Recent Posts
There have been several forum discussions comparing the abilities of races, so I thought I would offer this.
As part of my Monster Character Races supplement, I needed to devise a way of rating the overall abilities a race gets. So I decided on a very basic point rating system, using ability score increases as my guide. A +2 to an ability score = 2 points. Everything else is based on how beneficial the benefit is compared to getting a +2 on an ability score. I also deem a useful feat to be worth 1 point.
Here is my analysis:
Dwarf (+6.0)
+2 - Ability scores (2 positive, 1 negative)
+0 - medium size
-.5 - slow and steady
+1.5 - darkvision (very useful ability)
+.5 - defensive training (rare to uncommon situational bonus)
+0 - greed (really not a useful or notable benefit)
+.5 - hatred (rare to uncommon situational bonus)
+1 - hardy
+.5 - stability (rare to uncommon situational bonus - but its a +4 bonus)
+.25 - stonecutting (rare to uncommon situational bonus)
+.25 - weapon familiarity (situation bonus - better for some classes than others)
Elf (+5.75)
+2 - Ability scores (2 positive, 1 negative)
+0 - medium size
+0 - normal speed
+1 - low-light vision
+.5 - elven immunities (uncommon situation bonus / immunity)
+1 - elven magic (feat effect, and an extra bonus - good if you are a spellcaster)
+1 - keen senses (moderate bonus to the most useful and most used skill)
+.25 - weapon familiarity (situation bonus - better for some classes than others)
Gnome (+5.0)
+2 - Ability scores (2 positive, 1 negative)
-.5 - small size (some good bonuses for being small, but lesser weapon damage and maneuvers penalty are notable)
-1 - slow speed
+1 - low-light vision
+.5 - defensive training (rare to uncommon situational bonus)
+1 - gnome magic (small rare situational bonus and minor spell gain)
+.5 - hatred (rare to uncommon situational bonus)
+.25 - illusion resistant (rare situational bonus)
+1 - keen senses (moderate bonus to the most useful and most used skill)
+.25 - obsessive (moderate bonus to a rarely used skill)
+0 - weapon familiarity (so they get to use the gnome hooked hammer, not a significant benefit)
Half-Elf (+6.0)
+2.25 - Ability score (1 choice)
+0 - medium size
+0 - normal speed
+1 - low-light vision
+1 - adaptability (free feat)
+0 - elf blood (could be both beneficial and detrimental)
+.5 - elven immunities (uncommon situation bonus / immunity)
+1 - keen senses (moderate bonus to the most useful and most used skill)
+.25 - multi-talented (may or may not even be useful, and negligible benefit)
Half-Orc (+5.25)
+2.25 - Ability score (1 choice)
+0 - medium size
+0 - normal speed
+1.5 - darkvision (very useful ability)
+.25 - intimidating (moderate bonus to an infrequently used skill)
+0 - orc blood (could be both beneficial and detrimental)
+1 - orc ferocity (useful benefit, but sometimes its better to be down and bleeding, rather than up and moving on death's door step)
+.25 - weapon familiarity (situation bonus - better for some classes than others)
Halfling (+4.25)
+2 - Ability scores (2 positive, 1 negative)
-.5 - small size (some good bonuses for being small, but lesser weapon damage and maneuvers penalty are notable)
-1 - slow speed
+.25 - fearless (rare to uncommon situational bonus)
+1.5 - halfling luck (better than a feat's normal +2 to one save)
+1 - keen senses (moderate bonus to the most useful and most used skill)
+1 - sure-footed (moderate bonus to two useful skills)
+0 - weapon familiarity (so they get to use the halfling sling staff, not a significant benefit)
Human (+5.0)
+2.25 - Ability score (1 choice)
+0 - medium size
+0 - normal speed
+1.25 - bonus feat (of their choice)
+1.5 - skilled (benefit gained every level)
SUMMARY:
Dwarf (+6.0)
Elf (+5.75)
Gnome (+5.0)
Half-Elf (+6.0)
Half-Orc (+5.25)
Halfling (+4.25)
Human (+5.0)
I will also rate 2 Bestiary races just for comparison sake, as they are the most likely to be used as player character races:
Drow (+6.75)
+2 - Ability scores (2 positive, 1 negative)
+0 - medium size
+0 - normal speed
+1.75 - darkvision 120'(very useful ability)
+.5 - drow immunities (uncommon situation bonus / immunity)
+1 - keen senses (moderate bonus to the most useful and most used skill)
+1 - spell resistance (not a high amount, but still useful)
+.75 - spell-like abilities (one of which is a 2nd level spell)
-1 - light blindness
+.5 - poison use
+.25 - weapon familiarity (situation bonus - better for some classes than others)
Tiefling (+6.75)
+2 - Ability scores (2 positive, 1 negative)
+0 - medium size
+0 - normal speed
+1.5 - darkvision 60'(very useful ability)
+1 - skilled
+.25 - spell-like ability (one spell)
+1.5 - fiendish resistance (3 minor energy resists)
+.5 - fiendish sorcery (great sorcerer benefit)
Something I realized the other day: Gnomes have a caster level equal to their character level, and therefore can take any item creation feat as soon as they have enough total levels. This is useless with regards to Scribe Scroll, Craft Wand and Craft Staff; but for any other item type they can emulate prerequisite spells at +5 DC.
