Ah, I see now.
Huge difference between racial feats and racial class variants.
Race should not dictate spell choice. I don't have a problem with a special archery feat for elves only, or a special holding-your-ground feat for dwarves only, and so on, but your example sounded as if you wanted to have different spell lists for each race.
That's going too far. I want to be able to play mobile dwarf wizard or an elven point defense wizard (for want of better words).
|
That entirely depends. It often works out like that (and sometimes the +2 can even be better), but if you happen to play a class that relies heavily on the two good attributes and almost on the bad one, it's a lot better.
The attribute points are a wash, as a +2 in one is practically the same as +2/+2/-2 in total bonuses.
Well, I was specifically responding to elf wizard/human wizard, but, yes, certain class/race combos benefit/do not suffer from the +2/+2/-2.
Why the heck is everyone so darn hostile?
Everyone is conceding the point that humans are better and it seems that people are getting angry over details frankly it seems... small.Anywho my bit on all of this is that why restrict humans.
People who want to play there like sorry some other people broke this guys before so the answer is no.
Humans are the everyman but there focused they don't have time that other races have.
So like I said before rather than restricting humans just give other races unique feat trees or abilities that make them more appealing.I know some people may look at that and go ohhh no's fourth!
But forth did get something’s right and anyone who doesn't want to say that is just silly.
I'm not "conceding the point that humans are better".
I am conceding the piont that humans are more versatile.
If I want to play a fighter, I can easily choose dwarf or half orc or human. No matter which of those three I select, I will feel that, mechanically speaking, my choice was valid.
Now, I wouldn't want to be an elf, gnome, or halfling fighter. If I did that, I would feel I made a mechanically unsound decision.
Much can be said for most of the classes.
And I beileve that every race has at least one class for which it can be said that that race is equally viable to humans.
But, I do concede that humans are the only race that can play all 11 classes with mechanical viability. In that regard, their versatility is vastly superior to all the other races.
Which is:
A) by design.
B) appropriate for the fantasy genre.
C) backwards compatible
D) OK with me - I don't mind having non-human races be specialized for limited niche value. It's what makes humans unique and interesting in the game world.
Accordingly, I don't feel that giving the other races more racial benefits is a good solution.
Your suggestion to "give other races unique feat trees or abilities that make them more appealing" would almost certainly do exactly what you said: "make them more appealing".
That's not a solution.
The end result woudl be that every fighter would be a dwarf. Every rogue would be a halfling. Every wizard would be an elf. Etc.
Because if you "make them more appealing" then the problem just swings to the othe side. The OP was worried that all his mechanics-inclined players always choose humans, but swinging the problem in favor of the non-humans just changes what his players will always pick - but they still always pick the optimal "more appealing" race.
You've hit on the very issue I have with this entire thread.
I don't know what the OP wants.
Several people have pointed out how many race/class combos are mechanically viable compared to the same class played as a human, yet he still seems to feel that humans are superior.
I assume he can see the other side of the coin: If the non-humans are made superior, then all this players will always choose those non-humans, and the problem he has then will be the same problem he has now, only instead of everybody picking humans it will be nobody picking humans.
Surely he doesn't want that.
Yet the game designers seem to feel there is reasonable balance between the races (again, when comparing viability in their racial niche). If not, I'm sure they would have made more changes to create that balance.
And many gamers have posted here do demonstrate their own belief that there is reasonable balance between the races.
Beefing up any non-human race will break that delicate balance.
If the only problem is that humans are more verasatile, and we want all the races to gain versatility across the board without gaining superiority in their niches, then why is nobody saying this?
All I'm hearing is that the people claiming humans are superior say that there is no reason to play a non-human, despite being shown many reasons to play them, or to at least aknowledge niche viability with the right race/class combos where those non-humans shine just as brightly as humans (and in a few cases maybe even a little more brightly).
So can anyone clearly state what it is we want with this thread?
Do we really want non-human superiority? Didn't we use to have that in 1e/2e? Personally, I don't want this, but I'll listen to anyone who can offer suggestions or justifications as to how the game would be better to make any or all non-human races mechanically superior to humans.
Do we really want every non-human to be mechanically viable in every class just like humans are? Wouldn't that break the beauty of humans, their core versatility? Maybe we should break the human monopoly on versatility. So is that what we want? Personally, I don't want this either, but I'll listen to reasons why the game would be better if we did this (note: I think the game would be more mechanically balanced from a gamist perspective if we did it, much like 4e is more balanced, but I don't think the game "fluff" would feel right any more - IMO).
Or do we feel that there are races that, mechanically speaking, are never comparable to humans in any possible core class? Persoanlly, if this really is true, I want this fixed, and support anyone who can demonstrate that this is true for any race - if it can be shown true, I'll be one of the first to jump on the bandwagon for fixing that race. I just happen to not be aware of any race for which this might be true, except possibly gnomes and maybe halflings - these two races cut it pretty close to being sub-optimal everywhere.
Is there a 4th option I've missed? If you're claiming humans are superior for some reason I didn't just list, please let me know.
Why the heck is everyone so darn hostile?
Everyone is conceding the point that humans are better and it seems that people are getting angry over details frankly it seems... small.
Note: I don't believe humans are better in every case, although they're superior when you really, really want to have a specific feat at level 1. In general, I think most of the other races have abilities that are equal to one feat in power.
Just had a comment on the race/class comparisons..
You can notice that there are other races that can equal or are arguably better... however, Humans can nearly match or exceed in every single case.
Maybe it would be better to approach it from a different direction:
Dwarf Good at 6.5 classes: Barbarian, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk and Ranger. Half points on the Rogue since they make good Thug builds.
Elf Good at 4.5 classes: Bard, Ranger, Rogue, ~Sorcerer (spell penetration) and Wizard.
Gnome Good at 3.5 classes: Bard, Paladin, Sorcerer, and ~Wizard (Illusionists).
Half Elf Good at 3 classes: Bard, Ranger and Rogue; however since they are decent at all the rest except the stat heavy Monk, you could practically count the rest at half points and boost the score up to 7.5.
Half Orc Good at 7 classes: Barbarian, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, and Ranger.
Halfling Good at 6 classes: Bard, Cleric, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, and Sorcerer.
Human Good at all classes. Similar reasons behind the Half Elf, except that the feat means ANY build you intend to make is enhanced by being a Human (except maybe a build that would run out of feat choices quickly... and even Fighter don't run out of feats that fast).
Okay, maybe a halfpoint on the Monk, since any race with a negative Int or Cha will be getting a net +4 bonus to a stat heavy class.
So 10.5 classes for the Human.
A small matter...
You have Elf, Half-Elf and Halfling all scoring a full point as a Rogue, but you only give Dwarves half a point.
Elves, Half-Elves and Halflings can't see in the dark... which, in my experience, makes them pretty poor at scouting out ahead of the party at night/below ground etc.
Never under-estimate the importance of Darkvision to a Rogue.
I would say that Darkvision more than makes up for the -2 in Charisma Dwarves suffer and therefore they should be given a full point!
edit: Whats wrong with Half-Orc Rogues? Darkvision... check!
You have Elf, Half-Elf and Halfling all scoring a full point as a Rogue, but you only give Dwarves half a point.
Elves, Half-Elves and Halflings can't see in the dark... which, in my experience, makes them pretty poor at scouting out ahead of the party at night/below ground etc.
Never under-estimate the importance of Darkvision to a Rogue.
I would say that Darkvision more than makes up for the -2 in Charisma Dwarves suffer and therefore they should be given a full point!
Not to mention the dwarf's Spidey Sense when it comes to stonework traps and secret doors. I have a dwarven rogue in my Shackled City game, and he's gotten pretty good use out of that one!
For one, I am with DM_Blake here.
