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

[Ice9]

Ok, this should really be a poll, but pick one:
A) Choice of race makes an actual mechanical difference.
B) All races are equally useful in all possible classes and builds.

This discussion is going is circles, because some people want A, and some people want B, and some are claiming you can have both, but have so far not given any evidence of this.

[Elennsar]

Since its presumably called out as "Hey. This isn't one of the things you do well.", its not like you're tricked into taking the class.

If you really, really want to do an orc wizard despite the fact orcs in general suck at it, then you and Talisman have to help me with the "Mentally inferior" meaning something.

Otherwise, deal with it just being -2 to Int and me saying that you should just do something else.

I'd personally prefer NOT to pick that option..."Mentally inferior" is well represented most of the time by "-2 to Int checks and Int based skils.", but its not quite enough.

After all, I do want to represent the challenge your orc faced in getting over the hump, and that is just shifting the penalty to something not directly related to your wizardry.

Suggestions are always welcome.

My vote is A. Even if an equally good ranger overall, a ranger with -1 to bows from racial limitations probably shouldn't pick some options.

So it will mechanically effect him to be a dwarf. Some areas are an asset, some aren't. Some assets apply more with some pursuits than others. Some nonassets apply more with some pursuits than others.

So long as a dwarf gets to be fine the same % of the time, overall, this keeps 'em balanced.

[Surgo]

Because the phrase "...very basic morphology" can be abused to mean "oh, well, see, that's not what I mean by basic.", you mind spelling out what that means?

Yeah, it means their ass and their face aren't switched on their body.

I'm asking about humans, not bears.

[PhoneLobster]

If you really, really want to do an orc wizard despite the fact orcs in general suck at it, then you and Talisman have to help me with the "Mentally inferior" meaning something.

No we fucking don't have to stick your racist cock in our mouths and suck it.

"Talisman" (he has to be loving this name dropping) writes "not fucking mentally inferior" in his character background, invests his character resources in not being mentally inferior, and then the result ISN'T mentally inferior.

And you can fuck off and write up all your NPCs as mentally inferior. He sure as hell shouldn't suck your limp cock for the rest of his career as the orc with a brain.

"Helping with your mentally inferiority problem" means compromising and saying "gee my character is a natural genius in his background and I invested everything I could in supporting that, but gee, OK I will forever in some measurable way be inferior to some character just because I wrote "Blonde" down for hair colour!"

Otherwise, deal with it just being -2 to Int and me saying that you should just do something else.

Except you REFUSE to simply make selection unavailable to them. You refuse to even use any strongly discouraging language. You forever want the option of cock sucking orc to be there to suck on your cock and for no other productive reason than to suck on your cock.

I'd personally prefer NOT to pick that option..."Mentally inferior" is well represented most of the time by "-2 to Int checks and Int based skils.", but its not quite enough.

Aside from how fucking annoying and stupid that is already why am I NOT surprised to hear it isn't enough cock sucking for your liking?

The orc has to FEEL that pain! The bitch MUST be punished to bring you the pleasure.

After all, I do want to represent the challenge your orc faced in getting over the hump,

Level system, adventure, everyone did it or something like it, it's called level 1 or something similar.

Either that or its background fluff like "I overcame great adversity". Do you give Int and Con penalties to everyone who writes "Nearly Starved as a street Orphan" in their fluff?

[Elennsar]

I know, but bears are able to survive Earth about as well as we are, so they manage to meet their challenges pretty well.

As for humans: We range from about 6 to about 14 as a rule, with a very few exceptions below 6 and a few more above 14 (refering to what D&D measures with ability scores).

We have a range of hair and skin colors that do not include green or purple.

We tend to live to be about 60+.

We are generally not easily angered or hard to anger.

We have poor natural weapons.

We can use and develop tools readily and even radically reshape our enviornment with them.

We tend to value art for art's own sake more than not (individuals vary, but as a species, we recognize the value of a painting by Leonardo)

We are sensitive to cold more than most other animals and sensitive to heat a bit less.