IMO this is worth +1. It's of no benefit to a character who already has caster level equal to character level, but it allows or at least improves item creation for every other character, and is patently superior to the Master Craftsman feat.
As I recently mentioned in another thread, I gave Halflings a free Weapon Focus (sling) and count staff slings as slings for the purpose of weapon-specific feats. I think that brings them up to par.
I have a little bit of a problem with your point total stuff. Taking the halfling( for instance ) everyone knows they are getting a -2 to str and are small sized. If you are going to be taking a halfling you don't do so for the damage output you could generate. In fact, I have never heard anyone say "Wow! I want to play a small and physically unimposing halfling so I can dish out tons of damage!".
That being the case anyone playing the halfling is going to be very happy for the +1 ac, +1 to hit, and ( possibly ) the +4 to stealth for size. While I wouldn't necessarily count the size as a + score, I definitely wouldn't count it as a negative score. They are the iconic bard/rogue race and they fit that niche very, very well. Small size should be a zero modifier. Especially if you are penalizing them for the movement decrease as well.
Halfling luck should also be worth more than 1.5. You are getting the equivalent sv bonus of having a +2 in 3 different stats. Granted, you are not gaining the other stat benefits. Even if you divide the stat bonus by 3 for only effecting sv throws you come out with a +2.
Next averaging +2 to any 2 ability and -2 to another score too 2, while keeping the +2 too any ability score as a 2.25 is kind of silly. Sure that race can get a +2 to any ability score you want. But, if you don't care about the -2 ability, you effectively get a +2 too 2 ability scores you want if you choose the right race. Take a halfling rogue who is super sneaky and skill focused. He likes to stay in the shadows and doesn't rely on strength to do damage, only coming into melee when he can get a flank. Now the +2 dex/+2 chr -2str is much better than a simple +2 to any ability score.
The point is, just make the +2 to any ability score a +2 bonus on your scale. Ultimately it is only a +2 to an ability score so, based on your own guidelines, it should only be worth 2 points.
BTW you are giving the orc ferocity a full point bonus. That is insane. It is nowhere near as effective as Diehard, which is a feat and worth 1 point by your standards. At most I would call it a .25 bonus and I hesitate to call it even that as it only functions once per day and only for 1 round.
Nice work.
However what most of this mathematical excersices fail to reflect is how beneficial es any given ability in a given campaign or for an specific built. As was stated before, the best example would be how unimportantis the small size for a rogue halfling, or how massively valuable is that human bonus feat for a combo cleric.
At any rate, I just have never believed in math fully reflecting utility and or power.
@ OP appreciate the effort.
But from my own perspective, this kind of "MMO" number crunching just leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
I Mostly DM, but when I do rarely play, I choose a character based on a concept as opposed to an abstract 1.35 rating better than something else.
My own group follows this pattern too.
Whatever just happened to the honest I'm playing a Dwarf Wizard or Gnome Barbarian and be damned if it's sub-par. Or heaven's forbid a character you would just like to play?
Don't mean to derail or deride anyone elses play styles, it's just this kind of number crunching and A is better than C and anyone who plays C is an idiot is becoming all invasive recently.
There have been several forum discussions comparing the abilities of races, so I thought I would offer this.
As part of my Monster Character Races supplement, I needed to devise a way of rating the overall abilities a race gets. So I decided on a very basic point rating system, using ability score increases as my guide. A +2 to an ability score = 2 points. Everything else is based on how beneficial the benefit is compared to getting a +2 on an ability score. I also deem a useful feat to be worth 1 point.