Humans have more options, but having broader options does not make humans mechanically superior to other races, when, in reality, there are exceptional abilities across the board. Humans can keep 1 additional skill maxed across 20 levels. Just 1. This is almost like having a +2 to Int, but far more limited. Splitting that maxed skill up, with no synergy bonuses, means much less now, unless the skill is one which doesn't have DCs which scale to challenge level. For that one additional skill, and an extra feat, they lose:
An additional +2 to a stat, and a -2 to a dump stat for many builds. This is a wash in any kind of point buy scenario, but is still useful enough. This makes non-humans more focused, and less good at MAD builds.
Low Light Vision, or Darkvision. These are huge.
Darkvision
Darkvision is the extraordinary ability to see with no light source at all, out to a range specified for the creature. Darkvision is black and white only (colors cannot be discerned). It does not allow characters to see anything that they could not see otherwise—invisible objects are still invisible, and illusions are still visible as what they seem to be. Likewise, darkvision subjects a creature to gaze attacks normally. The presence of light does not spoil darkvision.
...
Low-Light Vision
Characters with low-light vision have eyes that are so sensitive to light that they can see twice as far as normal in dim light. Low-light vision is color vision. A spellcaster with low-light vision can read a scroll as long as even the tiniest candle flame is next to her as a source of light.Characters with low-light vision can see outdoors on a moonlit night as well as they can during the day.
Certainly, the advantage of these cannot be understated, and humans cannot get darkvision or low light vision without a magic item or equivalent (permanancied darkvision is effectively a slotless magic item). Most bright light sources, like the light spell or magic weapons, shed light to a max of 40' (20' bright, 20' dim) so low light vision increases this to 80' total. Bullseye lantern and the daylight spell go out to a 240' total radius. Darkvision has a whole different set of advantages, especially for stealthy characters, like rangers, some monks, some bards, and rogues. If all PCs have equal treasure, the non-human comes out ahead with this advantage.
Miscellaneous advantages, some of which are a wash (Orc Ferocity), some which equal a feat (Elvish Magic) and some of which cannot be gained readily by any one feat (Slow and Steady, Illusions for Gnomes, the Halfling Save bonus). Consider also that most non-humans have more than one of these, including weapon familiarities, situational racial bonuses, skill bonuses, and others. If you add them together, then, in many cases, you get something mostly worth the value of the loss of one feat, and one additional maxed skill.
(also, being Danish myself I just had to mention Da'ath's choice of region some more :-p
I've always had an interest in the cultures of that area.=)
Good call on the comment regarding Unearthed Arcana. Which got me thinking a bit more.
One solution, after I got 30 pages into writing out this specifically for my game (there were over 100 different real world cultures, way over, just give you an idea). This isn't suprising, but consolidating them into basic concept-based groups took more time than I thought. In the end, my concept-base was reduced to the ten groups. The historical accuracy of each entry isn't exact. In some cases, many of these cultures survived long enough to advance from tribal, for instance, into military cultures. The idea was to get distinctions in place, first. The following are categorized in terms of the warrior aspect of their cultures.
Tribal (Zulu, Native American)
Islander (tribal, but with inter-island combat)
Raider (Sea or Land)
Clan (not quite tribal)
Nomad
Barbarian (Germanic and Gauls for example)
Chivalric
Oriental (inaccurate catch-all for Asian cultures)
Military (Roman, Spartan, among others)
Ultimately, a vast majority of this material is already in place in my campaign setting. Nations, governments, social orders, etc. so it was easy for me to categorize this for myself as I wrote the setting. However, this is very time-consuming and I'm just trying to help a dude out with his game, not sell a product. The basic separations I gave above should explain the idea in theory as well as the really rough examples I gave in previous post, but to clarify again:
Basic Rules:
This presumes the use of the "Human Racial Traits" template I posted previously.
A player, regardless of race and the number of feats available, may select 1 feat from their racial, cultural, or background (or environment) feat list at first level, up to their maximum number of available feats.
Humans may select from a cultural list and their appropriate background list and must select their bonus human feat from these lists.
Non-humans may select from their racial, cultural, and background list (but only one feat from each list and they are not obligated to select a feat from any of these lists.)
Next is:
Provide a list for your campaign of races, cultures, and backgrounds (or environments).
Adjust or otherwise increase the potency of the feats you assign to each culture, race, and background (or environment) to your tastes to make them worth taking at 1st level, but no better or worse than the feats available to other races. Then do the same with skills you think the culture or background would use (no more than four, but 2-3 is a good number).
Background/Environmental: Check out Savage Species for examples of Environmental feats.
Cultural: Check out the player's guide to faerun. I'm not suggesting using some of those ridiculous feats, but the tables they use to divide it up. Make it a point to give each culture a somewhat unique feel and at least 1 feat (non-combat, preferably) be unique to the culture. Unique combat feats tend to force some players to select the same region over and over.
Racial: I'm not designing these feats, but I'll give an example. Let's say the elven race in your campaign setting are particularly skilled with bows. For a combat feat you could give them +2 damage with bows, +1 (or 2)additional attack bonus, or increase their ranged increment with bows by +10. (This is an example and I didn't care about balance on these suggestions. It's an outline, not the ten commandments.) In essence, make the demihumans just a little bit better at their (alleged) focus and maybe give them some extra options beyond it, in keeping with theme.
A second solution, I thought of many days ago, but hadn't really given it much thought since then.
If Skilled for humans is too much for your game, consider the feat "Open Minded". It is a feat that grants an additional 5 skill points and can be taken multiple times. Is this overpowered? No. Truth be told, it's kinda under in terms of value. The feat made me consider this:
Skilled: Humans gain an additional 2 skill ranks at first level and one additional rank every other level. (3, 5, 7, 9, etc.)
This possible solution maintains the versatility of humans, but reduces (by 50%) the benefit of skilled. If the "selling point" of humans is their feat, as many suggest, they should be fine with this. Humans thus maintain their versatility.
+2 +2 -2 is not a wash out on stats.
In pathfinder it's actually a bigger bonus than it would have been in 3.5.
Lets look at a 25 point build epic pathfinder build.
14 str 14 dex 14 con 14 int 14 wis 10 cha
Now lets make it a human and put the human's + 2 in any of the 14's
16 Con
The human got 5 points out of that + 2 from his race.
Let's do the same with a dwarf:
14 str 14 dex 16 con 14 int 16 wis 8 cha
The dwarf got 5 points out of his Con 5 points out of his Wis and lost 2 points in his Cha... that's a net gain of 8 points.
For starting with higher stats getting two +2's in stats can quickly "add" up to more virtual points than a human would get even taking into account the fact that you must deal with a -2 somewhere. The only part that helps to mitigate this for the human and half elf is that they get to choose where to place that +2.
I notice that no one at all has mentioned longer life spans as a "plus," probably because the 3e model is that you go from 1st to 20th level in about 3 weeks. If you run a game with slower level progression and a lot of down time, however, that elven wizard in Pathfinder (who spends no XP on item creation) can become vastly more powerful than any human wizard just through sheer preseverence. He can make items, sell them, make personal items with the profit, etc., until he's got maybe 100x the normal wealth by level. Given the item crafting times, a human wizard doesn't live long enough to benefit from this trick.
|
|
I notice that no one at all has mentioned longer life spans as a "plus," probably because the 3e model is that you go from 1st to 20th level in about 3 weeks. If you run a game with slower level progression and a lot of down time, however, that elven wizard in Pathfinder (who spends no XP on item creation) can become vastly more powerful than any human wizard just through sheer preseverence. He can make items, sell them, make personal items with the profit, etc., until he's got maybe 100x the normal wealth by level. Given the item crafting times, a human wizard doesn't live long enough to benefit from this trick.
Well, 3x isn't old school. It marks the advent of "instant gratification" gaming: you don't have to wait for anything. You're 100% right, lifespans mean nothing in a game where levels are as cheap as fool's gold.
Of course, AD&D's check to that, level limits for "demi-humans", is just as stupid as 3x's insistence that all characters have to be on the same level progression.
Oh, well. No game is perfect, we just have to make due and house rule as needs be.
(note, defensive spellcasting will no longer be resolved through skills in PF).
Arooo?????
Why the heck is everyone so darn hostile?
I'm not hostile! How dare you call me hostile? Take it back or I come over and beat you up!!!
