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

[Talisman]

This is D&D. Aragon isn't capable of doing cool things. He's a level 3 character with a plot background.

Bad Kaelik! No cookie for you!

Aragorn is cool. He is cool because he does cool things. He is cool because he is the most awesome guy around. He is cool because he is the star of the show.

You're comparing him to the X-Men and saying he sucks. Well, guess what? LotR isn't D&D. LotR characters are not D&D characters. This is as pointless as comparing a D&D wizard to a Deadlands huckster to "prove" that the huckster sucks. It's not even apples and oranges; it's apples and carrots.

I understand that you personally want your players at the end of the campaign to feel like they weren't important at all, and could have been replaced by any level fucking 3 Warrior and it would have turned out the same because your NPCs do the cool things.

Because Elennsar seems to be too polite to say it: fuck you.

This is a pile of shit and you know it. You are assigning (stupid) options in order to bash them and assuming that there is no middle ground between "abjectly sucky mook" and "dragon-slaying badass who makes the gods wet themselves."

Players play to be cool, yes. It's cool to overcpome challenges. It
s not cool or interesting to smackdown the dragon with your l33t p0w4rz because you out-power him by a factor of 30. That's just boring mental masturbation.

People who aren't you play D&D to be cool fantasy heroes who can do the following things:

1) Fly at level fucking 5.
2) Fly all day at level 7.
3) Single handedly kill a bandit ambush at level 3.
4) Kill a flying Fire Breathing Lizard as big as a house at level 13.
5) Wrestle a big dumb Ogre into submission at level 3.
6) Most importantly, ect.

So, if you can't follow this list exactly you fail at D&D. Thanks for spelling that out...and here I thought I was having fun. Silly me.

Nobody has claimed that there aren't special people out there who aren't PCs. But by definition PCs are "special" in the D&D world. And special means like seven times better then any human being could ever be at level 5

And now we know that in Kaelik land, people who aren't Superman don't count. Nice.

I was trying to stay out of this scrum, but this level of douchery demanded that I speak up. If you disagree with Elennsar, fine; but stop the constant peronal attacks, strawmanning, and outright fucktard behavior.

I have to go. My opinion on races later.

[Kaelik]

1) And of course, a kobold has to be able to do these things, because we have to permit people to play kobolds, because, um, that part I'm not following.

Now, if kobolds were a level +/-0 race, meaning that they're supposed to be played without being a lower tier or a higher tier, then yes, a kobold should be able to do level 1 stuff at level 1 and level 60 stuff at level 60.

Doesn't mean that has to be the case, however.

If Kobold is a playable race, then Kobold must be able to do these things. Kobold is a playable race, therefore say it with me now, Kobolds must be able to do these things.

2) No, living in the land where "TOTAL DOMINANCE" is not the only alternative to "total suck".

A player should feel that they had fun playing a character. They might save the day, or they might fail. They might be able to beat the King's champion or not.

Insisting that "they have to be superhuman or they SUCK" is as ludicrious as insisting that Superman be only capable of doing human things would be for me, which is why I'm not insisting on the latter.

Bad Elennsar, try again. D&D says you must be this tall to play. Therefore all characters must be this tall. The fact that you don't want to play D&D has nothing to do with the fact that in D&D characters need to be able to do the things that they need to do, which includes everything on that list.

And guess what, no matter how much you hate it. Characters can do that. So fucking Deal.

3) No, only if being a fighter is a limited array of things (like any other class would be), instead of "any possible idea that involves a sword (or any other weapon)".

Fighter means: Person who fights shit with tactics. That means that Fighter McBobo the human fighter is not any better at it then Fighter McGrunka the Kobold. They might fight differently, but Fighter does not mean, "Hit shit with a 2H weapon and the highest Str you can manage, No Items, Fox only, Final Destination."

You seriously get to choose how you hit things, and so choosing, "I'm a tiny guy who gets under your feat and dodges around causing problems" is equivalent to choosing "I'm HUGE. I punch you now!"