Here is my analysis:
Dwarf (+6.0)
+2 - Ability scores (2 positive, 1 negative)
+0 - medium size
-.5 - slow and steady
+1.5 - darkvision (very useful ability)
+.5 - defensive training (rare to uncommon situational bonus)
+0 - greed (really not a useful or notable benefit)
+.5 - hatred (rare to uncommon situational bonus)
+1 - hardy
+.5 - stability (rare to uncommon situational bonus - but its a +4 bonus)
+.25 - stonecutting (rare to uncommon situational bonus)
+.25 - weapon familiarity (situation bonus - better for some classes than others)Elf (+5.75)
+2 - Ability scores (2 positive, 1 negative)
+0 - medium size
+0 - normal speed
+1 - low-light vision
+.5 - elven immunities (uncommon situation bonus / immunity)
+1 - elven magic (feat effect, and an extra bonus - good if you are a spellcaster)
+1 - keen senses (moderate bonus to the most useful and most used skill)
+.25 - weapon familiarity (situation bonus - better for some classes than others)Gnome (+5.0)
+2 - Ability scores (2 positive, 1 negative)
-.5 - small size (some good bonuses for being small, but lesser weapon damage and maneuvers penalty are notable)
-1 - slow speed
+1 - low-light vision
+.5 - defensive training (rare to uncommon situational bonus)
+1 - gnome magic (small rare situational bonus and minor spell gain)
+.5 - hatred (rare to uncommon situational bonus)
+.25 - illusion resistant (rare situational bonus)
+1 - keen senses (moderate bonus to the most useful and most used...
I like what you did here. But some times a +2 isn't the same as another +2. It would be near impossible to qualify the ranking of the value of each stat but I will say this much, con is never a dump stat and any race taking a hit on con is taking a bigger hit then a race taking a hit on cha.
@ OP appreciate the effort.
But from my own perspective, this kind of "MMO" number crunching just leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
I Mostly DM, but when I do rarely play, I choose a character based on a concept as opposed to an abstract 1.35 rating better than something else.
My own group follows this pattern too.
Whatever just happened to the honest I'm playing a Dwarf Wizard or Gnome Barbarian and be damned if it's sub-par. Or heaven's forbid a character you would just like to play?
Don't mean to derail or deride anyone elses play styles, it's just this kind of number crunching and A is better than C and anyone who plays C is an idiot is becoming all invasive recently.
Even if you dont take this into account, its a worthwhile excersize from the perspective of looking for balance. I look at it the other way, a player should not be penalyzed if they want to play the gnome barbarian and things should be as 'fair' as possible. No race should be strictly better then the other, or at least each race should have the thing they are good at. Looking at the numbers can ultimately produce a better game where elan may not be as good as V but at least he is capable of contributing enough to the party for what appropriate CR encounters expect.
There are those that prefer the numbers aspect of the game, after all it is a Roleplaying GAME, not just roleplaying. I think its disrespectful to just post in a thread you have absolutely no interest in saying only 'you are playing the wrong way, my group does X Y and Z'. Adding a comment saying essentially no offense does not relieve you of that responsibility.
There are more number crunching discussions on the boards here because there is not an independent system to talk about. Prior to PFRPG there was far less 'crunchy' things to talk about. But after months of playtest, and more coming up, number crunching the products paizo puts out is perfectly valid.
Just a for instance, if you want to create a race that gives me 4 bonus feats at first lvl and no stat bonus, I'd probably pick that race every time. However, your rating would be a 5.0.
I have to agree i think a feat, or a feat equivalent ability is worth at least as much as a +2 to a stat. I also think the half elf, human and half orc choice of +2 is worth more then 2.25.
I looked at it from a different perspective. I evaluated the races based on what classes they wouls excel at and which they would be kind of bleh at. For example dwarfs didn't score so well as in your analysis because the wisdom bonus is only useful to clerics, monks, and druids and constitution is a secondary attribute. I'll put up a more detailed look at it later but the results were kind of surprising.
I'd consider a free feat +2. You can never have enough feats and some feats are very strong and easily equal a +2 on a stat imo.
My thinking here was that a feat is probably worth a +1 to an ability score. A +2 to an ability score is very significant... and I'm sure people would always take that over a feat choice.
I'd consider a free feat +2. You can never have enough feats and some feats are very strong and easily equal a +2 on a stat imo.My thinking here was that a feat is probably worth a +1 to an ability score. A +2 to an ability score is very significant... and I'm sure people would always take that over a feat choice.
Are you sure? Feats can be very potent, not individually, but in combination. After all people used to use humans often in 3.5 even though they got no stat bonuses because of the free feat and free skill point.
The point rankings in general (based on everyone's comments):
This is just a general "at a glance" comparative ranking system. When you start analyzing how effective each ability is to each class, then yes this system fails. (I would have to acually crunch the numbers on a per class basis, and then average the results -- I did take overall class balance into the ratings, without actually crunching the specific numbers).