We can swim tolerably well.

We have good color vision, but poor night vision.

Tolerable hearing, poor smell.

Eyes facing front.

We tend to form groups, usually ones that develop beyond extended family.

We are generally not nomadic and prefer settling down.

We eat both plants and meat to roughly the same extent.

We have two basic types of sexuality (male-female, and either of male+male or female+female), with few exceptions.

Males tend to be bigger and stronger than females (though there are big females and small males, as a rule that's not the way our species works)

We have discussions like this.


Most of these are "we fall within a common range", which may be rather narrow or rather broad, but the range of human strength, for instance, is not the same as ape strength, so orc strength could be a different range than either.

[Surgo]

Did you see everything you just said? Every single thing you said is a 'common range', as in, human beings can fall outside of it. What you said to me was that you could not fall outside the orcishness traits and still be an orc.

[Elennsar]

There are no sprites (sadly, the mind flayer is not in the SRD, so I can't look up its Int mod, hence using a different race ) with a Dexterity of 8.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/sprite.htm

That is outside the range. Entirely.

There aren't many humans outside the range of 6-14 with an 18, but there are some. There are none (and this is a proposed house rule/apparent fact on Earth) with an Int of 25.

So the orc range might be 6-12, with a max of 23.

To put it this way, you could play a Stephen Hawking IQ level archmage, but you couldn't play a human with wings sprouting from his back who could fly at X feet per round with (any) manueverability and call him a human just like the one typing this.

[Talisman]

The problem, Talisman, is that I disagree that the PCs are the only actors whose actions have any impact on the setting, other than high level NPCs (who should be limited to "adversaries of the PCs" etc., though I don't think you're arguing that part).

The actions of the PCs and NPCs of similar or higher level should have the maximum impact on the campaign.

The PCs are the stars. Period. Regardless of their in-world influence, their actions are the most important because they are PCs.

Now, you might not take them as seriously at 10th level and even less at 15th, depending on how much of an advantage over a lower level you get by being higher level (5 levels in D&D seems to be "they're not a big deal", 10 "it would take more time to roll your attack than for you to defeat them."), but they should not be magically irrelevant people because they're not bigshots.

Mechanically: yes they should. Otherwise they wouldn't be 5th level. A 10th-level PC is presumably hardcore enough that he can tear through the elite, 5th-level guards in a couple of rounds and engage the king in hand-to-hand combat.

That's what being high level is all about. That's why important NPCs are typically high level. That's what makes stories like my example possible.

RP-wise: They're still the King's Freaking Guard and you're some scruffy adventurer. They don't have "5th Level" stamped on their heads any more that you have "15th level" stamped on yours. They may not be badasses by your standards, but they represent badass: the King and, by extention, all that he controls. If he's the King, that's probably pretty significant.

The PCs are among those whose actions happen to be worth a damn. However, they may or may not be sidekicks to bigger shots. (If they are, sidekicks need to be -useful-...being a subordinate is one thing, being a minion is another thing entirely, and "PCs as minions" is something that would be wildly different than any campaign or novel I can imagine reading for very long.)

You're confusing mechanical power with in-world RP power.

Your group may consist of 10th-level badasses, but the fact that the king is a 5th-level Aristocrat doesn, in-game, change the fact that he's the king. You could totally kill him in one-on-one combat but you'll never get that chance (unless the point of the game is to assassinate the king).

Remember, characters aren't aware of "levels" as such, just "That guy could totally whip my ass," "I could probably take that guy," and "Out of my way, peon."

To put it this way. Let's say the King has ten trusted knights and two players are playing knights. And being one of the king's trusted knights puts you in a position of significance in the setting (not just where the DM shines the spotlight).

Its reasonable to want to be (eventually, at least) among that ten. Its not reasonable, if and when you are among those ten, for you to outweigh the other eight because you don't have "N" before "PC".

Is this making sense?

Sort of.