;-)
Screw that, get the mulcher out, that'll deal with'm!!!! :P
So like I said before rather than restricting humans just give other races unique feat trees or abilities that make them more appealing.
He doesn't concede that they're better, and more than likely I'll restrict the Human Bonus feat to a Regional... obviously I have to not be an idiot with how/what exactly I set up for in the Region, but alas.
As for GentleGient's question about Demi-humans from that region. Not sure how exactly I'm going to do this. If I include racial feats for Demi-humans, then they would not get access to the Regional, as they have their own pool they could choose from at lvl 1 if they're so inclined. If I don't include them, then they'd get access to it, but only if they spent their 1st level feat on it. Humans on the other hand would have to spend their Bonus feat on it, and still have the 1st level feat to choose for whatever.
I'm not "conceding the point that humans are better".I am conceding the piont that humans are more versatile.
And I beileve that every race has at least one class for which it can be said that that race is equally viable to humans.
I completely disagree with this, especially in PF now that humans get a +2 to any one stat.
But, I do concede that humans are the only race that can play all 11 classes with mechanical viability. In that regard, their versatility is vastly superior to all the other races.
Agreed, that's how it should be, but in nearly every comparison, a human plays better than any race... With the two exceptions being fairly predominate.
Barbarians, Okay half-Orc can out perform.. on a stat basis, so probably could Dwarf (not it's class skill)Bard: Humans, once more, stats, no negatives far superior to the other 'favored' with Bard Halflings a complete joke, gnomes... not really.
Cleric: Half-Orcs (not favored) could be considered very viable for reasons that have been said. Dwarves, possibly, even yesish only real negative here is how prevaliant undead are or aren't, but this could be concidered a minor issue.
Druids: As pointed out Half-orc excell because of stats.
Fighter: Dwarves or perhaps Half-orcs (not favored) Simply since no negatives in stats to affect, and feats galore as fighter which negates to some degree the human bonus.
Monk Dwarves or even Half-orcs can actually make decent monks over a human, once more, their 'dump stat' has little to no bearing on the choice.
Paladin: Human obviously and I'd expect this, nobody else is favored with them as example
Ranger:Humans by far, hell, even dwarves would likely make a better ranger than Elves who have it favored.
RogueActually, I put elves in a coin-toss situation with humans in this class, inspite of the negative to hitpoints from con. Halflings, what a favored joke.
Sorcerer Once more, humans significantly exceed Gnome's in their favored class, even if you are focused with Illusions.
WizardOnce more, don't think elves are superior to humans, at best you could say cointoss, still think the human feat and skill surpass the elven penetration, and obviously, a minus to con to any squishy is always bad, but PF did up the Hitdie of them, so perhaps that's not so bad.
So... I keep seeing the same over and over. Dwarf, half-orc.
I don't know what the OP wants.
Much of what I've been getting, whether I agree with the statements made, or not. That is to say, commentary about what I'm not thinking about or exploiting, and what can I do to make adjustments. You can say all you want humans aren't the premier choice in nearly every situation, as I've said, since 3.* came out, nearly all human campaigns.. and it's not the same people. It spans across three different states and also Saudi Arabia deployments, gamers of varies backgrounds (Though mostly ChairForce technical personell that rotated around due to deployments and PCS's)
The question is why, the answer that always comes up as responce in my varied games I've been is, was, Cause humans are better, that feat, the extra skill, far exceeds the other races bonus'. I foresee it being pretty much the same.Beefing up any non-human race will break that delicate balance.
In my experiences, there isn't any balance, that experience is based on the number of non-humans played.
If the only problem is that humans are more verasatile, and we want all the races to gain versatility across the board without gaining superiority in their niches, then why is nobody saying this?
Because, speaking for myself, that's not what I want... however, I would like to see some superiority or FFS even coin-toss equivalence, between a race's favored class, and humans.
All I'm hearing is that the people claiming humans are superior say that there is no reason to play a non-human, despite being shown many reasons to play them, or to at least aknowledge niche viability with the right race/class combos where those non-humans shine just as brightly as humans (and in a few cases maybe even a little more brightly).
Yes, people like to keep pointing to the Dwarf or Half-orc... the rest meakly stay silent or add "And same with the Halfling".... I think it's more of the aspect of people pointing out the same example as awesomeness don't make the balance between all the races even remotely a fact.
Do we really want non-human superiority? Didn't we use to have that in 1e/2e? Personally, I don't want this, but I'll listen to anyone who can offer suggestions or justifications as to how the game would be better to make any or all non-human races mechanically superior to humans.
From my perspective, one of the fixes, or at least the best idea I've seen so far, is limiting the choices of the Human Bonus feat, into something along the lines of regional feats.... but once more that is entirely based on if one's regional feats don't make 'Ubergodness in every situation possible" or whatnot.
Do we really want every non-human to be mechanically viable in every class just like humans are? Wouldn't that break the beauty of humans, their core versatility? Maybe we should break the human monopoly on versatility. So is that what we want? Personally, I don't want this either, but I'll listen to reasons why the game would be better if we did this (note: I think the game would be more mechanically balanced from a gamist perspective if we did it, much like 4e is more balanced, but I don't think the game "fluff" would feel right any more - IMO).
Not at all.
Yes it would.Probably an idea in some respects, as noted with the idea of limiting the bonus feat to Regions
I'm of the firm opinion that the makers of 4E should be put in a mulcher. They may get some props for balancing... err, at least some... but they raped DnD and left it a battered and bruised tabletop World of MMO.
Or do we feel that there are races that, mechanically speaking, are never comparable to humans in any possible core class? Persoanlly, if this really is true, I want this fixed, and support anyone who can demonstrate that this is true for any race - if it can be shown true, I'll be one of the first to jump on the bandwagon for fixing that race. I just happen to not be aware of any race for which this might be true, except possibly gnomes and maybe halflings - these two races cut it pretty close to being sub-optimal everywhere.
I think it's more like this... With few exeptions, mechanically speaking, demi-humans are not comparable to humans in their Core classes.... and I agree with you completely on Gnomes and Halflings.. I feel they're very sub optimal, but gave my points up above about the others as well.
(note, defensive spellcasting will no longer be resolved through skills in PF).Arooo?????
Click on the d21 System logo on the upper left corner, then on more info.
Agreed, that's how it should be, but in nearly every comparison, a human plays better than any race... With the two exceptions being fairly predominate.
I can see "as good or nearly as good", but not better. Not in nearly every comparison.
Barbarian: Halforc wins hands down. Even dwarves give humans a good run for their money. Better saves, and sometimes better weapons beat a single feat and some lousy skill points
Bard: Gnomes, again hands down. The bard isn't a pure strength damage dealer, so the small size and low strength aren't the problem. Con helps everyone, and a bonus to cha to boot? About the same with Halflings: Dex AND Cha better? Sign me up!
Cleric: Half-orcs and dwarves, again. The dwarf does lose a channel, and if he uses them against undead, they're slightly easier to save against, but you get both wis and con. Half-orc's even better with an insignificant stat penalty (Clerics need not a single skill to work now) and two good bonuses
Druids: Again, half-orcs and dwarves.
Fighter: Yes, half-orcs and dwarves yet again.
Monk: Needn't say anything, now do I?
Paladin: That's a case where humans can shine. Half-orc might do a passable job, too.
Ranger: Humans are a very strong choice. I woudln't say that they outshine everyone else: Elves do have a problem, but that's because of their horrible stat penalty - but despite that, I'd say they can give humans a run for their money, especially if you don't need too much of a con score. Dex is a help, and even int can be a bit of help, as it offsets the extra skill point. The spot bonuses are a big help, and unless you don't allow any other sources of racial weapons (and even then I think that the final game will have a bigger selection of those), elven rangers can use thinblade/shortblade instead of longsword/shortsword. That is, if you don't go archer.
But, since we're talking a martial class here (with a use for wis to boot), the bit two work out fine.
Rogue: Rogues can do a nice job, and halflings can simply rock. The speed can be a minor detraction, but everything else about the race is helpful to rogues.