For ability scores, to keep the approach generalized, I tried to keep it simple by just adding up the total of the bonuses. It could certainly be argued that some ability score adjustments (especially those that affect saves scores and multiple other statistics) should receive a higher weight than others. But again, I had to keep things generalized and not over-analyze.
I do believe that the ability to choose where your score goes is of higher benefit than fixed increases (although for several classes they probably benefit more from the fixed increases than the choice -- but again I could not factor in these specifics).
Size adjustments were difficult for me to decide on. Since they already have a built in balance mechanism I could have just rated all sizes as +0, and then factored in their related adjustments (speed, reach, etc). In the end I went with the theory that bigger is better, however I'm still not convinced that the theory holds up.
Are you sure? Feats can be very potent, not individually, but in combination. After all people used to use humans often in 3.5 even though they got no stat bonuses because of the free feat and free skill point.I'd consider a free feat +2. You can never have enough feats and some feats are very strong and easily equal a +2 on a stat imo.My thinking here was that a feat is probably worth a +1 to an ability score. A +2 to an ability score is very significant... and I'm sure people would always take that over a feat choice.
I agree in combination they can be very effective, but that was beyond the scope of this analysis. My analysis was just to compare against the benefits of a single feat taken at level 1. (In general, any feat that has a feat as it's prerequisite, is not subject to this analysis).
BTW you are giving the orc ferocity a full point bonus. That is insane. It is nowhere near as effective as Diehard, which is a feat and worth 1 point by your standards. At most I would call it a .25 bonus and I hesitate to call it even that as it only functions once per day and only for 1 round.
This is a good example of why I shouldn't rely on my memory any more :) I thought Diehard also gave a daily limit. I completely agree that this should be +.25 at best. Its still a usefull benefit -- especially to a spellcaster, but agreably not even half as good as Diehard.
Halfling luck should also be worth more than 1.5. You are getting the equivalent sv bonus of having a +2 in 3 different stats. Granted, you are not gaining the other stat benefits. Even if you divide the stat bonus by 3 for only effecting sv throws you come out with a +2.
The reason I assigned it +1.5, is because of the increased save feats that give +2. Since I assign a weight of +1 to a feat, this to me meant that each +1 to a save is worth +.5 points. Sure you could then analyze whether spreading out the bonues to all the saves is worth more or less than a specific save bonus, however that is beyond the scope of of the "generalized analysis" that I did.
Only a -1 for light blindness in dark elves? I could see this easily being -3 unless you're in a party where the majority of players are dark elves.
Since the stats are generalized, I had to take into account all conditions. When played in the dark or at night, this detriment doesn't affect them.
I felt it was a -2 penalty, but since in general its only a penalty half the time due to the above, I made it a -1.
A -1 penalty to attack rolls and perception checks is not that big of a detriment. I also had to factor in all the classes. This affects melee classes more than it does spellcasters -- but again, I had to keep it generalized.
I looked at it from a different perspective. I evaluated the races based on what classes they wouls excel at and which they would be kind of bleh at. For example dwarfs didn't score so well as in your analysis because the wisdom bonus is only useful to clerics, monks, and druids and constitution is a secondary attribute. I'll put up a more detailed look at it later but the results were kind of surprising.
An interesting way to do it. And I think a very valid method. So the Half-races and Humans must score really well as they will excel at nearly any class.
I don't think any race with the possible exception of halfling needs real help. Now that doesn't mean they all are what I would make them but they are more or less balanced. ((I really dislike the half-orc with his weapon prof and his stats but they are still a very viable race))
Personally, I rate small size as a bonus, not a penalty. +1 to hit, +1 to AC (which cancels out the -1 to CMD), +4 to Stealth, and +2 to Fly is huge. Losing 0.5 to 1 point of damage per attack is trivial, and while 20 foot movement speed sucks, it's fairly easy to make up by 3rd or 4th level.
EDIT: And halflings are amazing. +1 bonus to all saves, +2 additional to one of the most common saves (fear), +1 to hit and AC, +2 to two of the best skills in the game, +2 to Dexterity which is at worst a secondary stat to any class, and +2 to Charisma which is needed more often in Pathfinder than 3.5. All at the cost of -10 feet of speed and -2 strength. Unless you're building a Fighter, this is a good deal. Pretty much any other class is good to great as a Halfling (even the other melee classes, all of whom can make up the Halfling's penalties in various ways).