4) That kind of special (in bold) is not "special". Its just "powerful". And arguing that the game should be designed to do that and the game not being designed for that makes PCs wretched losers is as bad as me arguing that no game should ever have PCs who ever do anyhting worth worth doing would be.

You can be on the same level as the best people in real life and do things that would not be unimpressive in a game, or you can make that game so that those things are bypassed after a few levels. You do not need to do the latter, however.

So Fucking What? You can make that game. It is totally possible. D&D is not, and never has been that game, and if you are the person who seriously can't do anything more then a human IRL, then in the D&D verse you will die if you even remotely attempt to do anything interesting.

Farm? Sure. Craft swords? Sure. Fight against an Orc Raiding party? Congratulations, you die now. Because one of those orcs will cast entangle, and then the other ones will fucking chop your face off.

D&D is not for normal people. It is for people who can actually keep up with CR challenges. Which means after level 3, not fucking normal people.

The game is designed that way, and it always has been, and it should be, because that's what D&D fucking is.

5) Or kobolds, or anything else that isn't as capable as humanity. No one said our species was the minimum level to be competent when we're the only species (in our world, that we know of) that we have to compare ourselves to. You could be slower and frailer than the average human but much smarter with psychic powers and survive.

Kobolds are just as capable as humans. You fail. Your premise is retarded. They are more dexterous then us, they have all sorts of neat benefits regarding size, they have tougher skins, and then build sweet traps. Not to mention the rending claws and teeth and the affinity with magic.

They are the equal of humanity. Which is why they are +0 LA. All characters of a given level must be equally as capable, which means if you want to play a beaver, it has to be a magically altered beaver that is sentient. Because you have to be fucking equal to everyone else.

So, while all +0 LA races should be equal to humanity, not all races should be +0 LA.

And Kobold is a fucking +0 LA race, and therefore, it should be equal to humans. Play D&D or GTFO.

I don't mind people taking over three levels, but I do mind the idea that a minotaur fighter and a kobold fighter and a human fighter are exactly equal in power even though that would require the kobold to be freakishly capable for kobolds and the minotaur to be equally freakishly pathetic.

They are exactly the same power if they are the same level. That is what level fucking means. If you want the Minotaur to be a better fighter then a Kobold, make him higher level. And stop pretending that Str is a one for one correlation with how good a fighter you are. The only thing that is one for one correlation with how good you are is level. That's fucking it.

Stop insisting that every option should be a viable option and that I'm against giving options at all.

Every option that is playable should be viable. Every character of the same level is equally as good by definition. Kobold Fighters cannot be worse then Minotaur Fighters if they are the same level.

Not all things are created equal.
But you're basically saying you want all the bonuses of being a kobold (being too small for the ogre to notice easily) but none of the penalties (being too weak to effectly hurt him).

No. First of all, a +1 to AC is not "being to small for the ogre to notice" it is being punched in the face small.

All characters of the same level are fucking equal. Deal. If you want something to be better make it higher fucking level and stop whining about how you want races to suck because you don't like them.

Begin small and dextrous instead of big and hulking does not make you a worse fighter, it makes you just as good at fighting in a different fucking way. Get over it.

Kobolds need to do as much damage as anyone else of a given level, they need to be as hard to kill as anyone else of a given level. They can do this in different ways, but they cannot be less powerful. Period. That's it. Because level means power.

[Maj]

There is absolutely no reason in the world why all nonhuman races are human peers or superiors. None.

I don't recall the passage in any definition of PC that said "unique being, conforming to no social or racial norms."

So, having "I'm a ____." actually mean something other than a bunch of utterly irrelevant fluff is a sign of being "unimaginative"? Riiiight.

There's a fundamental disconnect between your interpretation of the game and everyone else's, and even though I'm a lame-ass min/maxxer who would much rather toss out the rules and make totally fruity characters based on clichéd flaws, I still disagree with you. Here's the break down:

There are roleplaying reasons to make characters: You want to be different than everyone else, you're rebelling against your family, you were sold into slavery, you live in the wrong culture, you suffered a debilitating accident, you're not human, etc, etc. It's totally cool to want those differences to manifest in your character...

