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

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 7:54 am

PL: Other than the fact you're completely and entirely wrong on all points relevant to the discussion, that might be...wait, that means you're just completely and totally wrong on this.

I'm for having signs. What I'm not for is saying "every other orc in the setting is intelligence challenged, but somehow you're immune to that."

That's bullshit. If you're an orc, you have orcish traits. One of them is unfortunately not favorable to being a wizard.

If you want to be an orc wizard, either play an orc race without that or deal with that penalty.

Supporting all possible character concepts as equally valid to any other concept is total bullshit.

A person who grew up on the streets should not have the benefits of great (book learning type) education as much as someone raised by monks.

Otherwise, "raised by monks" means nothing, which is less desirable than having a PC from the streets be able to ignore that.

Also: Stop misspelling my name, it just adds to their general air of "I'm a total fucking asshole and proud of it."

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 7:59 am

Elennsar wrote:PL: Other than the fact you're completely and entirely wrong on all points relevant to the discussion, that might be...wait, that means you're just completely and totally wrong on this.

I'm for having signs. What I'm not for is saying "every other orc in the setting is intelligence challenged, but somehow you're immune to that."

That's bullshit. If you're an orc, you have orcish traits. One of them is unfortunately not favorable to being a wizard.

If you want to be an orc wizard, either play an orc race without that or deal with that penalty.

Supporting all possible character concepts as equally valid to any other concept is total bullshit.

A person who grew up on the streets should not have the benefits of great (book learning type) education as much as someone raised by monks.

Otherwise, "raised by monks" means nothing, which is less desirable than having a PC from the streets be able to ignore that.

Also: Stop misspelling my name, it just adds to their general air of "I'm a total fucking asshole and proud of it."

But why should 'makes a bad wizard' be an inherent orcish trait? How does that improve the game?

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:02 am

Because then there are racial weaknesses that actually MEAN something, instead of become totally irrelevant the instant "Can I play one?" is said by a player.

And for various reasons, not all traits will equally effect all possible choices, so -X to Int will effect wizards more than fighters.

If you don't want orcs to be bad wizards because you'd rather have them be bad some other way, that's another matter, but if you don't want racial weaknesses at all, no possible explaination of them will work.

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:03 am

CatharzGodfoot wrote: But why should 'makes a bad wizard' be an inherent orcish trait? How does that improve the game?

Not to mention that "makes a bad fighter" is already a trait that's inherent of humans, elves and every other race when compared to dragons, giants and ogres. The bottom line is that an ogre will always be stronger, so if people think a human warrior should have a chance against a 20 ft tall giant, then I don't see why a half orc can't be able to be a better wizard than an elf.

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:04 am

The whole point is that many here are fed up with "racial weaknesses" crippling otherwise fun character concepts for no reason at all.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:11 am

so if people think a human warrior should have a chance against a 20 ft tall giant, then I don't see why a half orc can't be able to be a better wizard than an elf.

A human warrior who can beat a 20 ft. tall giant has to be high(ish) level. A half orc who wanted to be a better wizard than an elf with the same assumptions would have to be higher level.

The whole point is that many here are fed up with "racial weaknesses" crippling otherwise fun character concepts for no reason at all.

There is a very real reason. You're an orc and orcish traits do not include things that would be beneficial in being a wizard and do include things that would suck.

If you want to be an orc without any orcish traits, you're not doing an orc in any way I can recognize.

Any race with any drawbacks will do some things worse than a race withotu those drawbacks, and unless those drawbacks are totally irrelevant to adventuring, some adventuring pursuits will be more or less impacted by them.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:11 am

Elennsar wrote:What I'm not for is saying "every other orc in the setting is intelligence challenged, but somehow you're immune to that."

That's bullshit. If you're an orc, you have orcish traits. One of them is unfortunately not favorable to being a wizard.

And that right there is where you are an irredeemable idiot trying to fuck players in the face for no good reason what so fucking ever.

Elennsar wrote:Also: Stop misspelling my name, it just adds to their general air of "I'm a total fucking asshole and proud of it."

I can't help it. I hate your dumb pseudo fantasy name. It's unmemorable gibberish. Hey, there's a lesson in there somewhere!