EDIT2: Also, speaking in a general case scenario, low-light vision > darkvision. Darkvision is only really good for rogues (who need to completely eliminate miss chance) or in a party where everyone has darkvision (so they don't have to use light sources). As long as there's a single character who doesn't have darkvision, low-light vision will let you see and react to threats sooner than darkvision does. The light spell grants low-light vision characters a sight range of 80 feet. A bullseye lantern grants low-light vision characters a sight range of 240 feet. Darkvision (for PCs, at least) only goes to 60 feet.
Halflings get +1 to all saves, and break even or lose out in every other category.
I disagree. Dex is better than Con for frail characters, and Con isn't a primary stat for any character class, while Dex is a primary stat for several classes and still no worse than a secondary stat for any class. The SLAs Gnomes get are practically useless (three cantrips and a single very poor first level spell) especially at 1/day. +1 to all saves and +2 to saves vs fear is better than +2 to saves vs illusions. Sure-Footed is better than Obsessive by leaps and bounds. Halflings have better CMDs (+1 from Dex).
Compared to Gnomes?
Gnomes get CON, which IS a high second stat to everyone. For many reasons, arguably better than DEX. Gnomes get Low-Light vision, which, as you pointed out, is great. Gnomes get Gnome Magic and bonuses vs 3 subtypes of creatures (gobblinoid, reptilian, and giant). Gnomes get a bonus vs ALL illusion spells.
Halflings get +1 to all saves, and break even or lose out in every other category.
I want the +1 to att and dmg for thrown and sling weapons back!!
This is why I look at the classes not the bonuses.
Gnomes make excellent bards and sorcerers otherwise they are decent clerics, druids, rogues, wizards, and paladins, the rest of the classes they are pretty much sub-par.
Halflings make excellent rogues, bards, and sorcerers and they are decent clerics, druids and possibly rangers and likewise they are sub-par at most other classes.
As far as I'm concerned the two are close enough that I would take either in the classes I rated excellent and consider them for the things I rate as 'decent' based on role playing. For example a gnome paladin or halfling ranger would be fun.
Thanks for this interesting comparison. This is worth reading, even if I don't agree with some of the results or numbers (for example, I've found darkvision is rarely actually helpful, as at least one party member will usually need light, so most parties have "lights on" in the dark practically all the time).
This is why I look at the classes not the bonuses.
Gnomes make excellent bards and sorcerers otherwise they are decent clerics, druids, rogues, wizards, and paladins, the rest of the classes they are pretty much sub-par.
Halflings make excellent rogues, bards, and sorcerers and they are decent clerics, druids and possibly rangers and likewise they are sub-par at most other classes.
As far as I'm concerned the two are close enough that I would take either in the classes I rated excellent and consider them for the things I rate as 'decent' based on role playing. For example a gnome paladin or halfling ranger would be fun.
Awesome way of looking at races, really I like.
So looking at things for a dwarf then what they excel at ranger, monk, wizards ,and druid are decent Paladin, fighters ,or barbarians, and sub par clerics, bards, and sorcerers? ((notice the paladin as a + for dwarves, I think that is the one class were their movement "advantage" actually kicks in, because most paladins will eventually be in plate and dwarves in plate move better then anyone else while their - 2 to cha hurts they can offset that by stealing from wis and/or int to make that less an issue.))
Half orc are strong in my veiw for any class really, as are Half-Elves and humans because of the floating +2. To me the floating +2 is a huge deal, massive really and hard to give a fair value to.
Looking at that list makes me really want to change dwarves and actually half-orcs. While I am ok with the unusual Half-Orc bard floating around I don't want it to be a choice that is as common as a half-elf bard. Nor do I want dwarves to be poor clerics and only ok fighters as I see those two classes as well iconic for the race, never mind that they are now one of the best druids out there also not making me really happy.
Awesome way of looking at races, really I like.
So looking at things for a dwarf then what they excel at ranger, monk, wizards ,and druid are decent Paladin, fighters ,or barbarians, and sub par clerics, bards, and sorcerers? ((notice the paladin as a + for dwarves, I think that is the one class were their movement "advantage" actually kicks in, because most paladins will eventually be in plate and dwarves in plate move better then anyone else while their - 2 to cha hurts they can offset that by stealing from wis and/or int to make that less an issue.))
This is where I think it's strange, dwarfs are perceived as being this really powerful race but from where I sit they aren't well situated. The CON bonus is nice for a lot of classes but it's not a primary bonus for anything. So a dwarf fighter/ barbarian/ ranger isn't going to as strong as it's human counterpart. Everyone wants more hit points but CON is generally a secondary stat for most classes, not a primary. So dwarfs make decent martial characters but they are always second tier to the races which can bump STR. Further, mobility is a factor in a lot of tactical situations and the dwarf. CON and WIS benefit Monks, Druids, and possibly Clerics and those are the only classes where dwarfs are really better than a human. I say maybe clerics because for some cleric choices CHA is as important to clerics as CON is now.