However, from a mechanical standpoint, you are a playing piece. In Monopoly, you don't have mechanical differences between the top hat and the dog. All the playing pieces start with the same mechanical advantages - even though it would make sense that the top hat get an extra amount of money because it is a symbol of wealth, and the dog get extra movement because it can actually propel itself.

Likewise, in D&D, each PC is a playing piece, and it totally sucks mechanically to have one playing piece be inferior because it looks cooler or different than the other pieces. It would be like giving the top hat a movement penalty because it can't propel itself.

What makes things even more critically important is that in D&D you're part of a team, and if your playing piece is penalized for some superficial reason, you have a noticeable effect on how well your friends can play the game - which sucks. A lot.

Unless there's a reason other than "I'm a PC!" to be different, yes. PCs can be exceptions. PC=/= exception.

Having recently become a parent, I can tell you that the medical profession has averages for everything. They measure my son's head circumference and put that on a chart of averages. They measure his height, weight, and ratio of those things and chart those, too. And there are benchmarks that have averages - like when you start holding your head up, sitting without help, smiling, teething, etc, etc.

I don't know a single child who actually falls on the 50% mark everytime. They might possibly hit the average on a couple of the statistics (though they don't have to), but rarely is an individual actually dead average. My son, for example, has an average head circumference and weight, but his height is well above average, and his height/weight ratio is very much below average. He was holding his head up within the first week, rather than at one month.

The point I'm trying to get at is that there is no reason why a character should ever be burdened with the average abilities of their race or class. Averages are just reference points used to characterize a large group as a whole, and when you start taking a look at specific individuals, the idea of averages is rather silly.

To put it this way, "my viking was taught kenjutsu by the samurai" is pushing it well beyond the limits of plausible No Way Could This Happen events.

Not a big fan of Xena, are you?

So basically you wind up with having to find more and more powerful things in order to even have a close fight.

Um... No offense, but that's what a level-based system does for you. If you don't want that paradigm, ditch the levels.

If it won't influence what you're good at and it won't influence what you generally do, it has no meaning.

There are two approaches to this conundrum:

1) Allowing each player to choose an ability that suits them based on their race/culture/whatever: Why does an elf have to be perceptive? Why can't my elf just never get lost? Why does my elf have to be proficient with a bow? Why not a hunting knife?

2) Leaving the differences in the realm of roleplaying: This is a roleplaying game, and while that doesn't mean everyone needs to study acting, that does mean you can give your character quirks like being more comfortable in a forest, or prefering to eat only organic vegetables, or whistling bird calls that reflect being elven while also ensuring the character starts off on equal footing with the others. If what's written on your character sheet is the only thing that matters, you're gonna kill yourself trying to keep track of everything that a character would actually do.

When it comes right down to it, there is no good roleplaying reason to justify foisting those stereotypes on every elven character. There really is an elven klutz out there, and it's OK to play that as a character.

So don't put words in my mouth or attribute opinions to me that I don't hold. THe brief version:

1) Race means something. Some races are good fighters. Some are bad fighters. Some are no better or worse at being fighters as a result of their racial attributes.

A race may be characterized by being good at fighting, but that doesn't mean that each individual of that race must be good at fighting. You say "race means something," but if you can't differentiate one race from another without putting mechanical differences down on your character sheet, you have a problem.

2) Culture also means something.

The same principle as race applies to culture. If the only way to tell the difference between one culture and another is by a certain feat or a +2 somewhere, you're not actually building a character. You're building a pile of statistics.

3) PCs are special, but not necessarily freakishly atypical.

Why not? Again, when you look at an individual's abilities, rather than the stereotype of a group, you will find lots of things that aren't typical. And it's generally the difference from average that allows a person to begin walking the path of being noticed. "History" never remembers the slew of people who were average, but it does remember people who started off being considered average, but actually weren't.

