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

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 2:47 pm

Fuchs wrote: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?

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 3:42 pm

All other races? Maybe, depends on the setting.

Every PC? No.

I don't see a problem with a human PC getting tremorsense as the result of some out of the norm ancestor somewhere up the family tree, a freak magical side effect of his/her mother wandering into some chaos magic zone, the result of his uncle epxerimenting, a gift/curse of a snake god, or what other reasons we can come up with.

We're talking about PCs, not NPCs.

Talisman · Post by **Talisman** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 9:09 pm

I don't see a problem with an elf PC getting a unique ability that nonelves don't get - as long as that ability (1) is not a numerical bonus, and (2) is not overpowered.

Maybe elves ignore half the cover bonus when shooting at you in the forest. If you fight elves in the forest, they have a (slight) advantage. I do not see how this could break the game in any way - assuming dwarves, etc., get equal-power abilities.

Numerical modifiers bad.
Minor unique abilities good.

And if "elf fanboyism" distresses you so much, let's start talking about how dwarves should be the best axemen in the world. All the same points hold true.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 9:50 pm

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

Races that don't have "I can do ANYTHING."

A smart orc would just have to be able to outsmart his peers to be smart among orcs, same with a Charismatic orc. Saying "all orcs have -2" doesn't mean "all orcs have 8 and will always have 8."

I don't see a problem with a human PC getting tremorsense as the result of some out of the norm ancestor somewhere up the family tree, a freak magical side effect of his/her mother wandering into some chaos magic zone, the result of his uncle epxerimenting, a gift/curse of a snake god, or what other reasons we can come up with.

I do see a problem, and that's that you're assuming that "Hey, theoretically you could have X happen, and Bob wants X, so the fact no other human EVER has had it." is reasonable.

Screw that. If you want tremorsense so badly, play the race that gets it.

If there's some halfway "it could happen to anyone, but didn't", I'd be okay with it. But that'd be true for other humans.

Talisman:

What, other than the number of times it comes up, is "Elves ignore up to X points of cover" and "elves get +X to hit"? (with bows, that is. "+X to hit in general" is something I can't find a comparible ability to.)

Either way, you're getting a situational bonus to attacks (removing someone's bonus to AC from cover is equal to getting a bonus to hit equal to the bonus that provided, IMO)

Personally, what I've been thinking is "Elves get +X to ignore range penalties." (if the elf is already proficient)

The odds that you'll be competing with an elf to see which of you can shoot a fly's testicles off at three hundred yards are pretty slim.

But it does mean that my elf can outshoot your dwarf...a fraction of the time.

In any normal situation, it won't come up, which is okay, because assuming you're equally obsessed, we're learning the same stuff and presumably have the same Dexterity (If not, we have a seperate issue from elf+bow=win vs. others not getting that, but moving back to our specific PCs) and BAB.

Talisman · Post by **Talisman** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:19 pm

Elennsar wrote:Talisman:

What, other than the number of times it comes up, is "Elves ignore up to X points of cover" and "elves get +X to hit"? (with bows, that is. "+X to hit in general" is something I can't find a comparible ability to.)

Either way, you're getting a situational bonus to attacks (removing someone's bonus to AC from cover is equal to getting a bonus to hit equal to the bonus that provided, IMO)

Personally, what I've been thinking is "Elves get +X to ignore range penalties." (if the elf is already proficient)

"Elves get +x to hit" makes an elf objectively better than a non-elf.

Situational penalties come up less often, and negating a penalty is generally less powerful than adding a bonus. It doesn't push the elf off the RNG; no matter how hyper-specialized the elf is, his attacks in foresty cover are never better than his general attacks, which are never outright better than the archery attacks of an equally-obsessed dwarf.

It gives elves a specific ability in a specific circumstance. Presumably dwarves and orcs will get equivalent abilities in equivalent circumstances. It does not, however, raise their maximum number.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:26 pm

Ah, understood.

Then I'm going to go for, assuming a rewrite of elves that's LA 0, "proficiency is a given, if proficient from class, +X vs. range mods".

That's the kind of "better because they're elves" that "elves can do awesome feats of archery" implies to me.

Pin point shots even at great distance. "always better"...not at LA 0. Not without some "always better" of someone else, and that winds up with issues, it seems.

Thusly accepting your point, if not entirely with joy and bliss.

So the question is.

Do we or do we not drop "+2 to Dex" and the like from racial modifiers?

Its perfectly justified that one race might be more Dexterous than equivalant humans (or less), but how well/badly does this work?

Getting rid of it seems excessive. But dealing with it means that A) some classes will benefit from the bonus or deal with the penalty better, and B) +1 to some things that no nonelf (or whatever) will have, assuming the same 3d6 (or whatever) stat.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:44 pm

Elennsar wrote:
What does a game gain if they pigeonhole races into certain classes?
Races that don't have "I can do ANYTHING."