Half orc are strong in my veiw for any class really, as are Half-Elves and humans because of the floating +2. To me the floating +2 is a huge deal, massive really and hard to give a fair value to.
Half orcs are pretty much on par with human across the board on classes except for rogue, barbarian, and possibly ranger. Darkvision is important for rogues and sometimes rangers, and the ferocity race feature is one of the few racial abilities that really makes a difference to a specific class. (Elf SR is another)
Looking at that list makes me really want to change dwarves and actually half-orcs. While I am ok with the unusual Half-Orc bard floating around I don't want it to be a choice that is as common as a half-elf bard. Nor do I want dwarves to be poor clerics and only ok fighters as I see those two classes as well iconic for the race, never mind that they are now one of the best druids out there also not making me really happy.
Armor training really watered down the usefulness of the dwarf's slow and steady racial ability.
Dwarven clerics > human clerics.
Possibly... though I'm not convinced.
What does a dwarf cleric bring to the table that makes him superior? The way I see it:
Stats are a wash, primary gets boosted, one secondary gets boosted, one secondary gets dumped.
Movement? A human cleric with medium armor is moving the same speed as the dwarf.
That leaves darkvision, hardy, and a handful of abilities which are mostly not exciting to clerics versus 1 feat and 1 skill point/ level.
Darkvision is the real kicker here but a bonus feat really gives an edge up on character progression. Plus the bonus skill point means the human cleric can actually be good at 4 skills (Knowledge Rel, Spellcraft, Perception, +???)
I just don't see anything that really either one head and shoulders above the other.
Dwarven clerics > human clerics.....depends on your play style.
-2 charisma does hurt, channeling=massive extra healing for your party, and with the point buy system increasing cost per stat at 14 now instead of 15, you're already hitting the extra cost just to get up to a 12. A bonus skillpoint per level is pretty big for a 2+int class. And that bonus feat is so useful, especially at lower levels.
Dwarf gets more HP/fort save, darkvision, and some nifty other save bonuses/benefits. Its pretty clearly a tradeoff, not a matter of superiority.
Since Channel Positive Energy is pretty well useless past the first couple of levels as an in combat heal, the only real drawback to -2 charisma is that dwarven clerics get 1 less channel per day than human clerics do. +2 to saves vs spells and spell-like abilities is insanely good, since spells and spell-like abilities will be a good 75% of the saves you make in your career; it's easily worth more than the human's feat. +1 skill point is nice, for sure, but your cleric isn't going to be a skill monkey no matter what you do with him. Then you have either an extra hp per level and +1 fort save or an extra +1 DC and extra spells. Both characters will move at the same speed, so the slow dwarven speed isn't a penalty (like it is for fighters). The dwarf is better in combat (CMD bonuses, AC and attack bonuses against common enemy types). Dwarves get darkvision (which isn't as good as the hype, but is waaaaay better than no special vision) and can automatically detect traps and secret doors in stone.
Since Channel Positive Energy is pretty well useless past the first couple of levels as an in combat heal, the only real drawback to -2 charisma is that dwarven clerics get 1 less channel per day than human clerics do. +2 to saves vs spells and spell-like abilities is insanely good, since spells and spell-like abilities will be a good 75% of the saves you make in your career; it's easily worth more than the human's feat. +1 skill point is nice, for sure, but your cleric isn't going to be a skill monkey no matter what you do with him. Then you have either an extra hp per level and +1 fort save or an extra +1 DC and extra spells. Both characters will move at the same speed, so the slow dwarven speed isn't a penalty (like it is for fighters). The dwarf is better in combat (CMD bonuses, AC and attack bonuses against common enemy types). Dwarves get darkvision (which isn't as good as the hype, but is waaaaay better than no special vision) and can automatically detect traps and secret doors in stone.
I'll buy that, so dwarves are superior clerics, monks, and druids. I'm still not seeing the racial superiority which is the claim.
Wizards? Meh
Bards? Hahaha
Rogues? They are definitely decent but not superior
Paladins? Meh
Sorcerers? See Bard
Barbarians? Not seeing the love
Rangers? erm decent I suppose but not shiney
Fighters? Decent, but no bonus to primary stat hurts a lot.
Essentially you have the human and half humans who are decent at everything but shine a bit in places, then the rest of the races which are good at a few classes and mediocre at the rest.
+1 to hit, +1 to AC (which cancels out the -1 to CMD)
No it doesn't. Your normal size modifiers to AC and attack are replaced with the CMB/CMD size modifiers, not added to them. (Something I specifically argued against in beta, but oh well.)