Sorcerers: Humans have no chance whatsoever against gnomes. Con AND cha coupled with the illusion bonus beat a feat (which they kinda have: Spell Focus Illusion, but with the option of getting it again) and skills any day of the week. What does a sorcerer need skills for?
Wizard: Elves suffer for their con (which is more a sign that the penalty is too harsh and should be changed, maybe to strength, than anything else), but wizards can cope. Dex is a good way to cope. Skills aren't an issue really, since wizards will already get plenty, and the Extra Spell Penetration works out in the elves' favour. Humans are still very strong, but definetly not superior.
I count exactly one case where humans have no real competitors, and a couple more where they share the top spot.
And if the elves were fixed (i.e. the crippling con penalty exchanged for, say, strength), they could compete in many more martial disciplines (the small races can't really compete in the martial department, and neither should they).
Well, 3x isn't old school. It marks the advent of "instant gratification" gaming: you don't have to wait for anything.
All a matter of preference. I for one don't want to play a character for a whole (real life) year without a level-up.
Of course, AD&D's check to that, level limits for "demi-humans", is just as stupid as 3x's insistence that all characters have to be on the same level progression.
I find the unified XP table far from stupid. Different tables are unnecessary, they add nothing to the game that would justify the extra space wasted, not to mention multiclassing problems. It's easy enough to rebuild the classes so they match up on the same level instead of on the same XP total (well, balance is an issue, but I say that we can get a decent state of balance without forcing wizards to get an extra 10% arcane tax or something)
I know I said I would say no more but that was in reference to the past reference just to get that out of the way.
I don't see other races as versatile.
Look at dwarves tell me in what way shape or form they spell out versatile to you?
Ever known any long time bachelors, I have, no I am not talking about the arch-typical geek that lives in the basement.
I mean people whom have lived alone for long periods of time.
They always have there things 'just so'.
After second century I can see an elf getting set in his ways.
Or hers for that matter.
How will this make a more ' versatile' person.
Humans from everywhere.
Elves from the forest. (classily)
Dwarves from the mountains.
Orcs from the badlands.
So and so on.
These sound like specialists to me.
Now who do you have putting in the electrical at your house uncle BillyBob or an electrician?
An electrician just does electrics that’s it but does that mean he needs to be good at anything else?
Races should be looked at in a similar fashion.
I see nothing wrong with dwarves being stubborn about not moving getting bonus for not doing so.
I would see elves always wanting to make the fight graceful as possible, one strike and the artful spray of blood after.
Anyway going away from the fluff 'Suicidal' is dead on the money.
Humans just always come out on top.
The spell immunity is a joke, the vision variants also.
When have you seen someone decide there build purely on what race there going to play?
Case and point.
|
|
Perusing this thread, and thinking about my own gaming experience and the people I played with, I think that the crux of the problem is that there is no such thing as a universal position on what is the max in RPG (even just mechanically speaking), and it is even less likely to get a consensus on how this goal can be reached.
Is it best Attack bonus, damage bonus, a mix of them, AC bonus, the ability to destroy your opponent's tactics ... ?
Ask 10 players and you will get 11 answers.
Thus it becomes moot to argue over human vs others to get the "best" result, as people do not agree on what the best result is.
I don't see other races as versatile.
They're not nearly as versatile as humans, but then again, the human's specialty is versatility.
That said, I don't consider all members of one race to be carbon copies of each other.
I know a lot of people who do. Whenever they play a character of a certain race, they play it exactly the same. I don't consider them good roleplayers.
A lot of versatility stems from the player, not the race or stats. There can be dwarven skirmishers, elven tanks, halflings that aren't hedonists, dwarves that don't hate all other races, elves that don't consider themselves the Herrenvolk, and so on.
The problem's not that it's impossible. The problem is that too many people don't explore those possibilities.
Races should be looked at in a similar fashion.
Actually, that's racism.
No, races shouldn't be forced into little pigeonholes.
Humans just always come out on top.
Wrong. See about half a hundred posts in this thread.
When have you seen someone decide there build purely on what race there going to play?
I don't have a specific date, but I've seen it. More than once. "I want to play a X, haven't played one. Now, what would be interesting." Done it myself more than once, seen it even more often.
The problem I'm seeing in this back and forth is perception.
If you place larger value towards Feats and Skills in your characters, then the simple fact that the Human can be effective in all 11 classes means they are clearly "the best" race every time.
If you place equal value in Feats and Skills, or at least place a larger value towards the other aspects of characters (saves, vision, stability, etc), then yeah.. the Human just looks appealing, but not always the "best" option.
.
The thing is.. for anyone that has played 3e and fell into the "min/max" powergaming side of playing, you can shore up problems like vision and saves and whatnot with magic items, class abilities, spells and other various tools.
What you can't make up, is extra skillpoints and feats. Especially when it comes to qualifying for those classes that give special abilities, saves, vision, etc.
Granted, that's the extreme angle to this... however it can creep into regular playing as well. If you aren't really attached to a particular race, but want to play a particular concept, and that concept is feat or skill heavy or specific, or needs a particular set of ability scores being high, or anything of that sort, then Humans are the most attractive option.
For some people, that's the only way they play... so Humans always look like the only good option.
We can nitpick of specific racial bonuses and their worth, but this is the simple fact of it. The Human bonus Feat (and to a lesser extent, the skillpoint), is simply too good to give up when building their concept.
.
For those that would want something to motivate their players into playing something other than Human all the time, and even give some background influence to the character, I've already posted the Environmental and Cultural feats ideas on page 2.
If you aren't really attached to a particular race, but want to play a particular concept, and that concept is feat or skill heavy or specific, or needs a particular set of ability scores being high, or anything of that sort, then Humans are the most attractive option.
Not all concepts require many feats as soon as possible, or so many skill points that the one extra skill points for human will make a big difference.
Humans simply do not dominate ability scores. It always depends on what ability scores you need. Example: Druid. You need Str, Con, Wis, maybe a bit Dex, too. Cha and Int don't matter. A human can get +2 to one of the good ones. A half-orc gets +2 to two of them, and his -2 is to one of the attributes you can ignore. Human's got no chance there.
And there's other concepts that depend on other things than skill points and feats. Maybe you know you'll go against the Invisible League - masters of stealth who can hide in broad daylight right before your eyes. For that job, you want the best possible perception. Humans can't help you there. Your best bet is half-elf with +2 wis, Skill Focus (Perception) and his inborn keen senses.
Others want really good saves. So they play a dwarf monk. You get 3 strong saves, bonus to Con and Wis (another net +1 to fort and will), and +2 to everything magic (which is easily 75% of all saves).
(note, defensive spellcasting will no longer be resolved through skills in PF).Arooo?????
Click on the d21 System logo on the upper left corner, then on more info.
Yes.. My Arooo???? was for if you were a tad slow in realizing that it showed up on April fools days.
The problem I'm seeing in this back and forth is perception.
......
For those that would want something to motivate their players into playing something other than Human all the time, and even give some background influence to the character, I've already posted the Environmental and Cultural feats ideas on page 2.
And I was/am very grateful for the input, can't recall if I commented it or not in between the bickering.
Between something along those lines and limiting humans Favored Class choices to strictly those in the PF book, I think that will more or less solve most of the problems, other races, most notably the worthlessness that is Halflings, I'll need to tweak. Cause I'm sorry, Halfling Rogue.. worthless, if you can't get yourself in a position to flank, you're junk movement is a big negative and nothing they currently have make up for that. Gnomes another near worthless race, but at least they have Con. Half-elves, near-junk as well. As said, the two touted are Orcs and Dwarves, and I'll concede that they are at least a coin-toss, stat by stat they're superior, abilitywise, only the Dwarf shines in comparison. Orc's nothing.Now granted, I realize entirely this is an opinion thing as to worthless or not *shrugs* some see one thing as great, others see it as crap.