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:12 am

RandomCasualty2 wrote:
CatharzGodfoot wrote: But why should 'makes a bad wizard' be an inherent orcish trait? How does that improve the game?
Not to mention that "makes a bad fighter" is already a trait that's inherent of humans, elves and every other race when compared to dragons, giants and ogres. The bottom line is that an ogre will always be stronger, so if people think a human warrior should have a chance against a 20 ft tall giant, then I don't see why a half orc can't be able to be a better wizard than an elf.

Well put. The effectiveness of gnome giant slayers should not center on gaining special abilities that exist purely to circumvent existing rules that would otherwise condemn a gnomish warrior to suckitude.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:13 am

And that right there is where you are an irredeemable idiot trying to fuck players in the face for no good reason what so fucking ever.

"I don't want to be ANYTHING LIKE ANY ORC EVER! BUT I DEMAND TO BE ALLOWED TO PLAY AN ORC! AN ORC! NOTHING ELSE!"

That is the second stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:20 am

I think you should understand that not everyone shares your defintion of what makes an orc an orc. A big part considers an orc defined as "ugly green humanoid", not as "bad wizard".

And once we are talking about Orc PCs, even less go with "bad wizard". It usually is "Humanoid with (insert setting-specific description)".

What exactly do you gain from telling Bob: "No, you have to be stupid as an orc, you can't be the exceptional case, the one orc that is not stupid"?

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:22 am

The fact that orcs, as a racial feature of being orcs, have a different (and worse) range of Intelligence than humans do.

As for "ugly green humanoid"...

That's not an orc. That's an ugly guy with paint.

That's it.

As for "bad wizard"...if you don't want orcs to be bad wizards, then they don't need an intelligence penalty. But arguing that its "representing nothing" is garbage.

So Bob is playing an orc. Not something he's calling an orc with no (or almost no) orc traits. An orc, with the benefits and drawbacks thereof.

Wanting to play an orc without his racial weaknesses is like asking to play a whale that can move on land without penalty and still retain all the other whale traits.

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:27 am

And that's where we differ. You won't accept smart orcs as PCs. (And of course, you won't acept humans that are as good with the bow as elves.)

Others do not really see any point in having a race defined by stats and modifiers when it concerns a PC.

Some people just like more freedom with regards to viable character choices, not arbitrally restrictions and limits.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:29 am

"Race" is not arbitrary. If your race is actually talented at X or inferior at X, then saying that your PC for no reason other than being a PC can totally and utterly ignore this is far more arbitrary than any limitation of one choice could be.

I'm against orcs being able to be just as smart as anyone else just as easily as someone else when one of the traits of orcishness is the absence of that.

As stated, its like saying you want to be a whale but able to move on land without trouble.

When you do something like that, you're not saying "I want to be a whale" at all. And asking for me (or whoever is writing up whale abilities) to modify the whale for one individual just because you want to play such a modified individual is insane.

What "should" an orc mean if it doesn't have a list of traits that are there and impacting you to a greater or lesser degree?

If its just green skin, they're barely even not just humans.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:36 am

If you present an option as extant, but broken, then you better either fix it or not support it as a PC option; though putting signs of "you'll be a crappy character if you play this race as anything but X or Y" should be enough (I'd prefer the NPC-only option for those cases, with an explanation).

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:40 am

I'm for the signs option.

There are grossly inferior options that are useful some of the time that PCs should be able to access (at a reasonable price...paying as much for a bad option as a good one is bad design) like using pikes.

Building your character around being a good pikemen is a bad idea for the situations adventurers get into, but there is a role for pikepeople.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 9:00 am

I said the signs 'should' be enough, but if you're going to twist it into making sure players can still access them thinking they might be useful at their level sometime...then it sounds like the signs option aren't enough, and we should have NPC-only tags put up. The tag can still be ignored, but it requires a more explicit approval by the DM.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 9:03 am

Here's the thing.

You -could- play a character who fights without armor and weapons in my setting (which is not something you could represent in D&D, I'm mentioning it as an example of a setting).

You'd suck. Badly.

And it will be announced loud and clear that you're saying "I shot myself in the foot. Can someone hand me another gun so I can do the other?" by picking it.

However, I'm not keeping the guns away.

Same with the pike example and others. I'm for going to all reasonable and a third of the unreasonable lengths to ensure you know just how rotten X is, but if you're bound and determined to ignore the advice, I wish you much pain.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 9:04 am

That's right, just tag the races 'this is how I want you to play and I'll punish you out of butthurt rage if you play a character that defies my simpering, facile stereotyping' and we'll be merrily on our way.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 9:07 am

::rolls eyes.::

Orcs are not humans. Orcs have traits other than what humans have. Some of those traits are beneficial. Some are detremental.