All else being equal, PCs and NPCs of equal level should be of equal power. No question (and I'm ignoring the retarded NPC classes here).

Degree if influence is a RP concern, and depends heaily on the focus of the campaign and the actions of the players and GM. Higher-level characterss typically have more influence. Characters in high-status positions have more influence.

I confess, I'm not sure where you're going here.

Ok, this should really be a poll, but pick one:
A) Choice of race makes an actual mechanical difference.
B) All races are equally useful in all possible classes and builds.

I vote for A due to the bolded part.
I also vote that all races should be viable in all classes unless it's specifically called out that they're not. Not all builds, maybe, but all classes.

Of course, this assumes broad rather than narrow classes.

Edit: Fixed bold tags.

[Elennsar]

Degree if influence is a RP concern, and depends heaily on the focus of the campaign and the actions of the players and GM. Higher-level characterss typically have more influence. Characters in high-status positions have more influence.

I confess, I'm not sure where you're going here.

The point is, being a "PC" does not mean that you have powers that a "NPC" can't achieve.

If I'm telling the story of Talisman's Wizard, then the spotlight is mostly on Talisman's wizard, but Talisman's wizard doesn't have access to say, action points, just because he's a PC. Anyone else capable of being badass enough to get action points at all gets them.

If I'm telling "the story of the quest to find the Orb", there will be NPCs who do things that hinder/help that quest more than you might do, but your actions still matter (at the very worst, if someone is hindering it, and you hinder the hindrance, that ties up resources that they could have spent on the person being hindered, and you're awesome for stopping that).

But you being a PC does not mean that you get a power that a NPC who is your equal in every way but a NPC instead of a PC wouldn't get. That's absurd.

Save that for below.

Mechanically: yes they should. Otherwise they wouldn't be 5th level. A 10th-level PC is presumably hardcore enough that he can tear through the elite, 5th-level guards in a couple of rounds and engage the king in hand-to-hand combat.

That's what being high level is all about. That's why important NPCs are typically high level. That's what makes stories like my example possible.

Mechanically: Not necessarily, but that's a dispute on how much your level means over theirs.

In D&D as written, you should get the ability to run them over. Doesn't mean D&D should be written to be quite that extreme, but that "should or shouldn't" is another story. However, if 5th levels can be overrun by you at 10th level and you would bother doing so, then some 10th level bad guys might want to go after -you- at 5th level, so better not whine about that.

As for PC sidekicks: Let's say that you're a squire for a knight.

Your knight might slay a dragon because he's so badass.

You, meanwhile, are his valued and trusted assistent, who he asks for help when he needs someone to pitch in and so on and so forth.

I'd be happy playing that. I'm unusual, I'm sure, but that's not an unfitting role for a PC.

Not unless it winds up with "and he never asks, and you just stand there watching him do stuff you can't even try to do", but that's "minion".


I'd like to flesh this whole "PCs are among the special" out with you via PM, so if you're interested, let's go for it. Because I'm not sure how to explain it without knowing precisely where we're disagreeing on "PCs are stars", which is easier done without other clutter.

But, I think we at least see what the other is saying well enough to discuss it if we can avoid the other clutter.

[Surgo]

There are no sprites (sadly, the mind flayer is not in the SRD, so I can't look up its Int mod, hence using a different race ) with a Dexterity of 8.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/sprite.htm

That is outside the range. Entirely.

There aren't many humans outside the range of 6-14 with an 18, but there are some. There are none (and this is a proposed house rule/apparent fact on Earth) with an Int of 25.

So the orc range might be 6-12, with a max of 23.

To put it this way, you could play a Stephen Hawking IQ level archmage, but you couldn't play a human with wings sprouting from his back who could fly at X feet per round with (any) manueverability and call him a human just like the one typing this.

What does this have to do with anything?

You said that anything outside specific traits that defined orcishness was not, and could not be played as, an orc. I asked you to list the specific traits of humans. You listed some traits. Every single one of those traits has a human that falls outside of it. Yet they are still a human.

