Warglblasters 2: Optional Attribute Modifiers

[echoVanguard]

Assume the following:

1. Attributes range from 1-6 (with values of 7-9 accounted for in the system but not available at character creation). Characters may not begin play with an attribute lower than 2 or higher than 6 after racial adjustments.
2. Attributes operate under a point-buy system, where the cost of the higher scores is greater than the cost of the lower scores in a scaling fashion as follows: a 2 costs 1 point, a 3 costs 2 points, a 4 costs 4 points, and a 5 costs 8 points. Characters have a total pool of 22 points to create their character, spread across six attributes (all of which are meaningful to all characters, regardless of class).
3. Races have an optional +1 to one attribute and -1 to another, which must be taken as a pair - in other words, you can either have no bonuses or penalties, or must take the both the bonus and the penalty.
4. Races also gain a mandatory secondary benefit - call it a bonus feat for ease of understanding - which is available to all characters of any race using normal advancement rules.
5. Advancement options exist that raise one attribute by 2, but can only be taken once and are very limited in supply (resulting in a maximum attribute value of 8 for player characters).
6. Characters may permanently swap any one attribute with an attribute within one step at various points during character advancement (say, every level). So, you could not swap your highest attribute with your lowest, but you could swap your highest with your second highest, or your lowest with your second lowest, and so on.

Do these solutions eliminate all (or at least most) of the problems inherent in racial optimization while still defining an attribute- and trait-based identity for specific races? Discuss.

echo

PS - keep the archer nonsense out of Please do not discuss the viability of specific character or build paradigms in this thread.

[shadzar]

3 is confusing and moreso 4.

5 is.. racial levels?

1, 2, 6.. how does this relate to races?

[echoVanguard]

5 is.. racial levels?

Since you seem to prefer 2E syntax, try thinking of them as NWPs. You can think of item 4 the same way.

echo

[John Magnum]

Without knowing what the hell this new system of attributes actually DOES, it's impossible for anyone to say if this is an interesting subsystem. You've ripped out enough of d20 that I can't evaluate this as a patch for 3.x, but there's nothing else to evaluate it as part of. It's a subsystem adrift.

Still, impressions... I raise my eyebrow at the idea that all six attributes are important to every class. Well, "meaningful". I'm not sure how that would work out. Without any more information, I have no idea how much anyone would care about +1/-1 to attributes. Since they only run from 2-9 it seems like it would be pretty important.

Giving each race a single schtick-feat thing is probably not an awful idea. You're going to end up with some races being better for some classes and worse for others, but you can probably tune it so that no class has a small set of mandatory races.

Remind me what design goals you're attempting to meet with this subsystem? A race/class pairing paradigm that makes each race meaningfully distinct WITHOUT providing overwhelming race/class synergies and antisynergies that eliminate huge swathes of possible race/class pairs?

[echoVanguard]

Remind me what design goals you're attempting to meet with this subsystem? A race/class pairing paradigm that makes each race meaningfully distinct WITHOUT providing overwhelming race/class synergies and antisynergies that eliminate huge swathes of possible race/class pairs?

That's pretty much it, yes. We want players to be excited about making a Warglblaster Spaghettimancer because of the synergies involved in that class/race combo, but we don't want Warglblasters to suck at every class except Spaghettimancer, and we don't want all Spaghettimancers to be Warglblasters. Futhermore, we want there to be different things to get excited about when determing what race you want your Spaghettimancer to be.

Think about it in terms of 3.X D&D - you know you want to make a fighter, but you aren't sure what kind. If you want a tough, gruff, stalwart character, you'll probably be excited about a dwarf fighter, whereas if you want a lot of tactical options and social capability, you would probably be excited about the range of options a human fighter offers. If you wanted an agile fighter who could spot secret doors and was resistant to enchantments, you would be excited about an elven fighter.

As an added perk, we want players to be able to at least tentatively associate various races with particular traits - you see a Warglblaster NPC, you can at least feel comfortable assuming they might have some trait known to be common to Warglblasters, like tomatovision or a bonus to eat pasta. (I'm so very, very sorry for the terribleness of these examples.)

echo

[shadzar]

5 is.. racial levels?

Since you seem to prefer 2E syntax, try thinking of them as NWPs. You can think of item 4 the same way.

echo

in other words, completely useless.

EDIT: upon reading the dreaded PO:S&P... you are more in line here if you said what became racial feats in 3rd...the character points system from 2.5.

not all elves have infravision, but you could buy an elf package with CP that did, or you could make your own elf without infravision.

but if that is the case, simple make Human the race, and give them "mutations" or something along the lines of Red Steel, either with the disadvantages or without. (also 2.5 traits/disadvantages via CP system)

still not sure where the ability scores play in.

i am NOT against a system that lets you buidl your own race or class, but it better be DAMN good or im taking the default elf or something that offers what i want form an elf.