4) There are other special people out there. You will run into them.

I don't see anyone arguing this at all.

5) Not all races are human or equal to humanity. You could set up a game like that, or you could set up a game where some races are subhuman. Nothing wrong with either in regards to racism.

I don't think this is relevant, either.

The point everyone is trying to make is that all players should start off with fair mechanics, regardless of whatever race or class they choose for their character. And because the stereotype of half-orcs being not smart is reflected in the individual's mechanics, a player who wants to break the mold is forced to play a subpar character.

[Kaelik]

Bad Kaelik! No cookie for you!

Aragorn is cool. He is cool because he does cool things. He is cool because he is the most awesome guy around. He is cool because he is the star of the show.

You're comparing him to the X-Men and saying he sucks. Well, guess what? LotR isn't D&D. LotR characters are not D&D characters. This is as pointless as comparing a D&D wizard to a Deadlands huckster to "prove" that the huckster sucks. It's not even apples and oranges; it's apples and carrots.

We are talking about D&D. This thread is about D&D. Therefore, Aragon being a loser in a D&D verse means that he is a loser in this thread. Tough shits.

This is a pile of shit and you know it. You are assigning (stupid) options in order to bash them and assuming that there is no middle ground between "abjectly sucky mook" and "dragon-slaying badass who makes the gods wet themselves."

Elennsar has very clearly stated that he doesn't want characters to be better then real people can be. Real people, even the best in the world, are objectively sucky mooks in D&D. There is no way that a real person from real life could be a worthwhile character over level 3.

Players play to be cool, yes. It's cool to overcpome challenges. It
s not cool or interesting to smackdown the dragon with your l33t p0w4rz because you out-power him by a factor of 30. That's just boring mental masturbation.

And I never fucking claimed that they should be able to wipe the floor with CR challenges. I said they should be able to overcome them. Which normal people fucking can't. I never said "Everyone should be able to fly at level 10 because if you can fly at level 10 you are an invulnerable badass." I said, "You need to be able to fly at level 10 because if you can't then you will die and never contribute. Because D&D is designed such that non-flying characters suck past level 10."

So, if you can't follow this list exactly you fail at D&D. Thanks for spelling that out...and here I thought I was having fun. Silly me.

If you can't do the things on this list, then you can't face CR challenges. Yes, if you can't do these things you fail at D&D, where failing at D&D is defined as not contributing in CR appropriate challenges.

And now we know that in Kaelik land, people who aren't Superman don't count. Nice.

Again. Fucking D&D. Can normal people take on a manticore half the time? NO. They fucking die. You must be good enough to fight CR appropriate challenges or you don't fucking matter. And normal people can't fight CR appropriate challenges.

I was trying to stay out of this scrum, but this level of douchery demanded that I speak up. If you disagree with Elennsar, fine; but stop the constant peronal attacks, strawmanning, and outright fucktard behavior.

Oh wah, he's so mean. I am actually talking about the subject of the thread, instead of whining that I don't think it's fair that Manticores can fly and have ranged attacks. That does not make me mean, it makes me right.

[Talisman]

It seems to me that there are 4 options:

1) Race is fluff only. Good points: Every one is equal; class/skill provides all your awesomeness. Bad points: Race is utterly meaningless.

2) Racial mods are flexible; you pick a race, then pick your mods. Good Points: Everyone is (theoretically) equal, and all concepts are valid. Bad points: Race is meaningless. To quote Syndome, "Once everyone is super, then no one will be."

3) Racial mods exist, but they don't impact on combat stats. Good points: races are distinct, yet everyone is equal. Bad points: racial distinction is largely meaningless, and racial mods are preety damn weak.

4) Racial mods are significant. Good points: races are distinct and meaningful. You get rewarded for following a racial archetype (elf ranger, w/e). Bad points: Some race/class combos are objectively better than others. You get punished for straying outside of your racial archetype.

