Someone came came up with this idea, and I like it--players assign their racial bonuses to whichever two abilities they want. It makes interesting and unusual character concepts more appealing, but I'm unsure of how to handle humans. I'm thinking of one of these rules for human characters:
1. Humans can trade one racial ability to get a second +2 bonus.
2. Humans automatically get a second +2 bonus.
Which is most balanced? Does either one scream 'HUMANZ RULE!' or 'HUMANZ SUCK!'?
TS
I'd say Human's current floating bonus is a positive of the race. Losing this feature (because everyone has it now) is at least worth another +2 floating bonus (since all bonuses are floating now).
YMMV though.
I'm prone to agree with you.
TS
Tequila Sunrise wrote: I'm prone to agree with you.
TS
I think you're basically taking a major human advantage and giving it double to everyone else. I would very strongly oppose this kind of thing in my group.
However, we play a pretty traditional fantasy-type game. Elves make good archers and the mechanics support that. Tieflings make good warlocks and the mechanics support that. Humans are the most adaptable and the mechanics support that.
My current version of this rule is:
"You can assign your racial bonuses to any two abilities you want. Humans get an additional +2 bonus. Additionally, humans can double-up one of their other racial traits."
I got an overwhelming and unanimous response to this topic over at Giant in the Playground, saying that this house rule makes humans suck. They came up with some pretty outrageous counterbalances to make humans comparable to other races again, but I am prone to agree that humans do become rather lackluster once everyone else has floating bonuses too.
TheNewGuy wrote: However, we play a pretty traditional fantasy-type game. Elves make good archers and the mechanics support that. Tieflings make good warlocks and the mechanics support that. Humans are the most adaptable and the mechanics support that. Racial stats certainly do support traditional tropes, which is fine for most folks I guess. I myself like to encourage players to come up with the occasional oddball character. Recently I got an idea for a doppleganger paladin character for a pbp game, but ended up trashing it because the doppleganger racial mods just don't synergize well with the paladin class. I realize that a couple +1 bonuses don't matter much even in 4e, but I just couldn't follow through with the character because of those two little bonuses.
TS
Tequila Sunrise wrote: Racial stats certainly do support traditional tropes, which is fine for most folks I guess. I myself like to encourage players to come up with the occasional oddball character. Recently I got an idea for a doppleganger paladin character for a pbp game, but ended up trashing it because the doppleganger racial mods just don't synergize well with the paladin class. I realize that a couple +1 bonuses don't matter much even in 4e, but I just couldn't follow through with the character because of those two little bonuses.
TS
Our group has "that guy" that makes an oddball character no matter what. The rest of the group doesn't see a problem with it being difficult for dopplegangers to be paladins, for example. Or for dwarves to be wizards. There are other races that are better at magic, and it's reflected in their ability bonuses, just like there are races that are naturally stealthy or strong.
It's an interesting idea, making every race exactly the same in terms of ability bonuses, but I just don't see any advantage to it other than to build min/maxed oddball characters. If that's what you're looking for, 3rd edition might be your game.
So far, and we've only been playing 4th edition for 2 months, we've found no reason to tinker with the rules. Even our players who like to tinker with the rules haven't found any reason to do so.
I suspect, before the release of Martial Power, I would have been much more behind this idea.
Martial Power did (imo) an amazing job of supporting some very non-standard builds. It produced a great deal of support for the dwarven fighter - a classic character concept, of course, and one that fit well enough in 4E, but was still dismissed by many due to lack of a Strength boost. Now, though, it seems not just viable, but an outright amazing defender.
Even more impressive is the job they did with the Tiefling - as a race built around the only two stats useless to a fighter, it was very much a last pick for that class... but between new feats and paragon paths, a Tiefling fighter suddenly looks not just possible, but downright appealing.
Many of the ways they accomplished this was by focusing not on stats, but on the other racial features - the Tiefling fighter is a draw because of the cool things they can now do with Infernal Wrath. The dwarf is all the more awesome because of many bonuses they provided with Second Wind. And so forth. I like this approach a lot more than simply letting everyone freely distribute ability bonuses.
All that said, I don't see it as a horrible idea in a home game - that is, I don't think it will ruin (or even truly imbalance) the game. There is some potential for abuse, and I worry that there might be race/class combinations that now become a bit too strong - but nothing specifically comes to mind off the top of my head, so I can't claim it is that immediate a concern.
The two real issues is that it will simply boost the power level of the game (as almost all characters will simply be downright better due to cherry-picking stats), and it does seem a low blow for humans. Even giving them a second stat to boost (for free) doesn't seem quite enough to make up for the diminished significance of their customizability, and I feel they would need something to make up for it. Perhaps not a huge thing - maybe a +1 to Initiative, or some similar small benefit - but it does seem like they could easily fall behind with this change.
So, in conclusion: Not to my personal taste, but still an interesting idea (albeit one with a few ripples worth considering), and definitely something I would be eager to hear about the results of in actual play!
Tequila Sunrise wrote: "You can assign your racial bonuses to any two abilities you want. Humans get an additional +2 bonus. Additionally, humans can double-up one of their other racial traits." Question - what do you mean by "humans can double-up one of their other racial traits"? Do you mean choose to get a second bonus feat, bonus skill, or bonus at-will, or gain a +2 bonus to saves?