D&D is magic based, and the Greystone isnt the only thing or act of a god that should be able to alter the races.

[Murtak]

Look, your entire premise is ridiculous. You want there to be synergies between races and classes, but you still want every race to be good at everything. That is bullshit. It is flat out impossible. If synergies exist race A is better at something than race B. Period. You can control how much better they are, but that's it. You can not get rid of "orcs suck at being wizards" without also getting rid of "gray elves rock at being wizards", because "suck" and "rock" are relative terms. How much something rocks at a task is directly determined by how much better they are at it than someone else. By getting rid of the rocking you get rid of the sucking and vice versa.

[Username17]

Look, your entire premise is ridiculous. You want there to be synergies between races and classes, but you still want every race to be good at everything. That is bullshit. It is flat out impossible. If synergies exist race A is better at something than race B. Period. You can control how much better they are, but that's it. You can not get rid of "orcs suck at being wizards" without also getting rid of "gray elves rock at being wizards", because "suck" and "rock" are relative terms. How much something rocks at a task is directly determined by how much better they are at it than someone else. By getting rid of the rocking you get rid of the sucking and vice versa.

True.

But you can still make things "differently good". Look, in PHB 3e D&D, there were worthless classes and there were worthless races, but there weren't any mandatory class/race combinations. Part of that was because the only classes for whom a specific stat boost were deal makers and breakers were the casters and no race got a mental stat boost. But the other part was that the non-stat bonuses of the playable races (that is: Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, and Gnome) were weird and eccentric and added differently to different classes. You could play a Rogue as an Elf or a Dwarf or a Halfling and no one would even think that was weird. All of those races had a lot to offer to an aspiring Rogue.

Now the 3e PHB only delivered on that promise for 5 races and they wrote up 7. While I think you could deliver 7 functional races that could all be played as any of the playable classes with a completely straight face - I think it's pretty ambitious. D&D delivered only 5, and they had the largest real playtest in history (the Pathfinder one not being an actual playtest). I don't see anyone doing better than that any time soon.

You can make several races that are all differently good at all the playable roles in the game. But can't make a lot of races that are all differently good at the roles of the game. Hell, I have seen no evidence that anyone is able to make even half a dozen races that fulfill that criteria.

-Username17

[Murtak]

You can basically hand out racial powers that are desirable regardless of class, yes. But your design goals can't include "race x synergizes with class y" without the other races not synergizing with the class. I guess you could conceivably make every race be good at at a narrow field within every class, but that would be a nightmare to write up and breaks as soon as you introduce new classes.

Orthogonal powerups, like Darkvision, spell-likes or flight should work though, as should defensive abilities like poison resistance or sleep immunity.

[Lago PARANOIA]

You can basically hand out racial powers that are desirable regardless of class, yes.

I think that this is pretty much an impossible design goal. I mean, even something as generic as the 4E D&D elf's 'reroll one missed attack once an encounter' is of different utility for different characters. It's worth more to a warlord or cleric than it is to a ranger. The eladrin's 'teleport 5 squares once an encounter' is worth more to a wizard than it is to a rogue. The dragonborn's dragon breath? Worth more to a fighter than it is to a paladin.

This will only work if the entire racial package enchilada is balanced against each and every class. Which is certainly possible (D&D 3E/Shadowrun 4E comes the closest I've seen, which wasn't very close at all) but very playtest intensive. But that thing where you write up a racial ability that of positive utility to every class? I don't see that happening.

[shadzar]

You can basically hand out racial powers that are desirable regardless of class, yes.

I think that this is pretty much an impossible design goal.

No it isnt. look at CPs and building your own race in 2.5 with S&P.

you can, with enough CPs, have a race that detects grade and immune to sleep and charm spells. Half-elf/half-dwarf. neither of these racial traits have anything to do with class.

[Murtak]

You can basically hand out racial powers that are desirable regardless of class, yes.

I think that this is pretty much an impossible design goal. I mean, even something as generic as the 4E D&D elf's 'reroll one missed attack once an encounter' is of different utility for different characters. It's worth more to a warlord or cleric than it is to a ranger.

Of course those are worth more to different classes. The important thing is that they be similarly useful to everyone, not exactly as useful. Perfect balance is impossible (or at least impractical). But functional balance, where you have to do a thorough analysis to determine which ability is slightly more useful and where no one is strictly superior to someone else - that is achievable.

When there is no clear choice for the best race for a wizard and there is no clear choice for the best class for an orc you have achieved that balance, whether or not Orcish Subtlety comes in useful three times per adventure and Elvish Cunning only twice.