---

Option #1 sucks, IMHO. Part of the point of playing an elf, say, is that elves are dexterous and have keen senses. Dwarves are tough. I want my dwarf wizard to be tougher than a human wizard; I want my elf fighter to be more graceful that a typical human and hear things better. I want mechanical differences in races; otherwise, we're playing Star Trek, where you can be a human or a bumpy-forehead alien which, oddly, is totally humanoid and speaks English.

Option #2, while it seems to be PL's preference, doesn't sit well with me - I can pick Elf as a race, but take the Dwarf racial mod package, what's the point of playing as any given race? It's easy to pick whatever mods fit your class/concept best, and race has nothing to do with it, so you might as well play a Generican.

Option #3 would work, but it seems as though it would require a lot of effort to give each race racial abilities that are simultaneousl distinct and meaningful, yet have no impact on combat ability or racial arche/stereotype.

Option #4 is the Bad One - but why is it really so bad? If dwarves get +2 to Con and Elves get +2 to Dex and Orcs get +2 to Str, which race is a "bad" ranger and why? Elven archers hit more, orc archers hit harder, and dwarves can take more punishment. Each is useful, each is cool, and no two are identical. Any one might be superior in a given situation, and inferior in the next situation.

I'm not for a minute claiming the 3.x races are balanced - they're not. I am saying that Perfect Racial Equality is not going to exist without stripping away all the non-fluff reason to play race X.

---

Edit: @ Kaelik

Oh wah, he's so mean. I am actually talking about the subject of the thread, instead of whining that I don't think it's fair that Manticores can fly and have ranged attacks. That does not make me mean, it makes me right.

And you are doing so in a juvenile, offensive, and unpleasant manner.

I don't care whether you agree with Elennsar; hell, I disagree with a lot of what he's saying. I know the Den is (in)famous for it's blunt, in-your-face-now-deal-with-it attitude. But there's a line between being blunt and being an asshole, and you, my friend, crossed it.

It's possible to argue politely. It's even possible to argue politely without being particularly nice. However, when someone is flagrantly brutal and vitrolic, I start lumping them in with trolls and morons regardless of whether they're right or not. Why? Because they're apparently unable to convey their information like humans, instead resorting to screeching and feces-flinging.

Having all the knowledge in the world is useless if you can't express it. Teaching someone a better way of life is useless if your teaching method involves slamming their head repeatedly against a brick wall and screaming "Learn, you dumb fucker!" Why? Because it obscures your information in the vitrol, drags you down to (or below) their level, and demonstrates that you are unable to function as a mature adult.

[zeruslord]

You're missing the fifth: all races are equal, but will fit a given class differently. This is by far the best option, but is an incredible pain in the ass to make work and may not actually be possible.

[Talisman]

You're missing the fifth: all races are equal, but will fit a given class differently. This is by far the best option, but is an incredible pain in the ass to make work and may not actually be possible.

See, I think that's the ultimate evolution of #4. In theory, any races should be able to play any class and be 95% equal - a dwarf sorcerer's superior toughness should balance out his lesser spellcastery.

I haven't seen that yet, but I'd sure like to find it.

[Gelare]

@Talisman: Basically, yes, all over the place. #1 and #2 make race entirely roleplaying-based, which, no doubt, is totally fine for some people and some systems. I, personally don't want that, but I'm pretty sure there're some folks around here who do which is, again, fine for them.

I'm not entirely convinced that #3 is actually possible in a system like D&D. Maybe in a much simpler system, but probably not D&D. Virtually everything is related to combat in some way, or there's some build that can make it related to combat. Stats and movement speeds and all that are obvious, but want to make a race unique by giving it spot bonuses? Take that chink in the armor feat and go dragon hunting! Have a race that's got troves of ancient lore in every city? Be an archivist and stun things with no save! And so on and so forth, we can get creative with it.