Totally agreed that the dwarves' +2 to saves against spells and spell-like abilities is one of the best racial attributes available, period.
Dennis: You might want to reevaluate dwarf barbarians. :)
And at level 5, healing 3d6 _to the whole party, including summons, ranger/druid pets, what have you_ can be huge....you can effectively 'undo' 3d6 of an AoE spell that the entire party just took, all without using up a spell.
Considering that, at level 5, you're likely to be dealing with AOEs that deal 7d6 to 6d10 damage, 3d6 really doesn't cut it.
Going up in level scales pretty nicely with the amount of AoE damage the party takes too, again without using up a spell.
Actually, it scales at half the rate. AOEs go up 1d6 per level; channel energy goes up 1d6 per 2 levels.
And, anyway, AOEs are generally the least of your concern when you're talking about combat healing. The concern with combat healing is healing the damage your fighter just took from the dragon/demon/giant/other-combat-brute full-attacking him and dealing over 100 points of damage. Channel Positive Energy does jack-all to help in that situation; even at level 20, it only heals 35 on average. Focused damage is the real hit point danger in combat, not unfocused AOE damage. (of course the REAL danger in combat is save-or-dies/save-or-sucks, but CPE doesn't help against those at all)
I know, joining late, but...
As a suggestion to the OP. When calculating the bonus for stats, it might be wise to set up a sliding scale to determine a modifier based on how useful the stat increase/decrease is for each class. Then average that modifier based on how many classes it's good for.
For example :
Let's say a race had a +2 CON, +2 WIS, -2 CHA. By your original estimate, that is a +2 overall. However, if we look at the classes...
Barbarian : Con is good for a barbarian, very good. Wis helps with many of their class skills, and Cha is only a minor inconvenience to them. So, Very Good, Good, and No effect. I'd adjust this as a +0.5, a +0.25, and a -0, so this race would have a +0.75 for Barbarians
Cleric : GOOD, VERY GOOD, BAD. So, +0.25, +0.5, -0.25, so this race would have a +0.5 for Clerics.
Druid : GOOD, VERY GOOD, No Effect (other than handle animal). So, this race would be a +0.75 for Druids.
Fighter : GOOD, NO EFFECT, NO EFFECT. SO this race would be a +0.5 for Fighters.
Paladin : GOOD, GOOD, VERY BAD. SO this race woudl be a +0 for Paladins.
Ranger : GOOD, GOOD, NO EFFECT. So this race would be a +0.5 for Rangers.
Rogue : GOOD, NO EFFECT, BAD. So this race would be a +0 for Rogues.
Sorcerer : GOOD, NO EFFECT, VERY BAD, so this race would be a -0.25 for Sorcerers.
Wizard : GOOD, NO EFFECT, NO EFFECT, so this race would be a -0.5 for Wizards.
So, we have 0.75 + 0.5 + 0.75 + 0.5 + 0 + 0.5 + 0 - 0.25 - 0.5. That's an average of +0.25. So this race's stat bonus's are worth an additional +0.25 due to how useful they are to the majority of the classes.
I know, joining late, but...
As a suggestion to the OP. When calculating the bonus for stats, it might be wise to set up a sliding scale to determine a modifier based on how useful the stat increase/decrease is for each class. Then average that modifier based on how many classes it's good for.
For example :
Let's say a race had a +2 CON, +2 WIS, -2 CHA. By your original estimate, that is a +2 overall. However, if we look at the classes...
Barbarian : Con is good for a barbarian, very good. Wis helps with many of their class skills, and Cha is only a minor inconvenience to them. So, Very Good, Good, and No effect. I'd adjust this as a +0.5, a +0.25, and a -0, so this race would have a +0.75 for Barbarians
Cleric : GOOD, VERY GOOD, BAD. So, +0.25, +0.5, -0.25, so this race would have a +0.5 for Clerics.
Druid : GOOD, VERY GOOD, No Effect (other than handle animal). So, this race would be a +0.75 for Druids.
Fighter : GOOD, NO EFFECT, NO EFFECT. SO this race would be a +0.5 for Fighters.
Paladin : GOOD, GOOD, VERY BAD. SO this race woudl be a +0 for Paladins.
Ranger : GOOD, GOOD, NO EFFECT. So this race would be a +0.5 for Rangers.
Rogue : GOOD, NO EFFECT, BAD. So this race would be a +0 for Rogues.
Sorcerer : GOOD, NO EFFECT, VERY BAD, so this race would be a -0.25 for Sorcerers.
