucks everything up.

Automatic proficiencies instead of bonuses avoids some of the issues, but it significantly limits the range of possible racial abilties. Also, it tends to primarily benefit character who don't focus on what their race is known for - an Elf Rogue or Monk gets free Longbow proficiency, whereas an Elf Ranger gets nothing.

Everyone is arguing whether these perfectly balanced abilities are desirable - I'm not even convinced yet that they're possible.

In the free proficiency system, the elven ranger gets to spend extra skill points/proficiencies on other things. Of course, I think this option works better under Crissa's skill system, where elven stealth, say, gets reflected by the fact that elven wizards' vision is just as sharp as an elven rangers' even as you go up in level.

[Aktariel]

Tolkien fan wank: elves are t3h r0xx0rz!

STFU. Why do you keep arguing? You don't seem to care that everyone has ripped you to shreds by now, because you keep retreating or rephrasing and have gone full circle by now, and as such don't really have a point.

What on Earth is your purpose in continuing this discussion?


I vote we ignore this fucker and go work on TNE. Of course, Elennsar wouldn't like that game, because it's not "real world" enough, and doesn't do things his way, but we'd sure have a hell of a lot more fun and productivity than we do now.

[Elennsar]

But that's a tautology. "If all dragons are more powerful than all men, then no man can slay a dragon singlehandedly." Basically, the statement was meaningless.

Well, the point is that if any man can slay a dragon, it doesn't apply. While I would argue by preference that none should be able to (unassisted, at least), that's a different story.

Actually, a lot of people on the Den would like to go with this blanket ban on extra numbers in favor of extra options/special abilities.

I wouldn't. If you guys would, you're welcome to make TNE work like that.

And while it's implied that Legolas' keen sight is shared by all elves, if JE is right, Legolas' archery may actually be exceptional for elves.

Besides, why couldn't dwarves be better archers than elves, provided they're using their own racial weapon, the crossbow?

Assuming for the sake of this statement that the crossbow is equally good compared to the longbow...

Worse eyesight.

Worse physical dexterity.

Otherwise, 'tis training and such, not genetics.

[Crissa]

Elennsar[/url]]I'm saying that if humanity is forever weaker than dragons, then no human, PC or NPC, should ever reach "dragon slaying" level. You can be better than average (and lots better) without being better than your species is capable of being.

Oh, and thanks for the vote of confidence, Absent. ^-^

-Crissa

[Elennsar]

Nowhere in there am I proposing we join in prohibiting humans from reaching there.

IF humanity IS etc.

Personally, I can live with humans who manage to find something we don't have IRL killing dragons.

St. George did, after all.

[Username17]

I vote we ignore this fucker and go work on TNE.

Good idea. Of course, at this very moment I am doing more work of Warp Cult, because general agreement is had on what the flavor of the setting and the expected resolutions of actions is supposed to be, allowing m to just plug in numbers and write it as fast as I can get words on the page.

With TNE I'm still scrapping stuff almost as fast as I write it down, because there isn't general agreement on what is supposed to be generated. Hell, a lot of people are still holding out for generating "anything" which is just like not even having a system.

-Username17

[Elennsar]

Aktariel: Could you be a little less accurate? Thanks.

Elves in LotR tend to pwn everyone else.

Do I think elves should? Only if they're given a LA.

Should elves have advantages in some areas? Yes. Should Dwarves? Yes. Should humans? Yes. Should those be equally useful for adventurers? Yes. Favorable to all classes equally? No.

If you can't be arsed to read what I type, ignoring would do nothing except stop your spewing of distortion.