[Elennsar]

It has to do with the fact that "uncommon, but within the range that -any orc at all falls into-" exists.

So while there may be fewer orcs (and it may be harder to be an orc with) Int 18, 18 is not outside the "orcs are capable of" range.

Just the "standard orc range".

The former is the range of which you're not an orc if it doesn't apply.

There -aren't- humans with Int 30. Period. But there are a few outside our typical 6-14 realm.

[Talisman]

The point is, being a "PC" does not mean that you have powers that a "NPC" can't achieve.

If I'm telling the story of Talisman's Wizard, then the spotlight is mostly on Talisman's wizard, but Talisman's wizard doesn't have access to say, action points, just because he's a PC. Anyone else capable of being badass enough to get action points at all gets them.

True. And the reverse is true as well: anything an NPC (of a PC race) can do, a PC can theoretically do as well. It may involve sacrificing babies to the Faceless Eater of Souls, but that's a RP concern, not a mechanical one.

Actual monsters are another story.

I'd like to flesh this whole "PCs are among the special" out with you via PM, so if you're interested, let's go for it. Because I'm not sure how to explain it without knowing precisely where we're disagreeing on "PCs are stars", which is easier done without other clutter.

Let's go for it.

[Maj]

Second, I like it how everyone focuses on the most meaningless part of a race: the little numbers. What if I want all members of a race, and no one else, to actually have an unique ability? Of course, one might argue for a defective not having it - but you might still fix it as racial to block access to other races.

I think the racial modifiers to stats are retarded, but I like the idea of a unique non-numerical ability or unique set of abilities for each race.

You have conflated roleplaying and mechanics quite a bit here. That explains a lot about the way you game and why you seem to stand for roleplaying some of the time, but not for others.

The two are both part of what makes an orc an orc and not a something else. In our world, we're all playing humans with certain arbitrary divisions that rarely (ever?) manifest as anything more than training varying between cultures in terms of what you'd measure in a game.

With nonhumans, they may well have things we don't do or things we do as humans but they do much more commonly.

You completely missed my point. People do not roleplay +2 Strength. You can roleplay being strong, but you do not roleplay a number. When you start describing a race, you conflate the numbers and the part you actually roleplay. Which explains why half the time you use roleplaying as a justification, while totally shunning roleplaying the other half.

I'm all for roleplaying, but I'm not for insisting that everything roleplayable be equally mechanically playable.

This sentence is loud and clear as to your basic gaming philosophy. And no one here will ever agree with you on this point. Period. The core philosophy of most of the players on this board is that the mechanics of the game should be fair across all players, and the flavor text can be overlaid as desired. Flavor text and fluffiness should not be used to justify unfairness. Ever.

And the problem is, if an elf with a bow is no more impressive than anyone else with a bow, there's nothing that will lead to that being awe-ful/fearful other than misconception.

The problem here is that you are again missing the point, and further conflating the individual with the whole of a race.

A race is defined by the DM. If the DM happens to go with what a book says, that's fine. But the DM decides whether orcs are evil, green, ugly, thuggish, or not. Elves are good with bows because someone said so. I don't even understand why they're good with bows because they supposedly make great wizards, but whatever.

If the DM says "elves are considered to be archers," then your elf - who wields a quarterstaff - is going to get the evil eye from people who see that a bow has failed to appear. That is the part you roleplay.

Even if that's only "the vast majority of elves do become excellent archers", there needs to be something that makes elf with a bow able to do well enough that not just anyone could copy it.

Maybe a dwarf who commited himself to mastering the bow as well as any elf could achieve that one day, but it would be accomplishing beyond the usual realm of nonelves...even extraordinary nonelves.

This is such crap I don't even know where to start. What happens if the elves are good archers because they happen to have a monopoly on wood? It's not that they - as a race - are particularly good at archery. It's not that a human couldn't ever surpass them. It's because on the desert planet, they live in the only forest, so they're the only people who happen to have enough wood to make a bow for everyone in their populus.