Wizard : GOOD, NO EFFECT, NO EFFECT, so this race would be a -0.5 for Wizards.
So, we have 0.75 + 0.5 + 0.75 + 0.5 + 0 + 0.5 + 0 - 0.25 - 0.5. That's an average of +0.25. So this race's stat bonus's are worth an additional +0.25 due to how useful they are to the majority of the classes.
This is an excellent concept, but really pushes us towards the idea of not how good a race is, but how good a race is at fulfilling a class/concept.
We've all been arguing over if a race is good/bad, but honestly they're all good. Some are bad at certain things (Elves aren't very good at being Barbarians), while amazing at others (Elves are fantastic Wizards). We should really analyze the races based on classes, not a general overview of how good the race is. After all, Half-Orcs are great for classes with limited weapon selections and healing capabilities (Bards, Clerics, and Druids). Sure, their ferocity ability is a limited version of die-hard, but it didn't take a crappy feat to gain and sometimes 1 round once per day is all you need.
Some are bad at certain things (Elves aren't very good at being Barbarians), while amazing at others (Elves are fantastic Wizards).
Are they? I always thought, mechanically, that Halflings, Gnomes and Humans were the superior Wizard choices, with Dwarf being next in line, the Half-Elf next and Elf being only a step above the Half-Orc.
Really, the only reason to play a 3.5 Elf is for the Elven Wizard substitution level from Races of the Wild, or if allowed to play a Grey / Sun Elf with an Int bonus...
In Pathfinder, the Half-Elf and Half-Orc also become acceptable choices, and the Elf's +2 Intelligence at least makes them something other than the second-to-worst choice ever.
Still, everyone is going to have different 'weights' for the various racial abilities, and the OP has provided us with a general pricing guide that we can then adjust as we see fit. (For instance, I wouldn't consider Small size a drawback. The +1 to hit and AC is well worth it for a spellcaster or rogue, who will be getting their damage from magic effects or sneak attack dice. On the other hand, it's probably worth a -.5 or -1 for a Monk, who takes a truly obnoxious hit on unarmed damage.)
Like the 'class tiers' system, I look at it as a guideline. Everyone is going to have their own preferences based off of their own play experiences, and that will adjust the 'weights' at their tables.
Some are bad at certain things (Elves aren't very good at being Barbarians), while amazing at others (Elves are fantastic Wizards).Are they? I always thought, mechanically, that Halflings, Gnomes and Humans were the superior Wizard choices, with Dwarf being next in line, the Half-Elf next and Elf being only a step above the Half-Orc.
Really, the only reason to play a 3.5 Elf is for the Elven Wizard substitution level from Races of the Wild, or if allowed to play a Grey / Sun Elf with an Int bonus...
In Pathfinder, the Half-Elf and Half-Orc also become acceptable choices, and the Elf's +2 Intelligence at least makes them something other than the second-to-worst choice ever.
Still, everyone is going to have different 'weights' for the various racial abilities, and the OP has provided us with a general pricing guide that we can then adjust as we see fit. (For instance, I wouldn't consider Small size a drawback. The +1 to hit and AC is well worth it for a spellcaster or rogue, who will be getting their damage from magic effects or sneak attack dice. On the other hand, it's probably worth a -.5 or -1 for a Monk, who takes a truly obnoxious hit on unarmed damage.)
Like the 'class tiers' system, I look at it as a guideline. Everyone is going to have their own preferences based off of their own play experiences, and that will adjust the 'weights' at their tables.
I wasn't speaking from 3.5, I was talking about 3.PF. In 3.5 I found elves to be a terrible choice for any sort of spellcaster, despite their favored class. In pathfinder they're rocking Spell Penetration, a bonus to 2 good stats for a wizard (and a hit to another), and have some really decent weapon proficiencies that give a wizard something else to do in the early levels when his spells are running low. And that's just the stuff that good for a wizard. The other things, like low-light, resistance to enchantments/sleep, and bonuses to perception are just gravy.
I wasn't speaking from 3.5, I was talking about 3.PF. In 3.5 I found elves to be a terrible choice for any sort of spellcaster, despite their favored class. In pathfinder they're rocking Spell Penetration, a bonus to 2 good stats for a wizard (and a hit to another), and have some really decent weapon proficiencies that give a wizard something else to do in the early levels when his spells are running low. And that's just the stuff that good for a wizard. The other things, like low-light, resistance to enchantments/sleep, and bonuses to perception are just gravy.
I concur, the INT and DEX bonus plus spell penetration mean elves make great wizards now. They are also decent if you want a skill based rogue. Beyond that the CON penalty is a real stinker.