The point, basically, is that if race is going to have any mechanical implications at all, it's going to have combat and class implications as well. The magnitude of the combat and class implications are, no surprise, going to be directly related to the size of the mechanical implications. Yes, some classes can put knowledge skills to better combat use than others. Yes, some classes can put darkvision to better combat use than others. Now don't get me wrong, everybody should be able to meaningfully contribute to combat, I'm totally with everyone there. But that - and this here's important, so I'm going to bold it - saying that every race/class combination should be able to meaningfully contribute to combat is NOT the same as saying that every race/class combination has to contribute equally to combat. If I make a halfling fighter instead of a dwarven fighter, yes, I do suck a little bit more than the stereotype. And that is a little bit of a shame, absolutely. But I don't suck a lot more than the stereotype, and I have gained the personal satisfaction of playing against type and can, in some fringe cases, maybe even outperform my dwarven counterpart. I also gain the benefit of having race mean anything at all in my system, which I happen to value, but some people might not, and that is totally okay too, we just want to play slightly different games.

[ckafrica]

2) Racial mods are flexible; you pick a race, then pick your mods. Good Points: Everyone is (theoretically) equal, and all concepts are valid. Bad points: Race is meaningless. To quote Syndome, "Once everyone is super, then no one will be."

I think the idea behind this one, (or at least the one I suggested way back when) was that each racial group would have a choice of possible options that would make them particularly suitable for each archetype (as it was TNE discussion it was based on the castes frank had). So you could have a roguey elf, a magey elf, and a fightery elf trait, they would all be elves but they would also have their unique cool elf ability for their archetype that would differenciate them from a dwarf or a kobold. This ability wouldn't necessarily make them better, just uniquely cool from their racial choice that directly fit their class choice.

You could also have generic racial traits that would not make their race lopsided towards one archetype.

I'd say that getting rid of attribute bonuses for races is needed as this seems to be the worst offender when it comes to shoehorning races into class selection

[Gelare]

So you could have a roguey elf, a magey elf, and a fightery elf trait, they would all be elves but they would also have their unique cool elf ability for their archetype that would differenciate them from a dwarf or a kobold. This ability wouldn't necessarily make them better, just uniquely cool from their racial choice that directly fit their class choice.

That's fine, but the question then is, which is better: an elf with the elven fighter package, or a dwarf with the dwarven fighter package? If they're able to do different things, then one of them will be (perhaps only slightly) better, in which case you're back at (a possibly less extreme version of) #4, and if they're not able to do different things, then you're right back at #1. It's not really a question of will races shoehorn characters into certain classes, it's a question of how much will races shoehorn people into certain classes.

[ckafrica]

WEll obviously perfect balance is not possible so you just hope u get close enough. You'll always have people who will want to play a mix of races and classes that might not be "the best". Designers should be aiming for maximum flexibility within their game world without gimping people on choice.

More to the point, I'd hope that none of this racial abilities would skyrocket a character in a certain class. Be a nice extra but it shouldn't be making or breaking the character. Likely situational.

So the elf fighter will find his elf ability comes in handy in the forest while the dwarf's comes in handy underground. Both can work well in either but one will have a situational edge.

[Talisman]

Hmm. I actually kind of like that take on Option #2, but I share Gelare's reservations about it: the options will have to be very carefully designed or we're back to #4.

I'd say that getting rid of attribute bonuses for races is needed as this seems to be the worst offender when it comes to shoehorning races into class selection

I disagree.

You're playing a warrior-type. You can be stronger, tougher, or more agile.

Which is superior? Explain.

Each one is superior - for a different build. Str is better for the 2H beatstick, Dex is better for the swashbuckler, etc.

[ckafrica]

Yeah but if you have a strength bonus from your race it will likely do little for you as a mage whereas con and dex will help a lot . So a Str bonus race is automatically an inferior choice as mage. And with mental stats all favoring a different spell casting class, they shoehorn even more.

Just get rid of the bonuses. You want to be a strong fighter instead of a dexterous one? Put more of your points into dex. Done.

[Gelare]

You're playing a warrior-type. You can be stronger, tougher, or more agile.

Which is superior? Explain.

Each one is superior - for a different build. Str is better for the 2H beatstick, Dex is better for the swashbuckler, etc.