That's a negative, not a positive.

Why don't you ever answer the question?

-Crissa

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:53 pm

Why do you insist that "answers I don't agree with" are nonanswers?

If you don't WANT races who can do anything that can be done in the setting (for instance, not wanting seal sprinters in an anthromorphic setting), then having races that have that shortcoming is a good thing.

And saying "but I mean the system, not the setting"...

Once you get into specific races even existing, including humans, you're defining a setting to at least some extent.

So you have races who have negative traits that actually a hindrance at some things, instead of "negative" traits that aren't negative at all (or worse, are positive traits in disguise so they appear weaker than tehy are).

Why do we need every race to be able to do every thing equally well as every other race?

Its not enough for each race to be able to adventure. No, you need the guys with good distance vision to be EXACTLY AS ABLE as everyone else in every damn way, and the guys with poor distance vision...well, either we can't have them or they, too, are just as good at everything as everyone else.

Talk about limiting the number of stories of "overcoming limitations" you can have.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 12:56 am

Elennsar, what do you have against specifically writing down the things which a race is not allowed to do as a PC?

-Crissa

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 12:59 am

The fact that "inferior at" does not mean "IMPOSSIBLE TO PLAY!"

You won't spontaneously combust as an orc who takes wizard levels, even if orcs had -4 to Int.

Yes, orcs are worse wizards. This would be announced loud and clear.

That's plenty of information.

However, I refuse to forbid people from picking "I wear no armor and fight with my bare hands" for knights just because that's not a good idea.

If you're determined to play a weak character, you're welcome to do so. All such options are going to be noted as such.

This does not count options that should be obvious are a bad idea without specifically stating "inferior", like saying you can't attack within ten feet with a twenty foot pike, when most melee combat is within that range.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 1:21 am

It's not impossible to play a talking baseball, either.

But it's not in the PHB.

How does it make the game better to have traps in the character creation section?

-Crissa

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 1:30 am

Bigode wrote:
Fuchs wrote: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?

I think you need to understand that the talk of stat bonuses is really just a convenient short hand for all potential bonuses.

Really we only have two types of bonuses we care about. Bonuses which make you all round better (or all round better with certain unacceptable synergies) and those that don't.

Any example you care to name falls into one or the other category. Too good t be restricted or sufficiently unimportant to matter.

Stat bonuses are just easier to talk about without causing confusion. Start quoting weird shit like your sight examples and we have to have arguments over whether those matter or not and what the fuck weird ass races you are talking about anyway.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 1:34 am

How is it a "trap" to say "Hey. Orcs don't make good wizards." and leave it there?

Now, if I said "There are 8 races and ten classes, and you may be a member of any class as any race." and left it there, that would be a trap.

However, saying this:

"Orcs: Orcs do all sorts of (orcish things). Orcs make good (whatever) and bad (whatever)."

and then, in the classes section:

"Wizards: Due to their Intelligence penalty, orcs make poor wizards."

Plenty of information. No trap.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 2:00 am

How is the game better that poor wizards are allowed to show up and be poor adventurers and therefore, lackadaisical heroes?

How is that not a trap? You've now said 'Beware' near it, but it's still a trap.

-Crissa

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 2:02 am

PhoneLobster wrote:I think you need to understand that the talk of stat bonuses is really just a convenient short hand for all potential bonuses.

Arguably. I could argue that I find it impossible to tell whether all of the other people already discussing actually knew that.

PhoneLobster wrote:Really we only have two types of bonuses we care about. Bonuses which make you all round better (or all round better with certain unacceptable synergies) and those that don't.

You might do better to start talking about benefits. Not only D&D terminology's too entrenched in the heads of far too many people, but also I think "bonus" is defined similarly in many other RPGs.

PhoneLobster wrote:Any example you care to name falls into one or the other category. Too good t be restricted or sufficiently unimportant to matter.

Assuming it should be "good enough to need to be restricted or not important enough to matter", I'm not talking about balance - I'm talking about how to lay choices out (I suppose you can agree with me that there are multiple balanced ways to hand out choices from even the same lists - how many ways, of course, is highly variable).

PhoneLobster wrote:Stat bonuses are just easier to talk about without causing confusion. Start quoting weird shit like your sight examples and we have to have arguments over whether those matter or not and what the fuck weird ass races you are talking about anyway.

Stat bonuses:
- might create RNG concerns;
- are easy to apply (and indeed, often applied) to general enough stuff to create the impression of "someone's undeniably better at X" to a larger degree (IMO at least) than giving each package a few abilities;
- as you said yourself, one might make the argument that all bonuses (in the technical sense) are either needed or undesirable, which's harder to make with regards to abilities (characters have different numbers of abilities ... since forever - and 2 weak abilities can make up for 1 strong in a way that can't be claimed for bonuses).