And it is ME being unreasonable to not say "except for your PC, who can take all the awesome traits from whatever race you want to be and none of the weak ones"?

I'm not sure if that was meant to be funny or not.

Having 8/10 choices be perfectly valid isn't even "STRAITJACKET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 9:19 am

Where have I seen an argument like this before? Oh yeah, now I remember, PAGE TEN! Only it was with minotaurs, or was it dwarves and elves and people either arguing for a net difference of zero (bonuses in one area of the class while the other race has bonuses in a different one) or a net imbalance; and a net imbalance is just plain stupid.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 9:22 am

Where have you paid attention to an arguement like this before?

Page _____

____ because I'm not sure if there is an answer yet.

Regardless, so long as its clear, the burden is on the player. If its not clear, someone else screwed up.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 9:22 am

Having 8/10 choices be perfectly valid isn't even "STRAITJACKET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

That's some crappy math thar.

Okay, here's where you fucking fucked up.

Say that we buy into the whole 4E crap of a perfect party having a defender/striker/leader/controller.

So! If elves are the best rangers, humans are the best wizards, dwarves are the best fighters, etc., then you don't actually have an 80% reduction. You have a fucking menu so small that even McDonalds would beg you to fill it out some more. By the way, the menu looks like this:

Dragonborn/Halfling Rogue
Tiefling/Human/Eladrin Wizard
Dragonborn/Eladrin Warlord
Dwarf/Dragonborn Fighter
Elf Ranger
Dragonborn Paladin
Dragonborn Cleric
Tiefling/Dwarf Warlock

Even WORSE is with role speciation, if two people in your group pick a Eldarin Wizard and an Elf Ranger, where does that fucking leave you? You have like 5 race/class combinations you can play.

Seriously, that's what happened to 4E. And for what? There's no roleplaying or setting building reason, it's just people cramming their shrivelled, syphilis-infected micrococks in the eye socket of roleplaying and game balance.

The menu is going to shrink as more books get released and it's because of people like you. Or I can get punished for playing something so radical and out-there like a tiefling fighter.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 9:26 am

Assuming the goal is "THE BEST YOU CAN MAKE", yes. Assuming that "The best" is by a small enough margin that it doesn't lead to elves being super awesome and everyone else being barely able to survive.

As for roleplaying and setting reasons: I'm assuming that the possibility of one actually designing things to represent the setting includes that some races wind up with traits more favorable to some things (andless favorable to some things).

4e is just "how can we fuck game balance, roleplaying, and character diversity in one set up? Oh, and make classes do entirely seperate things than their role states?"

Doesn't mean that "elves have a slight advantage at being _____." must become that any more than "anyone can do a decent fighter" could save the 3e Fighter as written.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 9:28 am

Assuming the goal is "THE BEST YOU CAN MAKE", yes. Assuming that "The best" is by a small enough margin that it doesn't lead to elves being super awesome and everyone else being barely able to survive.

No, it's not a small margin.

In 4th Edition, your first level determines how much you're going to rule or suck more than anything else in the game.

And if Martial Power has proved anything it's that the game designers are going to continue to push their idiotic race/class combinations on you, making non-standard combinations more stupid.

Seriously, if you have that book and you make your fighter anything but a dragonborn or a dwarf, you're a retard. Dwarf battleragers are so good you'd have to be an idiot not to be one. Dragonborn only barely manage to hang on towards being a not-retarded option because of that strength bonus and dragon breath.

So why do you want to move the game more in the direction of DWARF FIGHTERS ONLY?

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 9:30 am

4e is just "how can we fuck game balance, roleplaying, and character diversity in one set up? Oh, and make classes do entirely seperate things than their role states?"

No, the irony of 4th Edition is that most of the balance fuckups were caused by your dumbass philosophy of it being okay for an elf to get a +1 bonus to ranged attack rolls or dwarves using their second wind as a minor action.

The bonuses are tiny, but since ALL the bonuses are tiny, the tiny bonuses are big. Savvy?

You add a little dwarf fighter favoritism here, you add a little dwarf favoritism there, and soon you're a retard for being anything BUT a dwarf as a fighter.