Thanks again for the various ideas and inputs, at least those who posed some suggestions, the others, thanks for decent debates with little penis waggling that usually dominates threads like this. ;p
Because roleplaying is not about stats. It about coming up with Ideas, concepts and adding ones personal theme to have fun. When I come up with an idea, I look to see if will fit with the race not if the bonuses will fit with the character.
I think just about everyone in this thread agrees with this viewpoint, more or less.
However, the original post laid the premise that we're discussing game mechanics.
We can always find RP reasons to play things that are weak, or even flat out worthless, for the sake of RP.
But to discuss mechanics, and the balance of said mechanics, RP must, of necessity, be excluded from the equation.
|
Bard: Humans, once more, stats, no negatives far superior to the other 'favored' with Bard gnomes... not really.
Really, a gnomish bard focused on illusions with his better to hit and AC as well as a boosted con on top of a boosted charisma so more HP but he deals less damage which isn't a bards forte anyways with the medium BAB progression. Also garunteed free extra spells and a bonus to a craft skill. I'd take that over human any day. One feat and one SP is nice but don't say that he's better than the gnome at being a bard cause it's dead equal.
|
|
For me it's not about numbers; it's all about the fantasy part of the fantasy role-playing.
I play a human being every day of my life IRL (some days more convincingly than others), so why would I want to play one when I'm imagining a world full of dragons and goblins? Non-human races are presented as role-play options in most rpg's for the same reason that most don't offer accountant, programmer, or short order cook as character classes.
Role Playing Games are as much about escapism and immersion in a fictional environment as it is about tactical simulations (or it should be IMO). The lure of exploring what it would be like to exist as something that is different from our normal experience (be it a different occupation, race, sex or age) is the whole point of it IMO.
The rules we play by are a construct that exist to facilitate the cooperative play we engage in. Without the rules, we'd just be shouting out "Bang! I shot you!", "Did not!". Sometimes those rules favour a certain selection of options, sometimes not. Point is that those things are secondary to me and how I game.
I know that's not a very big help if you're looking for a mechanical justification for playing non-humans, but I suggest that maybe it's not the only reason to do so.
PS Paizo: please make kobolds a playable PF race instead of the gnome. They're monsters! ;)
Agreed, that's how it should be, but in nearly every comparison, a human plays better than any race... With the two exceptions being fairly predominate.
Barbarians, Okay half-Orc can out perform.. on a stat basis, so probably could Dwarf (not it's class skill)
Bard: Humans, once more, stats, no negatives far superior to the other 'favored' with Bard Halflings a complete joke, gnomes... not really.
Cleric: Half-Orcs (not favored) could be considered very viable for reasons that have been said. Dwarves, possibly, even yesish only real negative here is how prevaliant undead are or aren't, but this could be concidered a minor issue.
Druids: As pointed out Half-orc excell because of stats.
Fighter: Dwarves or perhaps Half-orcs (not favored) Simply since no negatives in stats to affect, and feats galore as fighter which negates to some degree the human bonus.
Monk Dwarves or even Half-orcs can actually make decent monks over a human, once more, their 'dump stat' has little to no bearing on the choice.
Paladin: Human obviously and I'd expect this, nobody else is favored with them as example
Ranger: Humans by far, hell, even dwarves would likely make a better ranger than Elves who have it favored.
Rogue Actually, I put elves in a coin-toss situation with humans in this class, inspite of the negative to hitpoints from con. Halflings, what a favored joke.
Sorcerer Once more, humans significantly exceed Gnome's in their favored class, even if you are focused with Illusions.
Wizard Once more, don't think elves are superior to humans, at best you could say cointoss, still think the human feat and skill surpass the elven penetration, and obviously, a minus to con to any squishy is always bad, but PF did up the Hitdie of them, so perhaps that's not so bad.
I mostly agree with your assessment.
So, in your own words, Bards, Paladins, Rangers and Sorcerers are the only four classes in which humans have no equals. Rogues and wizards you grudgingly allow the possibility of equality with one race. Clerics have equality with one, maybe two races. Barbarians, druids, fighters and monks, according to you, have races that "out perform" humans.
Going back to the title of your thread, you asked "Why play anything but a human?"
It seems that for four classes, the answer is obvious, and for three more, the answer is optional, and for the final four, the answer is to play humans. By your own post.
7 classes out of 11 offer choices that are on par, or even out perform humans. By your own post.
Now it seems that you and I are finding some middle ground here.
Let's talk about rogue for a minute.
Ability Scores: (don't forget this is used to feint in combat to set up sneak attacks), diplomacy, disguise, and the all-important Use Magical Device all stem from CHA. The halfling bonus to CHA may be quite useful to them. But the -2 STR can hurt them. Weapon Finesse limits the STR penalty to damage only, and with sneak attack being useful against just about everything, rogues have no complaints on damage output. Advantage: halfling.
Small: +1 AC and +1 on attack rolls. This is pretty huge. +4 on stealth checks. Not bad for a rogue. Advantage: halfling.
Skills: +2 sound-based Perception, blah. +2 Acrobatics (tumble behind enemies for sneak attacks) is very nice. +2 Climb, very nice for rogues. Advantage: halfling.
Skills: (part two): Humans get +1 skill per level. But they still can't put it into anything that's maxxed anyway. Rogues get so many skill points, they never have to worry about their 8 most class-defining skills. So, if you want an extra point to handle animals, or perform, or learn languages, or ride horses, or fly, humans are the way to go. Advantage: human.
Adding that up, I think the skill thing is a wash. 1 extra point for a non-core skill is nice, but +2 to several core skills, above the limit of one rank/level, is also nice. I call the skills even. Advantage: none.
Luck: +1 to all saves. Including fear, domination, sleep, fireball, poison (traps too), etc. Throw in +2 more vs. fear, even better. Advantage: halfling.
Weapons: Humans get one oweapon of their choice, halflings get slings and any "halfling" weapon. Call this one almost even, but maybe a bit in favor of human. Advantage: human.
Feats: Clearly, bonus feat for humans is huge. But let's not forget, many players are quite happy taking feats like that one from a splat book that gives +1 to all saves (halflings get it as a racial bonus) or taking weapon focus (+1 to hit, halflings get this as a racial bonus), or dodge (+1 AC, halflings get this as a racial bonus). So while humans can pick whatever they want, often the extra feat (11 for humans, 10 for everyone else) means that somewhere in those 11 feats, humans will take something that halflings get as a racial ability. Advantage: human.
Speed: humans 30, halflings 20. Advantage: human.
So basically, humans get a feat for whatever they want, which is nice. They move 30' which is nice. Halflings get +1 AC, +1 to hit, +1 to all saves (+3 vs. fear). Skills are mostly a wash. I would say, since the +1 AC, +1 to hit, and +1 to all saves is equal or better than three feats, that the halfling got the better of this package, even if he's slower. Advantage: halfling.
IMO, based on this, I would pick halfling over human, unless I had a specific build in mind that required me to pick a specific feat early to get into a PrC early, in which case I may go human. At best I would say the two races are on par for rogue.
As for wizard, I'm playing one now and went elf.
Stats: wizards use a lot of ranged touch spells, and wizards need AC and reflex saves and bonus to init just like anyone else. -2 CON hurts thier HP, but they have d6 now, so that's a wash, favoring the +2 DEX to beneift AC, REF, INIT, and hit rolls with ranged spells. Advangate: elf.
Low-light vision: Most spells require line-of-sight to the targets. Many adventures happen underground or at night. Being able to see enemies farther away is an advantage, no matter how inconsequntial some posters here claim it to be. Advantage: elf.
Senses and Imminuties: Perception is useful for everyone, but let's face it, wizards won't put many points into it and won't have a great WIS, so they're going to fail most Perception checks anyway. Immunity to effects that no sane bad guy will throw at a mage or an elf is also pretty minor. But, still, it's something. Advantage: elf.
Magic: +2 vs. Spell Resistance is huge. Very huge. There is a feat (Spell Penetration) that does the same thing, so this ability right here is equal to a feat that all mages consider mandatory. Even better, it stacks with the feat, meaning an elf with Spell Penetration is better than a human with Spell Penetration (and both wizards will surely take the feat). Advantage: elf!