Weird shit:
- matters, period (how much's open to discussion, but it's a non-0 value).
- calling them "race [letter]" and making up weird stuff might actually spare everyone from not actually relevant nitpickery and psychoanalyzing examples.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 2:03 am

Because the game now actually represents that people who come from a poor-Int background ARE BAD WIZARDS, instead of "well, it says you need Int, but you really don't."

You have constantly ignored that answer because you don't want such a thing to exist, but the game BENEFITS from reflecting what we desire to reflect, and if one of those things is that there are A) beings with less Intelligence than humans and B) that Intelligence influences anything that something else doesn't, then NOW IT DOES.

Your definition of "trap" is basically "I can't play a member of a randomly picked race as any class without any losses whatsoever.", at this point.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 3:29 am

So now you have a game that can't have Orc Wizards that participate.

An option that isn't able to compete at the same level isn't an option. It's a trap.

-Crissa

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 3:54 am

::rolls eyes.::

I stand by my point. At this point, you're using "Trap" to mean 'anything that is an inferior option. Period.'"

It can be in 72 point font and underlined and its still a "trap" by the whatever-it-is you're using for logic here.

An orc wizard with Intelligence 16 can contribute as much as a human with Intelligence 16, all things being even (as best as I can tell, they are, at present, though I think humans need a rewrite...a bonus feat can be anywhere from meaningless to overpowered, depending entirely too much on the individual feat).

Now, will an orc with Intelligence 16 contribute as much as a human with 18? No.

Neither will any other Int 16 vs. any other Int 18, and "So let's get rid of ability scores!" is going into "let's have one number, called 'Adventuring Prowess', and it always equals your level +3, no matter what.", and that's the only thing you roll for anything. Nothing other than gaining or losing a level can modify this.

No thank you.

It is not a trap, whatever twists of logic and the English language you intend to use, to have some options that could be picked not be as good as other options that could be picked.

It may not be desirable when you want all options to be identically good, but I don't see how that's possible without everyone being identical. "Seperate and equally valuable" gets into "but what if the game is 33% X and only 30% Y??????" if you want to be this obsessive.[/i]

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 4:16 am

Forgetting about the fact you're swinging your opinion on orcs being either bad wizards or orcs being less-awesome but still level-appropriate....

Adept, Warrior, Expert, & Aristocrat are NPC classes. They're announced ahead of time as not for players due to their very suboptimal design and normally one-dimensional capability; not level-appropriate, as it were. If you have a race that's truly bad at a class, do that. They still exist, but they're not for players.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 4:20 am

I refuse to say "NPC only" because something sucks.

My opinion on orcs is that orcs should make worse wizards because Wizardry is primarily driven by things orcs don't do well and not helped by the things they do, but with say, fighter or cleric or most other classes, that's not a problem.

If "This is a bad choice due to its very high level of suckage." is not enough, then "you may not take this." won't be read either.

Do we actually know people whose characters are ever level appropriate who would be able to remain unaware of how that would not be advisable?

Or are we assuming that the guys whose own Intelligence is 8 or less need to be taken care of, even though we don't know of any.

I'm going to give an example of how this would look if I wrote it:

Races:
(Stats)

Orcs, due to their lower-than-standard Intelligence and impaitent nature, make poor wizards. They do well as most other classes, and often excel at being Barbarians or Fighters due to their higher-than-standard Strength.

Classes:

Wizards require paitence, self-discipline, and Intelligence. Races such as Orcs who lack any of these characteristics rarely make level appropriate wizards accordingly.

There. Anyone not able to tell what that means (or ask when simply not sure) is not likely to be able to benefit from anything short of the "Adventurer check" option.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 4:30 am

NPC only is an accepted part of the game. I already gave you an example, the NPC classes.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 4:37 am

Its a stupid part of the game. There is no reason that PCs should not be allowed to take these classes.

Discouraged? Yes. Prohibited? No. You don't prohibit people from fighting with their offhand, I presume. You just apply offhand penalties.

Talisman · Post by **Talisman** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 4:41 am

Guys, I think Elennsar has made his position pretty clear here. The majority may not agree with it, but that's his perogative.

Personally, I don't see it as a major issue. I would like all races to be equal at all classes they're allowed to take, and I would like them to do this while still retaining their racial identity in a mechanical way. It's a tall order, I know.

I do think that Crissa is overstating her case here - as long as it's clearly spelled out, it's not a trap. Also, 2 points of Int are not the difference between World-Shattering Awesome and Useless Baggage. It's irritating, but workable.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:01 am

Fighting with your off-hand is an in-game choice that can be rectified once you see the error without changing your entire character. You're stuck with your stupid option of playing an aristocrat unless you have the character jump off a cliff.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:06 am

Then make it possible to change classes more easily, or characters.

Or deal with the fact anyone stupid enough to pick a class refered to as "unfit to be an adventurer" for adventuring will suck.