Being superlative should be a function of level, not race. Perhaps elves are good at archery because they average a higher level than humans, seeing as how they tend to be stereotyped as living in frontier conditions rather than in cities... Or maybe they're higher level because they've lived longer and gained more experience that way. That could explain why your average human sucks with a bow as compared to your average elf.

[Elennsar]

When you start describing a race, you conflate the numbers and the part you actually roleplay.

Not all of the stuff given numbers is not roleplayed. Some of it is. You roleplay an intelligent person differently than a stupid person, I presume.

Flavor text and fluffiness should not be used to justify unfairness. Ever.

So, being a runaway peasant should be just as strong as any other thing in the setting? Really?

What the fuck?

If fluff and flavor have NO IMPACT on anything but the font you pick, that means that there's no advantage to any choice for anything. How boring. I don't want to play an elf who is exactly the same as your dwarf when we picked the same class because if I'm better anywhere I'm suddenly not level appropriate.

Elves are good with bows because someone said so.

Elves are good with bows because they have either the training (which presumably anyone else could copy or better) or the talent or both. Beyond that, an elf with thirty years of practice is equal to a human with the same if nothing else changes, and thusly see below if that's the only part you think should influence it.

This is such crap I don't even know where to start.

Then have a bonus equal to level+3 which you roll for every adventuring task, and everyone has an equal bonus at the same level, and no item can ever increase that bonus, and nothing can ever alter it that isn't equally available to everyone.

Ever.

Really, if you're that obssessed with avoiding "Elves are better archers", then you need something like that, so it is impossible to play an elf as a better archer without being higher level, which is an advantage in more than just "archery".

[Crissa]

So, being a runaway peasant should be just as strong as any other thing in the setting? Really?

No, a PC of a level should be able to access equivalent tools from any class its allowed as any other PC of that level and class would be.

So a wizard? Should have equivalent spells and DCs.

That means no minus to Int.

But Str? That doesn't limit all of your Fighter 'spells' like Int does in D&D.

Anyhow, we wouldn't be able to tell Heracles or Abraham or whatever hero if they can't ever be stronger than other things normally stronger than the average human.

*sigh*

-Crissa

[Elennsar]

So a wizard? Should have equivalent spells and DCs.

That means no minus to Int.

But Str? That doesn't limit all of your Fighter 'spells' like Int does in D&D.

No, it just means my Strength based actions are less effective.

Than an equivalant higher Strength fighter.

Losing Int may hurt a wizard more than losing Strength hurts a fighter, but both hurt in the same ways.

And

Anyhow, we wouldn't be able to tell Heracles or Abraham or whatever hero if they can't ever be stronger than other things normally stronger than the average human.

Ahhh, but if we have "To Adventure" as all of what you roll, and its totally level dependent, we just make them higher level!

I'm missing something here. I just know it.

[Draco_Argentum]

You got funny ears, a shared ancestral culture/back story (that you do not personally have to be chained to in your actual life style) and the secure knowledge that some unspecified majority of your race for some reason happens to have traits like "Big and Dumb" or "Foaming Savage" and that may or may not have a direct impact on game play through characters other than your own.

I agree with this. The race is established by having the mooks conform to a stereotype. The PCs are definitionally non-stereotypical. Its perfectly fine for them to just ignore the stereotype. PL's system is entirely workable. I think its best for funny looking humans type races.

Frank's is also workable, it suits more rigid races better but would be more work to implement. Broad races with the ability to be used for any allowed class, sounds good. This works best with races that need CG to be in a movie.

I haven't seen any other working ideas.

[Fuchs]

10 more pages of Elennsar arguing for just one thing: That elves are the best archers, and that no non-elf PC archer can be as good as an elf PC archer.

Elf fanboyism at its worst.

[Elennsar]

Would you prefer me arguing that someone else should be the best something else?

If elves are superior in talent and equal in training, they will be better archers.