I'd recommend against this, personally. A second feat is too powerful. A second skill is too weak. And a second at-will or an extra +1 on saves is just about right power-wise... but rather boring in actual use.
A simple solution, in my mind, would be to give every human a free Skill Focus feat at 1st level - thus making up for their lack of any racial skill bonuses, and putting them on par with other races (while still emphasizing their diverse nature.)
For myself, though it might be a bit more complicated, I'd come up with a list of free traits, of which humans can pick one. (This would be in addition to the extra +2 bonus). Here are some random options, off the top of my head:
Human Nature
Daring: Gain a +2 racial bonus to initiative.
Decisive: Gain a +1 racial bonus on attack and damage rolls when attacking an enemy at maximum hit points.
Independant: Gain a +1 racial bonus on attack rolls when no allies are within 5 squares of both you and the target of your attack.
Specialist: Gain Skill Focus (Any) as a bonus feat.
In truth, this might make humans a bit too good - but shifting up the ability bonus system hits the balance of their racial design the hardest, so they will definitely need something to make up the difference.
TheNewGuy wrote: It's an interesting idea, making every race exactly the same in terms of ability bonuses, but I just don't see any advantage to it other than to build min/maxed oddball characters. If that's what you're looking for, 3rd edition might be your game. Nope, 4e is much better for balancing the oddballs. In 3e I had to look over every little racial variant that anyone found or invented to ensure balance; in 4e all races have the same number of stat bonuses (sans humans of course) and no penalties so I can make this simple blanket house rule.
Matthew Koelbl wrote: Martial Power did (imo) an amazing job of supporting some very non-standard builds. Unfortunately I am limited to core for now and the foreseeable future. I look forward to Martial Power, but even after I have it I will likely still make this house rule available. Making tiefling and dwarf fighters more appealing through new feats and powers is all well and good for those two particular race/class combos, but my simple blanket house rule gives similar encouragement to all oddball combos.
TS
Matthew Koelbl wrote: Tequila Sunrise wrote: "You can assign your racial bonuses to any two abilities you want. Humans get an additional +2 bonus. Additionally, humans can double-up one of their other racial traits." Question - what do you mean by "humans can double-up one of their other racial traits"? Do you mean choose to get a second bonus feat, bonus skill, or bonus at-will, or gain a +2 bonus to saves? Yes.
Matthew Koelbl wrote: I'd recommend against this, personally. A second feat is too powerful. A second skill is too weak. And a second at-will or an extra +1 on saves is just about right power-wise... but rather boring in actual use. A heroic feat too powerful? The only 'double-up' ability I think is arguably too good is the +2 NADs. Also why do you consider a bonus skill to be too weak, but then suggest skill focus instead? Whatever the case, I don't see the appeal of giving humans a half dozen extra optional racial traits. They may or may not be marginally more balanced than simply using a bonus feat to gain a similar trait, but I don't think they're worth the extra space. My experience is that any house rule which involves lists which do not appear in published books just causes players' eyes to glaze over.
TS
Tequila Sunrise wrote: A heroic feat too powerful? The only 'double-up' ability I think is arguably too good is the +2 NADs. Well, I just see it as a bit dangerous to have 3 feats at level 1, 4 by level 2, compared to other races - the potential for being able to instantly pull off combos or stacking feats early on can be somewhat abusive. I suspect that it will be fine by the mid-heroic levels, though always being 2 feats ahead of other races will be pretty significant.
Tequila Sunrise wrote: Also why do you consider a bonus skill to be too weak, but then suggest skill focus instead? Humans get an extra bonus skill within their own class - yet another one is good, but you are starting to risk overdosing on very similar abilities (as opposed to allowing Skill Focus, which makes up for their lack of any racial skill bonuses, and allows them to specialize in a skill of their choice (as opposed to within their often very limited class list).
Mainly, I think that since you are taking away the strongest unique strength of humans (the floating skill modifier), you might as well also compensate by removing their largest unique weakness (lack of any racial skill bonus). Skill Focus seems a good way to do that while preserving their versatile nature.
Tequila Sunrise wrote: Whatever the case, I don't see the appeal of giving humans a half dozen extra optional racial traits. They may or may not be marginally more balanced than simply using a bonus feat to gain a similar trait, but I don't think they're worth the extra space. My experience is that any house rule which involves lists which do not appear in published books just causes players' eyes to glaze over. Sure, just throwing out ideas, really.
Matthew Koelbl wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote: Also why do you consider a bonus skill to be too weak, but then suggest skill focus instead? Humans get an extra bonus skill within their own class - yet another one is good, but you are starting to risk overdosing on very similar abilities (as opposed to allowing Skill Focus, which makes up for their lack of any racial skill bonuses, and allows them to specialize in a skill of their choice (as opposed to within their often very limited class list).
Mainly, I think that since you are taking away the strongest unique strength of humans (the floating skill modifier), you might as well also compensate by removing their largest unique weakness (lack of any racial skill bonus). Skill Focus seems a good way to do that while preserving their versatile nature.
Fair enough. Either way you're covered; whether you want skill training or skill focus, you can take it with your bonus feat!
TS
TS,
Let us know how this rule works out for you. I think the 4e rules system is pretty sleek and I'm looking forward to hearing what happens when you tweak it. I'm sure my group will find something that doesn't really work for our style and it will be good to have some idea of what you can change with these rules.
Recent threads in 4th Edition
|
