I am planning on starting a new campaign (Reign of Winter) in the near future, and some of my players have asked me about playing some non-standard races that appear in the Advanced Race Guide. The only potential problem I see is that some of the races they are interested in are worth a lot more Build Points (or whatever they're called) than the standard races.
Assuming I want all my PCs to start at 1st level, does anybody have any suggestions (even in theory or from personal experience) how I can keep things balanced between higher-BP races and standard races? Things like different XP tracks or XP penalties? Any advice would be greatly appreciated...
Never allow drow noble , other than that most of the races in the book are reasonable, not counting the ones in the race creation section 9not to say those are ALL unreasonable).
Really I wouldn't worry about it too much, unless there is a massive discrepancy. I mean heck human is 9 and dwarf is 11, but Human tends to be favored as better in most cases.
perhaps get an idea of what folks are curious about then you can look at them and see if there is really a need for adjustments in the first place.
I am planning on starting a new campaign (Reign of Winter) in the near future, and some of my players have asked me about playing some non-standard races that appear in the Advanced Race Guide. The only potential problem I see is that some of the races they are interested in are worth a lot more Build Points (or whatever they're called) than the standard races.
Assuming I want all my PCs to start at 1st level, does anybody have any suggestions (even in theory or from personal experience) how I can keep things balanced between higher-BP races and standard races? Things like different XP tracks or XP penalties? Any advice would be greatly appreciated...
Which races?
FYI the consensus I often here is that the build points are not precise, and only work as rough outlines. A lot of the power a nonstandard race b really depends on the class, build, and type of campaign...and most of the benefits that might acrue to the more powerful races are really only relevant for the first few levels.
Personally from what I have seen, anything 20 or below should be fine.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Build points are a poor indicator of power. Humans are the most powerful race in the game. They come in at 9.
Meanwhile, Suli are at 16 and they're not all that great. Not terrible, but rarely the optimal choice.
Unless someone wants to play a monstrous race like a Gargoyle (like 34 BP or summat) it's fine. All of the Featured and Uncommon races are balanced with the Core races (or weaker).
Just use level adjustment.
Please don't do this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally from what I have seen, anything 20 or below should be fine.
Please don't do this.Just use level adjustment.
These are both sound advice. Race won't matter nearly as much as class after the first few levels.
If you're not comfortable about it just say no.
My cheesy-build sense starts tingling when I see things like this. And it does bug me a little when players automatically assume a right of entitlement when a new book comes out. That said anything below 20 points shouldn't be a problem (Drow Noble aside) just be very careful if they want to build a custom race...
Most of as long as everyone is having fun...who cares?!
A couple of months back I played an undine bard. The story teller felt that the race was underpowered. He gave me an additional 3 bp for the race. I think I took powerful swimmer (1 bp) and amphibious (2 RP) and was happy with it.
So I guess my recommendation is, as others have suggested, let them play the race they want to play. Class levels will matter more after the first level or two. If somebody feels out shined by the race, ask your dm if you may throw a few build points at races that under perform and snag thematically appropriate abilities... or possibly let the weaker races just have an alternate racial trait or two for free.
And as to level adjustment, as others have indicated, Don't. Level adjustment is just a bad idea.
Personally from what I have seen, anything 20 or below should be fine.These are both sound advice. Race won't matter nearly as much as class after the first few levels.Please don't do this.Just use level adjustment.
Alternately, use the above level adjustment suggestion and include LA buyoffs.
|
I take the RP costs in the ARG with a pinch of salt.
Many of the abilities given to the core races have been left in for legacy reasons. If the game were to be created from scratch, today, some of those abilities would deserve a more critical eye.
A race such as Dwarf, gaining +2 to two save-boosting ability scores, then getting +2 vs most saves the PC will ever be asked to make, darkvision, attack bonuses, stability, stonecunning, ...would end up costing much higher than the points currently shown, since those racial abilities have been under-costed to keep the race within normal RP quotas.
The question should not be whether the race proposed by the player has a high RP cost, but whether those abilities actualy synergise with the class they want to play. An ability such as elves' spell penetration is worthless to a non-caster, but is still costed into the race by default.
Dwarves are 13 RP, iirc, while humans are 9 yet humans are touted as the best universal race. Yes, dwarves are advanced and break into the next teir of monster compared to every other core race. Also, I will echo the 10 rp = 1 level thing. It's just incredibly inaccurate. No two abilities are meant to be equal so one 20 RP race can be incredibly ineffectual compared to another 20 RP race.
You'll need to evaluate each individually to see how it works with the campaign and the rest of the group. It's the answer I see no one wants to hear on these boards but it's truly the only one that works every time.
|
Its really easy to deal with a broken character. When you send in a few monsters and the one bright, shinning, metagaming character one shots an enemy, all his buddies will proceed to beat that PC into paste ignoring the other PCs as they are not a threat. repeat a few times until the player learns a lesson!
Honestly, if a build is to powerful don't let it in your game. Sometime balance is a good thing (at least between the PCs)
I think it depends on what your campaign world is like.
I don't allow strix as a player race because of their flight, mostly. Some of the uncommon races (vanara, nagaji) I don't allow because I don't think they'd be in my setting.