Here's the thing: yes, Str is better for the 2H beatstick, yes, Dex is better for the swashbuckler, etc. The thing is, you'll notice that Fighter and Swashbuckler are actually different classes. It is possible to make a Fighter that plays a lot like a Swashbuckler, but if Swashbuckler didn't suck balls, you probably just want to make a Swashbuckler, and it'll be better at what it does than a Fighter that you tried to smush into the Swashbuckler role.

EDIT: I'm sorry, I think I actually misunderstood your point. Your point is that the 2H fighter and swashbuckler and all that are actually different (and valid) manifestations of the warrior archetype. Which is true, but one of them is going to end up with at least a slight statistical lead in whatever benchmark performance tests you want, and one will end up being superior for any particular type of campaign.

[Kaelik]

Talisman, what you called the ultimate evolution of 4, and what was originally presented as option 5, is exactly what I've been arguing for the whole time, but in the process I've had to oppose Elennsar precisely because his point is that agile people aren't allowed to be equally as good fighters as strong people.

Kobolds can't be good at grappling people in a different way then Orcs. They have to suck at grappling. That's it. No being good allowed.

This is precisely the point. People don't argue with Elennsar because he wants all the races to be equivalent but in different ways. He wants Kobold Fighters to suck, and Minotaur Sorcerers to suck. He wants a Dwarven ranger to suck at Rangery things, because Dwarven Rangers should be punished. They can't be allowed to leverage toughness into good Rangerness, because that's not fair to the Elves, who have to be better rangers then anyone else.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

Stop insisting that every option should be a viable option

But in a cooperative game, every option offered should be a viable option. You can get away with woefully subpar options in a competitive game, where separating what's cool from what sounds cool can be part of the competitive element. But in a cooperative game, you're just giving people a chance to shoot their friends in the foot.

So basically you wind up with having to find more and more powerful things in order to even have a close fight.

This is more evidence that you really don't want to play D&D 3.x. In previous editions, the assumption was that the characters would take on responsibilities around Level 9-10 and spend more time roleplaying and less in combat. In fact, since XP progression went linear past that point, the game broke due to accelerated leveling if you kept doing standard dungeon crawls for too long past that point.

3e, on the other hand, keeps the progression happily scaling past level 10. Why? Because the designers assume that PCs will keep going on quests and fighting ever tougher monsters until they die, retire, or ascend to godhood. If you want the PCs' abilities and the power of their adversaries to plateau, you're not interested in fixing D&D 3.5. You really want another edition or another game entirely.

[Talisman]

Kaelik: I see your point, although I think you're exaggerating Elennsar's opinions a bit (not that I agree with him). In any case, it sounds like we want the same thing for racial diversity: equal-power but distinct mechanical abilities.

[ckafrica]

Well what are the things that people want LA+0 races to be able to do to make them special?

[Gelare]

Kaelik: In any case, it sounds like we want the same thing for racial diversity: equal-power but distinct mechanical abilities.

It sounds like Kaelik doesn't want just equal power between races, but equal power between every race/class combination. Now, regardless of whether I agree with this goal or not, I seriously do not think it is possible in a game like D&D. You can have swift, agile fighting types who dizzy their enemies with their grace and fast blows, and you can have strong and stocky fighting types who can take damage well and dish it out even better, but in any given encounter, one of these will perform better, and when you aggregate all the encounters that take place in a campaign, one of them will perform better overall. I think it is a good thing when the difference in their performance is small, but I'm not sure it's possible (or desirable, but that's a different issue) to make them actually equivalent. Am I just too unimaginative? Can someone give me examples?

[Absentminded_Wizard]

I think in this context, equivalent means "equally effective, on average, against all level-appropriate challenges." The fact that one character may be more effective against some challenges than others doesn't change the overall balance. True, it's possible for the DM's choice of encounters to affect two characters' balance agaisnt each other over the course of the campaign, but those differences should be slight. And if the DM is going to favor certain kinds of encounters to the point where the difference is significant, he/she should make that clear at character creation.