Appraise: This is used to identify magic items. Unless your campaign is low or no magic, being able to identify items without wasting spell slots on Identify is huge. Getting +2 above and beyond the 1 rank/level limit is huge. Advantage: elf.
Weapons: Humans get one, elves get 4. And the elf choices are useful, even to a wizard. Advantage: elf.
Feats: Humans get that bonus feat, and that's huge. Advantage: human.
Skills: Humans get the extra skill point/lvl, and since wizards only get 2/level, this is pretty big. But wizards also have very high INT scores, so they have lots of bonus skill points, which dilutes this advantage somewhat. Ultimately, wizards will have so many points in every knowledge skill that they can tell you what Genghis Khan had for breakfast on his 12th birthday. More skill points is really not that important. Still, it's something. Advantage: human.
Summary: humans get the extra skill point, a small advantage given how many skill points they get, and they get that extra feat, which is huge. Elves get the Elven Magic which, IMO, is more valuable than one feat (hey, create a feat that is human-only that gives +2 vs. spell resistance and stacks with Spell Penetration and see how many human wizards won't take it). The appraise is more valuable than one little skill point. The other elven immunities and perception and weapon bonuses are just a little gravy. Advantage: elf.
Revising those two points in your class list and I get 6 out of 11 classes have a race that is superior to humans, 1 class that has a race that is equal, and 4 classes where humans are superior.
I also get dwarf, half-orc, elf, and halfling that all have a niche where they shine brighter than humans.
Leaving Half-elf and gnome in need of some enhancement.
Let's look at half-elf.
Ability scores: Same as humans. Advantage: none.
Speed: Same as humans. Advantage: none.
Feats: Both races get a bonus feat, but half-elves are restricted to using it for Skill Focus. Advantage: human.
Skills: Half elves get Perception bonus above the 1 rank/level limit, which is very nice, especially for perceptive classes like ranger or rogue. Humans get +1 skill point per level. Advantage: human.
Vision: Half-elves see 2x as far as humans in poor lighting. This is quite nice. Advantage: half-elf.
Immunities: the elven immunity to sleep and +2 vs. enchantment is quite nice, especially when the bad guys like to dominate those pesky rogues and turn them against the party. Advantage: half-elf.
Elf blood: really, not much use for this. It's such a small advantage I would call it inconsequential. Advantage: none.
Weapons: Humans are profcient with one martial weapon. Advantage: human (unless you're playing a class like fighter that gets them all anyway).
Summary: humans win. The unrestricted bonus feat is worth more than the Skill Focus, and 20 bonus skill points is worth more than +2 to perception, even if you're a perceptive class. The immunities don't make up for this deficit, nor does the low-light vision.
In my house-rules, I give half-elves a bonus skill point at every odd level. Half the bonus that humans get, but combined with the perception bonus, seems to about equalize the skills. A half-elf rogue is 10% more likely than a human to spot an ambush or find a trap, for example. That's big enough to balance out against 10 skill points.
I also give them the elven weapon proviciencies.
IMO those two changes bring them on-par with humans, especially if you consider a skill-focus in an important skill of your choice worthy of a feat. +6 to an important skill, like Spellcraft or Disable Device or Use Magical Device or Perception can be a real life-saver. This parity with humans is particularly noticeable when playing rogues, where Perception is king and longswords and longbows are valuable benefits, but also when playing rangers where perception is still king. It's less of a parity in other classes, enough so that for all other classes, I would still say humans are mechanically superior.
And for gnomes:
Ability scores: Perfect for a sorcerer (better than humans when playing a sorcerer). Advantage: gnome.
Size: small, +1 AC, +1 to hit (rays), both quite useful. Advantage: gnome.
Vision: low-light. Advantage: gnome.
Senses and Obsession: two worthless advantages for the gnome that nobody really cares about except mayby in a RP sense. Advantage: none.
Saves: +2 vs. illusions is a minor advantage, though some campaigns/DMs use a lot of illusion effects. Advantage: gnome.
Magic: +1 save DC for illusion spells is quite nice. Spell-like abilities are useless. Advantage: gnome.
Weapons: Humans get one martial weapon, gnomes get any "gnome" weapon. This is about even. Advantage: none.
Hatred: +1 attack vs. lizardmen and goblins. By 5th level, you don't fight much of this stuff ever again. Could be useful at low levels. Advantage: gnome.
Feats: yeah. Advantage: human.
Skills: yeah. Advantage: human.
As a sorcerer, the +2 CON (Fort and HP) is nice, the +1 AC and +1 to hit with rays is nice, the vision is nice (gotta see them to cast on them), and the +1 DC vs. Illusions is nice. Compared against one bonus feat and 1 bonus skill point/level, this is about even.
With any other class, except maybe bard, gnomes suck.
I would houserule their magic up to +2 DC with illusions and they can use thier spell-like abilities a number of total times per day equal to their level + CHA modifier. I also give them +2 on all Perception rolls, not just the worthless ones. I also give them Use Magical Device as a class skill regardless of their class, and a +2 racial modifier on the skill. I changed their Obsession to apply to all Craft and Profession skills as long as they have at least one rank in the skill.
With those changes, gnomes still suck at any class except sorcerer or bard, but they suck less. And with sorcerer and bard, they are on par with humans.
I also have a feat called Scurry. The prerequisite is that you must be a race that moves slower than 30'. This feat adds +10 to your base move rate unless you are heavily encumbered. With this feat, slow races like gnomes, halflings, and dwarves can make up their slowness, for the cost of a feat. It's usually worth it.
How does that all sound?
Are we bridging the middle ground here?
Hopefully we can accept that humans can play any class with little or no mechanical inferiority. Can we accept that this kind of unlimited versatility is supposed to be a human trait?
But hopefully we can also accept that every race, maybe with a few houserules for half-elf and gnome, can play at least one class, maybe several classes, well enough to be mechanically equal or superior to humans. Can we accept that it's OK for the non-human races to be lacking in broad-range versatility as long as they have niches, classes where they can shine as brightly as humans?
If we can accept that last point, then the only thing left to do is make sure that the races each shine brightly enough int heir niches.
I think you and I agree that dwarves and half-orcs shine brightly enough already.
I hope I've made a good case for elves and halflings in their niches. Lemme know if and why you disagree.
As for half-elves and gnomes, I have offered some possible hose rules to help them, at least within their obvious niches. Is it enough?
I mostly agree with your assessment......
Going back to the title of your thread, you asked "Why play anything but a human?"It seems that for four classes, the answer is obvious, and for three more, the answer is optional, and for the final four, the answer is to play humans. By your own post.
7 classes out of 11 offer choices that are on par, or even out perform humans. By your own post.
I think the question has more evolved, it's still tempered by my experiences since 3.*, as pointed out often by me, but.... Half-Orcs one can say are great stat-wise for a large portion of classes, Int, unless you're a caster with that stat, holds little use in combat, you are down stats, significantly potentially, in skills. Cha, the dwarves dump stat has almost no value in combat either (as you point out in Rogues, there is some, I'll get to that shortly)
Both can make very good martial classes, even excell in it, mostly due to their stat bonuses being of significant value (lets face it, for a 'fighter' or whatnot, the bonus to wis is always helpful at a minimum) and a negative that have little to no real impact on those races.. Ie, dump stat.You're assessment on Halfling rogues though I'd disagree with.
First, I'll go on the points I would agree with.
Armor Bonus, agreed, it's a nice advantage.
Skills:... I'll get to why the bonus to acrobatics is about worthless.
Luck: Absolutely, a bonus. (avoiding going into other books feats here)
Weapons: Agreed, Human... however, if they gut that out of the race as I've heard people mention was being talked about, the halfling bonus weapons.. still wouldn't be an advantage to speak of.. Especially as you're small weapons do less damage.
Feats: Big bonus, Perhaps slightly mitigated in PF due to the change in base number you get, but still a monsterous bonus.