So far I've allowed tiefling (grimspawn and beastbrood), aasimar (angelkin, emberkin, and plumekith), dhampirs (standard and svetocher), fetchling, genie-kin (ifrits and sylph), ratfolk, kitsune, and an orc, as well as human, half-elf, dwarf, half-orc, and gnome.
I'd also happily allow changeling, catfolk, skinwalkers and lycanthrope-kin, if it came up, as well as about any kind of what D&D used to call Planetouched.
In my experience mostly those characters have not been significantly different in power from the standard races. About the only thing different is that the whole party usually has darkvision, and the various native outsiders tend to have a few forms of elemental resistances.
I actually prefer my non-human player-characters in my campaign be from half-human races like dhampir, tiefling, aasimar, changeling, fetchling, sylph, ifrit, half-elf, half-orc, etc., than to be from entirely non-human races like elf and dwarf. RP-wise, I think half-human characters, regardless of their other half, seem less alien than elves, dwarves, and gnomes.
I wouldn't allow anything from the Race Builder chapter, and ask that players talk to you about using stuff from the rest of the races, but unless it doesn't fit the setting or has something you'd consider a game-breaker, to just allow it as-is. (I don't allow a lot of the standard fantasy monster races in the book, for instance. No goblins, no kobolds, no drow, not because they're too powerful but because I don't think they're not local to my campaign. If someone really wanted something I'd at least consider it though.)
I weigh the races themselves more than just their abilities for continuity. For example, I probably wouldn't allow strix because they have an obscene hatred for humans. Since most APs and whatnot have you in the middle of human settlements I just don't see them working most times.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with the build points is that you can spend 20pts on situational abilities that won't make the PC useful, or 10pts on a few flexible always-good things that anyone can use. The 10pt race (Human) will be more useful than the sad christmas-tree race.
Dwarves have a lot of rather marginal abilities; bonuses to all sorts of subterranean stuff. All of that costs a lot of points but rarely comes into play. That's why humans (at fewer points) are more reliably good as a race; flexible ability bonus and bonus feat is good for everyone.
The risk with building a race for a particular character is that a majority of the hyperspecific abilities will be chosen to fit that character. Spending your points more wisely than was done for the standard races.
I follow the guidelines listed in the bestiary. They may be behind a level or two at first, but after a while their racial features matter less and less compared to the overwhelming class abilities, and so the level loss eventually goes away.
I've used level adjustment with the option for buyoff at later levels and it seems to do the job. But I agree with the above analysis that Racial Point Value is an eyeball estimate at best. And that humans (or at the very least, the Human Bonus Feat) are horribly, horribly underpriced.
I've allow a trox before and found that the guidelines in the ARG about upping the APL to work fairly well. I'm currently allowing a player to play an awakened bear, built by the ARG, so that should be interesting.
I'd allow kasatha if I could understand their multiattack. And find someone that didn't want them dual wielding greatswords ;)
I've used level adjustment with the option for buyoff at later levels and it seems to do the job. But I agree with the above analysis that Racial Point Value is an eyeball estimate at best. And that humans (or at the very least, the Human Bonus Feat) are horribly, horribly underpriced.
I'll be honest, while the extra feat is nice, I don't think it's as unbalancing and overpwoered as most people make it out to be. Sure, it is flexible, but the extra feat is generally used just to get ahead in a build with some prerequisite they normally couldn't grab at that level. It's nice, but I just don't think it's as superpowered as many people think it is.
I might have agreed with you if the phrase "I would really love to play _______ but I need the extra feat too much so another human it is" wasn't so commonplace.
I might have agreed with you if the phrase "I would really love to play _______ but I need the extra feat too much so another human it is" wasn't so commonplace.
I used to be like that until I forced myself into playing an elf rogue for 15 levels. And then a half orc barbarian. And as I kept forcing myself into non-human roles, I found that I didn't really miss the feat. Sure, it is good, I'm not doubting that. But honestly, I've gotten over that mindset of "always need the feat!" and just play.
Oh I understand completely. I personally never play humans - I don't enjoy them much, even with the mechanical superiority. I'd rather be something fantastic.
I'm usually GM though, and I always have at least one player that just can't let go of the bonus feat.
Thanks for all the input so far!
If you really thought the race someone wanted was going to unbalance the game, you could always give players the option of taking Advanced normal races. That would give them a significant buff, especially in a point buy game. Of course, then the people asking for "better" races might complain, or switch to "Advanced humans".
Or, just throw that out there like you're thinking of it, and if they complain or want to switch back, you know they're just trying to get "better" characters than the other players.
|
|
I'll be honest, while the extra feat is nice, I don't think it's as unbalancing and overpwoered as most people make it out to be. Sure, it is flexible, but the extra feat is generally used just to get ahead in a build with some prerequisite they normally couldn't grab at that level. It's nice, but I just don't think it's as superpowered as many people think it is.
I'm of the opinion that many of the feat chains shouldn't be feat chains (skillful Improved Maneuvers building of Mongo-Smash! Power Attack?), that the prerequisites don't match the endgoal feats (Int 13 for Expertise?), or that the task shouldn't require a feat in the first place (Weapon Finesse).