[Talisman]

Gelare, I think that even if all options are mechanically equal, player/GM bias will ensure that some function at a higher level of effectiveness than others. As an example, a GM who's a big fan of swashbucklery is likely to throw out encounters that favor the fast, agile fighters and the witty, charismatic fighters - which, of course, makes the strong beatstick fighters and the tough tanks less useful.

I don't think perfect race/class equivilancy is possible in a game with - in the core books alone - 77 possible permutations without mutliclassing. I don't think it's even a worthwhile goal, as that way lies either total genericness, where all options are mechanically identical and differ only in fluff, or total madness. It may be possible in a simpler game - say, one with only 3 races and 5 classes - but that sure as hell ain't D&D.

I do think it's possible to get all the most common race/class combos to be near one another in power. A 5% - 10% power gap is acceptable, IMO. 10% difference means that you're contributing significantly, and youre minimal power loss is a tradeoff for jamming a square peg into a hexagonal hole. If my swashbuckler is 5% less effective than the tank and 5% more effective than the rager, I will be a happy man.

[Gelare]

Well in that case we are totally, 100%, on the same page. No more complaints here.

[Draco_Argentum]

Thread was broken and wouldn't display page 4 when I made this post.

Maj already covered my points. Instead of repeating them heres an example, I was born and raised in Australia and I certainly didn't get the cultural +2 Knowledge[sport] bonus.

Elsennar's position is nonsensical. For a start noone exactly matches the average. More importantly D&D explicitly focuses on the least average members of a race.

D&D is a level based game. So yes, the dwarf ranger is equal to the elven one of the same level. Anyone who disagrees just doesn't want a level based game.

[Elennsar]

And if you want them to be both equal you need one of two things:

Meaningless modifiers that you will literally forget are on your character sheet because they impact anything you need to remember about as much as character hair color.

"every possible option works", which winds up as terribly stupid. "Charisma mod to attack rolls because you attack with um, panache!" is making it so that instead of being rewarded for following an archetype, you're rewarding for finding the combination that is the most broken

Now, there's nothing wrong with having multiple options that can all do well. But if you're doing a physically weak race and trying to be a fighter, you should be handicapped for the same reason that trying to do a mentally weak race is probably not a good idea for a wizard.

A race that just plain sucks period doesn't fit the level system. Insisting that minotaurs and kobolds should be each equal to each other at things that are supposedly minotaur strong points...ew. Supporting having a kobold character that is able to do just fine at level 1+ is one thing. Insisting that the kobold has to be able to negate all the weaknesses of being small and weak (without losing any of the advantages of being a kobold, including those of being small) means that you're actually better off picking "small and weak" over "big and strong".

As for averages: For purposes of this statement (not just this post), average is the typical. That is, most people are between 5'-6'. The number that are 5'6" may not be the most common. But there aren't very many 7' humans or 4' humans.

And as to freaks in a social sense...

One Drizzt is cool and interesting. Two is okay. Three is fanboyism. Four plus and you've just announced that "drow" doesn't mean anything at all.

Speaking metaphorically, its more like that there are more Drizzt types than actual CE drow played by people.

[Orion]

Why the fuck should mentally handicapped races be bad at magic?

Why can't Minotaurs be stupid, but filled with the "blood of the earth," which grants them an instinctive proficiency with earth and summoning magic?

Why should physically weak races be bad fighters?

Why can't they have psychic insight that lets them predict the enemy's blows, or something?

Sure, maybe you don't want to have Minotaur wizards in your game. Thn just say there are no fucking minotaur wizards in your game. If you allow a PC to be a Minotaur wizard, he had better be good at it, and you had better come up with a reason for it.

PS -- How do the following races bias with respect to class?

Birdmen: Can fly, but not use ranged attacks or magic while flying

Tieflings: Are immune to fire

Halflings: have a bonus to dodging all attacks

Dwarves: Wear armor one level heavier than normal for their class

Elves: have a bonus with swords, bows, and air spells