MovementOkay, here's were we disagree, and agree.... advantage goes to human... but it's not a minor advantage. It's huge, especially for a rogue to be trying to maneuver into sneak attack position. Move 6 squares, move 4 squares (double for a double move) Let alone tumbling a whole 2 squares (4 for double move setup) Huamns, it's 3/6. This makes the Halfling(and for that matter gnomes and even dwarves(though their Steady part of slow and steady I think could be counted as making up for it) near complete junk in the rogue department, if you can't get to the fight to make yourself useful, let along getting into the right position, you don't matter.
You're assessment on Wizard:
A Con negative is huge.
I'll agree with the elven perception being gravy (though I'm still of the opinion that elves make great rogues based on this gravy, by far better than halflings.. but it's not a Favored class as example)
Spell penetration bonus, it's nice I'm not going to deny it. But I'd disagree with you about wizards jumping on a human made one.. I rarely have seen anyone take Improved penetration as example. There are numerous other feats that are usually taken long before them, albiet, now with the increased number of feats, may not be like that. But it definitely is a nice advantage, but it's not a game decider by any means.
The Immunities, sorry, being immune to junk is not a benefit, it's a waste of any character building design you're utilizing. The bonus to enchantment saves, is an advantage, the immunity to sleep, not so much.
Appraise, once more.. you're not going to be dumping points into appraise as a wizard, hell, you're gonna put it in Perception long long before appraise, so the +2 is worthless.
Half-Elf:
I'm mostly in agreement with you on this. One thing of Serious note:
Being both elven blood, and human blood.. means elf-bane, and Human-bane weapons affect you. Yes, they could create 'elven' magic items, but I'd say the negative is a higher risk.
Gnomes:
I can see a tad of what you mean, and I like do like your movement feat idea.
Without a doubt, statwise they've got an impressive aspect (con is king of stats, and the cha of course)... of course, they really are likely to be easily encumbered, or you're 'dump stat' of str, can't really be a dump stat so you have to put some points in there to offset the negative. (Obviously it's not nearly as bad of a negative as elves)
Some modifications would help the gnomes out some, without a doubt.
The choice of your Scurry feat is without a doubt necessary with that feat being available.. Movement is a HUGE deal.
And we agree, the humans need to be able to be versatile and demi-humans only niches... what we disagree on is what's actual of value/not of value/sucky.
Absolutely, we agree on Dwarves and Half-orcs to a degree (still concider ferocity as example a complete waste of space :P) But they definitely make very potent choices in classes just on the basis of the bonuses and minuses.
Elves and halflings, we don't really agree, based on the PF books. Perhaps with something akin to that homebrewed feat of yours, Halflings would eek up some, but then you're down 2 feats basically against a human... but I think a feat along those lines would be worth it.
Elves are without a doubt inferrior in Ranger (Not sure if we agree or not on this one) and I still feel they're inferrior as Wizards or at best, maybe a wash... both of which are their Favored classes.
They're good ideas at things I can look at to make adjustments.
Thanks for your insight.
Edit: Fixed a few 'WTF's in my wording
Wizards - elves win hands down. The extra +2 penetration - final net +6 vs. the humans net +4 is so huge, the rest of it pales in comparison. And remember, it's not 11 feats vs 10, it's 15 vs 14.
Okay, I'm confused now, perhaps it's my lack of sleep?
Wizards - elves win hands down. The extra +2 penetration - final net +6 vs. the humans net +4 is so huge, the rest of it pales in comparison. And remember, it's not 11 feats vs 10, it's 15 vs 14.Okay, I'm confused now, perhaps it's my lack of sleep?
The wizard gets bonus feats which means instead of just getting a feat every other level you get one every other level + 1 every five levels.
The wizard gets bonus feats which means instead of just getting a feat every other level you get one every other level + 1 every five levels.Wizards - elves win hands down. The extra +2 penetration - final net +6 vs. the humans net +4 is so huge, the rest of it pales in comparison. And remember, it's not 11 feats vs 10, it's 15 vs 14.Okay, I'm confused now, perhaps it's my lack of sleep?
I see precisely what you mean.
2 Questions:
What is the problem with smaller size weapon damage?
Obviously, Halfling/Gnome "Warrior" Class combos don't work so well.
But for Rogues, a good portion of their damage is done with Sneak Attack WHICH DOESN"T DEPEND ON BASE WEAPON DAMAGE (and is more consistently allowed under PF). So sure, a Half-Orc or Human with +2 STR will do slightly more damage from base weapon damage, but high-STR/high-base damage (I'm linking the two here) are clearly not a 'necessity' of the Rogue Class. The +1 attack bonus for being Small (+1 to ONE weapon is worth a Feat) helps Small Rogues hit more consistently, which is obviously great. Combined with the Small Races' DEX Bonus, they will obviously be taking Weapon Finesse, and thus hitting alot more.
Likewise, how can the lower movement of Halfings/Gnomes be such a problem (until magic comes into the picture - including thru Rogue Talents which don't disrupt Sneak Attack progression), but Halfling's Racial Bonus to Acrobatics not be a signifigant benefit??? Clearly, being able to Flank is of major importance to Rogue combat effectiveness past the 1st round, so having a Bonus to Tumble means a Rogue will make full use of their Class Abilities much more consisitently... And in this case a Tumble Check Failure means you likely lose the all-important Movement (finising the Move Action in question) and end up placed in a sub-optimal position not of your choice.
Someone else mentioned CHA re: Feint in Combat, which is another way to maintain Sneak Attack. But besides combat, CHA is obviously the base of the Social Skills (Diplo, Bluff, Disguise, Intimidate). Note the Rogue's Skill Points and Class Skills. I'd say it's reasonable that many Rogues will be well invested in this area, and their party will in fact rely on them in this role as the party "face". (Any body with decent CHA and Ranks here can do this, Rogues just often fill this role.) ...And... Halfings & Gnomes have a CHA bonus!
In any case, this shit can drag on forever. What *IS* your solution?
There's just so many scenarios that even you admit are toss-ups or in demi-Human favor,
that clearly any signifigant change will just shift the balance in demi-Humans favor... So what's the point?
2 Questions:
What is the problem with smaller size weapon damage?
Yes, it's not the basis of rogue's damage. But the statement was in reference to Halflings getting weapon profs, which aren't good to begin with, and even less of a factor being small, so can't really count the sling and halfling weapons as a plus.. least not in my book.
Likewise, how can the lower movement of Halfings/Gnomes be such a problem
You really are kidding me? ... if you can't get into a position to flank, you're of no use.. Tumble? you can tumble 2 squares, 4 if you forego your standard action...
So yes, I see the Acrobatics bonus as not worth much at all.As you said, clearly being able to flank is of major importance... you have to be able to get into flanking for it to be of use. It will take you longer to get into flanking than anyone with a 30 movement. (Barring something like DM_Blakes home-brew feat as example)
As for ending up in a suboptimal position... that's going to happen more frequently than with a Human for the simple fact that you can't get to an optimal postion as quickly. Something 50' away for example, round 1, human in position to tumble/move into flanking) Round 2, they're flanking.. Halfling, round 1 they're still out of range to be able to, Round 2, they still are, Round 3 Yay, flanking. Once more, it's all variable to how the tactical table looks, but the movement makes the bonus not really a big deal.
Feint's okay, don't get me wrong, but it's a Standard action, with the feat (which a human could get at first level for example) it's a move.. if you're flanking, not necessary.. granted, if you're unable to get flanking (as example cause you're slow as hell) then it's viable at 3rd lvl when you get the number of feats.
Note the Rogue's Skill Points and Class Skills. .....
Absolutely, Rogues get lots of skills, and are very viable to use them in tons of situations.. human rogues, moreso than a +1 bonus to Cha)
In any case, this s@#* can drag on forever. What *IS* your solution?...
I've mentioned a few of them in posts, coming up with feats, making a modification, etc... I've seen some good suggestions in this thread, I've seen some that I have a less than favorable opinion. It gave me some insights and ideas to go from.