So allowing a PC to reduce the feat tax that shouldn't be there, is not a problem.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm of the opinion that many of the feat chains shouldn't be feat chains (skillful Improved Maneuvers building of Mongo-Smash! Power Attack?), that the prerequisites don't match the endgoal feats (Int 13 for Expertise?), or that the task shouldn't require a feat in the first place (Weapon Finesse).
So allowing a PC to reduce the feat tax that shouldn't be there, is not a problem.
You know, I just realized...people talk about a LOT of things "breaking their verisimilitude". Some of them really minor or silly.
Why is one of those things never "Dirty Trick requires a PhD in kicking people in the nuts"?
The only races I disallow are the Strix (due to flight at level 1) and the Drow Noble. All of the other ones are pretty well balanced.
|
I'm of the opinion that many of the feat chains shouldn't be feat chains (skillful Improved Maneuvers building of Mongo-Smash! Power Attack?), that the prerequisites don't match the endgoal feats (Int 13 for Expertise?), or that the task shouldn't require a feat in the first place (Weapon Finesse).
So allowing a PC to reduce the feat tax that shouldn't be there, is not a problem.
You know, I just realized...people talk about a LOT of things "breaking their verisimilitude". Some of them really minor or silly.
Why is one of those things never "Dirty Trick requires a PhD in kicking people in the nuts"?
Lol I totally agree with that especially the combat expertise part
I stole an idea from Umbral Reaver, using the Ability Score Points as a purchase cost assigned for the more powerful races. This results in weaker characters, but most of my players are okay with it.
Unless they changed the Drow noble I don't understand the concern or OMG too buko mindset for them, It is your level one feat that you are giving up for a few 1 times a day abilities and costs more feats down the line. I know the Drow Noble in the Beastiary and the ARG are different so that is why I am drawing a blank. If they are using the Race guide version where it costs a feat to be a noble and additional feats down the line for the other noble perks then it is balanced right there as they are missing out on key feats to really specialize the character.
Depends entirely on the races in question.
A lot of people (especially on these forums) dog on Aasimars because they have the Flexible Ability score distribution instead of the standard, and for that alone feel the need to punish the player and I think that's a joke.
You need to look at the actual abilities the race has and see what applications they have in game that could be detrimental to your game's balance. If allowing flight at 1st level is too much, then don't allow it. Also ban witches.
The things to watch out for are straight up immunities, SLA's that allow access to shenanigans like Prestige Classing early, and uninhibited mobility.
Mostly, anything 20 RP and under will auto balance with everything else, and everything in the Featured Races section is pretty well balanced.
Here's a method I've seen that really seems to work-
Combine attribute point buy and race points
Just take whatever your attribute point buy is going to be and add 10 points. Then, tell your players that they will be deducting the cost of their race from their attribute points.
So, if they want to play a more powerful race, they will have fewer attribute points.
Then, instead of granting a +1 bonus to an attribute every 4 levels, instead give out a number of point-buy points equal to 1/2 their level.
Players can either spend them to increase attributes (spending 4 points to raise a 17 to an 18, for example) or they can spend them to buy additional "race options."
So, someone who wanted to play a Drow Noble could pay the race points to start as a regular Drow, and then slowly pay points as they level up to "unlock" their racial abilities. By the time they hit about 10th level, they should have them all, which works perfectly because 10th level is about the time that all those spell like abilities really don't upset the power balance at all.
|
|
Here's a method I've seen that really seems to work-
Combine attribute point buy and race points
Just take whatever your attribute point buy is going to be and add 10 points. Then, tell your players that they will be deducting the cost of their race from their attribute points.
So, if they want to play a more powerful race, they will have fewer attribute points.
Then, instead of granting a +1 bonus to an attribute every 4 levels, instead give out a number of point-buy points equal to 1/2 their level.
Players can either spend them to increase attributes (spending 4 points to raise a 17 to an 18, for example) or they can spend them to buy additional "race options."
Regardless of whether the idea to link ability point-buy and RP on a 1:1 basis is taken up, I do agree with changing the current increase to any ability score by +1 per 4 levels.
Many posters object to what they see as lopsided characters, with astronomical scores in some abilities, and penalties in others, often to a point which implies the PC is crippled in some way.
Having the ability bonus be a flat +1 to any score, encourages players to increase their already maxed scores, rather than 'waste' it raising a low-to-middling score. Which exacerbates the perceived problem further.
There is also the issue of MAD classes, who may have a wide spread of 14s, feeling they are getting less benefit (equivalent of 2 point-buy)than the SAD classes, raising an 18 or 20 (equivalent of 5 point-buy).
Replacing the flat [+1 ability score/4 levels] with [+1 point-buy/level] would alleviate some of these problems.
Players with low scores could build them up to average, or average score to good, without feeling they were hurting themselves.
And the laws of diminishing returns would imply it should be easier to improve an area you have previously neglected, than one you have already spent every waking moment working.
The cloistered scribe who takes up an adventuring life would feel the benefit to his 7 Strength, before the barbarian who lived his whole life in the wild would feel an improvement to his 20 Strength.