Doesn't mean that they'll be better at adventuring, because your to-hit rolls with a longbow are a small part of what you do, but its a part.

So, shove your fanboyism comment back into the GIH from which it came.

If you think that an elf should have no advantage at being an archer whatsoever over another race, that's fine, but if an elf should never be better anywhere (or a dwarf better somewhere else or a human somewhere else, etc, etc.), then your races are going to be short on abilities.

Very short.

[Surgo]

It has to do with the fact that "uncommon, but within the range that -any orc at all falls into-" exists.

So while there may be fewer orcs (and it may be harder to be an orc with) Int 18, 18 is not outside the "orcs are capable of" range.

Just the "standard orc range".

The former is the range of which you're not an orc if it doesn't apply.

There -aren't- humans with Int 30. Period. But there are a few outside our typical 6-14 realm.

Are you obtuse, or are you intentionally missing the point?

For every single trait you have described as being essentially human, there is a human being that is not described by it. Yet these people are still human. You are trying to tell me that Orcs cannot have the same range and variance.

[Psychic Robot]

The idea is that the average human is the baseline. The average orc baseline is thus stronger than the average human. If you want to play a weak-but-smart orc, ask permission from your DM, because that orc is not an average orc.

[Fuchs]

Would you prefer me arguing that someone else should be the best something else?

If elves are superior in talent and equal in training, they will be better archers.

Doesn't mean that they'll be better at adventuring, because your to-hit rolls with a longbow are a small part of what you do, but its a part.

So, shove your fanboyism comment back into the GIH from which it came.

If you think that an elf should have no advantage at being an archer whatsoever over another race, that's fine, but if an elf should never be better anywhere (or a dwarf better somewhere else or a human somewhere else, etc, etc.), then your races are going to be short on abilities.

Very short.

Hit a nerve? All your posts just turn and twist around one thing: Elf PCs should be better at archery than non-elf PCs of equal level and training.

Whereas the majority here seems to be saying "All PCs should be equal at archery given the same amount of training (aka level)".

Races do not have to be short on abilities, as long as PCs can be the exception and have access to those abilities regardless of race.

So, you can give every elf NPC +2 with a bow - as long as every PC can pick that talent as well if the player wants to be an archer, then all's well.

The problem comes from your insistence that no dwarf or human PCis allowed to be as talented with a bow as an elf PC.

And that's elf fanboyism.

Once more: PCs are not average, they are not NPCs, they are the exception. They should not be defined by what's average for their race.

And if you truly think that flavor is not enough to define a PC's race, then I do not know why you're claiming to be roleplaying.

[Psychic Robot]

It's not elf fanboyism if each race has a specialty. Elf fanboyism is the Tolkien wank-fest when elves are prettier, stronger, faster, and more intelligent than humans, and they live like a million years, and having elfblood automatically makes you better.

Once more: PCs are not average, they are not NPCs, they are the exception. They should not be defined by what's average for their race.

It's fine to say, "No, you can't be a weakling Orc. You would have died early in childhood when you failed to pull your weight." Contrary to popular belief, the PCs don't need to be omgspeshul. That's my biggest fucking peeve with stuff like Robert Jordan's work: it's essentially, "Oh, look, every female PC is one of the MOST POWERFUL CHANNELERS SEEN IN THE LAST THOUSAND YEARS, but none of them can compare to THE DRAGON REBORN oh God Rand I need you inside of me."

[Fuchs]

PCs do not need to be special. But neither do they need to average. Why wouldn't there be room for the smart orc, who pulled his weight by pointing out better plans? Or the charismatic orc, who rode the coattails of the big dumb brute, manipulating him until it became second nature?

What does a game gain if they pigeonhole races into certain classes?

[Bigode]

Races do not have to be short on abilities, as long as PCs can be the exception and have access to those abilities regardless of race.

I don't fvcking care about stat bonuses, and neither should anyone. But tell me, if lifesight's an ability of race X and tremorsense's an ability of race Y, aren't you gonna have to keep all other races from having it?