Do I have a firm plan yet, no.
|
Just to take a step back from this thread. While we've all been toting the human bonus feat as a "huge" bonus (which I agree can be huge in certain situations), can we do a little playing with a few feat builds to see what real world advantage the feat actually gives? Such as a look at gnome vs. human in a sorcerer build at levels 1, 5, and 9 maybe? Halfling rogue at 1,5, 9? This would give a little more insight as to what advantage the human bonus feat really gives.
So here's my attempt at the rogue:
Halfling:
1 - TWF
T - Weapon Finesse
3 - Combat Expertise
T - Fast Stealth
5 - Improved Feint
T - Weapon Focus (Shortsword)
7 - Combat Reflexes
T - Bleeding Attack
9 - Improved TWF
Human
1 - TWF
H - Weapon Finesse
T - Combat Expertise
3 - Improved Feint
T - Fast Stealth
5 - Combat Reflexes
T - Weapon Focus (Shortsword)
7 - Agile Maneuvers (Possibly Improved Initiative or Dodge? Need suggestions)
T - Bleeding Attack
9 - Improved TWF
So, with only taking feats from the PHB, it looks like here are the differences:
At level 1, pretty big difference, on average the human will have a hit of maybe 3-4 higher (+1 to size is offset by -2 str at first level). The halfling does gain all other aforementioned abilities: +1 ac, +4 hide, +2 perception, +1 saves, etc.) Personally I'd actually call it a draw. The halfling does move slower and has a significantly lower attack bonus... but 1 AC at first level and 4 to hide and 2 perception and 1 to all saves make a large difference.
At level 5, the human has combat reflexes over the halfling. I'd personally call the halfling bonuses still better at this point or a wash depending on what you personally value (if anything they're very close). +10 speed and +1 class skill and +a few AoO vs. +1 ac, +4 hide, +2 perception, +1 saves, +1 attack)
At level 9, the feat gained is actually improved initiative, dodge, or agile maneuvers. At this point I'd still call it slightly better for the halfling or a draw for each (Especially since at this level the halfling would move at 30 vs. 40 ft.
In the end I actually don't believe the bonus feat is that good. The skill is decent, and I'm not counting the martial weapon prof or favored class (for reasons mentioned before in this thread).
End Result: The Halfling rogue is at least equal to human, if not better depending on what you want to do (feat heavy thug or skills. Remember the Halfling will be slightly better at all social skills).
This result could be extrapolated to lots of dex based or cha based class (Bard, Ranger, Monk (yes, monk could be extremely hampered by being small, but I think in the end you lose out on 3-4 average damage at level 20? Depends on what you value again).
Thoughts?
As for ending up in a suboptimal position... that's going to happen more frequently than with a Human for the simple fact that you can't get to an optimal postion as quickly. Something 50' away for example, round 1, human in position to tumble/move into flanking) Round 2, they're flanking.. Halfling, round 1 they're still out of range to be able to, Round 2, they still are, Round 3 Yay, flanking. Once more, it's all variable to how the tactical table looks, but the movement makes the bonus not really a big deal.
Or... the halfling/gnome rides in on his riding dog (movement 40') and does the same as the human (with better chance of success because of his higher acrobatics skill)... or he runs in Run (x3) (Run is actually a rather nice feat to pick up for the "slower" races at some point) and does the same as the human (with better chance etc.)...
Acrobatics in PFRPG doesn't reduce your movement or can only be performed as part of your movement, so the halfling/gnome can still make a 20' move action and tumble around or through the opponent once he's next to him.
@Suicidal:
All I can say is perhaps if you feel like it, grant a "Racial" Trait (=1/2 Feat) to Demi-Humans.
Anything more than that would tend to throw the advantage to much towards Demi-Humans.
The only problem with that I see for you, is that it doesn't really address the basic lens your players are viewing the situation thru: Where the "minor" Skill Bonuses and various situational abilities, etc, are under-valued compared to a Feat of their choice: I don't know if one more Trait (especially if limited to a Race-appropriate list) would sway the issue for them. (I don't think Paizo has published all that many Racial Traits yet, so you might have to include General Traits wihtin the Racial list, or write your own)
Other than that, I think Racial Class Variants is about the only thing that could help: If you're familiar with the RacesofWild Druid Variant for Halflings (available in summarized form on Crystal Castle), it provides a compelling variant on the vanilla Druid. (I may be biased because I've always though Summoning as Spontaneous Spell Substitution (phew!) was just dumb and not very evocative flavor-wise for a Druid (A-OK for a Conjurer).)
Outside of your personal group's issues, I don't think there is really a drought of players interested in playing Demi-Humans (even "min max" build discussions I see here and elsewhere actually include Demi-Humans where their niche "works"). ...If the present system "supports" the base assumption of a Human-centric campaign world, that's fine by me: There's plenty of other game-systems where variant Races/Species do great. And you call always revert back to 2nd Edition races with 3.5/ Pathfinder rules if you really want.
If you aren't really attached to a particular race, but want to play a particular concept, and that concept is feat or skill heavy or specific, or needs a particular set of ability scores being high, or anything of that sort, then Humans are the most attractive option.Not all concepts require many feats as soon as possible, or so many skill points that the one extra skill points for human will make a big difference.
I know that. Lots of people know that.
What I'm saying is.. to some people, there is no other builds than ones that need the feats and skills, and prior to Pathfinder, the ability scores (no negatives... try building your Monk/Bard with 4d6 drop lowest, not point buy... it can get tough depending on the rolls).
To people who think this way, Humans will always been the only choice. Hence why you'll have people like those in the OP's group, and making comments here.
I'm not advocating Humans as be-all end-all, I'm just trying to explain why some people might see it that way.
..
My point in all this?
Trying to prove that Humans aren't the be-all will effectively be like trying to get people to play the game differently from how they are. Since this is notoriously difficult, the best I can see this discussion getting is to have either side recognize that it's a different style of gameplay that will like having non-Human races around more frequently.
Once you can recognize that, you can adjust your DMing based on what gameplay you and your group is wanting to enjoy.
Hell.. reading the section of the DMG on "modifying classes", it wouldn't be out of the question for the DM to simply grant everyone an extra feat at 1st level, so everyone can qualify for PrCs and feat chains early, and give Humans something different altogether (or one of those Enivronment/Culture feats).
According to the DMG... if that's the type of game the DM wants to run, and the players are agreeing to, then it's practically expected of him to make such changes.
A lot of versatility stems from the player, not the race or stats. There can be dwarven skirmishers, elven tanks, halflings that aren't hedonists, dwarves that don't hate all other races, elves that don't consider themselves the Herrenvolk, and so on.
Caladors wrote:Races should be looked at in a similar fashion.
Actually, that's racism.
First off did you call me a racist because of how I refer to fantastical races?
mad rant aimed at kaeyoss"just another low blow I thought were going to have a discussion"
Seriously calling someone racist in a discussion about fantastical races frankly I'm really god damn offended.
Look I will sling words at people all day until both of us are blue in the face but I have gone to the toe for less.
For the non ozzie amongst us that mean I'll put up my dukes and have at you.
that's Stupid man..
Anyway, sorry people, I am just still reeling a bit from that comment.
Ok to the flavour of it.
Yes there can be dwarven skirmisher and elves can be... wait what?
Now when describing the four major roles I call the primary combatant the tank, but are you seriously suggesting that an elf takes the 'aggro' off people?
This is a race with a constitution penalty.
Elven fighters, rangers, paladins and barbarians even sure, but you know I just don't see anyone who lives four three thousand years saying "don't worry I will tough it out."
I can see elves in any of those roles and more .
But they bring there unique background to it.
They say "fight smarter not harder."
Why do players always have to play the social reject.
The fat elf, whimsy dwarf and grumpy halfling.
I see no reason that a player always has to go against grain.
Q: I’m a ROLEPLAYER I don’t min/max.
A: Sure you don’t. And I’m the Archbishop of Canterbury. Anytime you pick a weapon that gives a numerical advantage, anytime you select your most effective spells and anytime you select you skills with a mind towards being good at what you do, you are min/maxing. Min/Maxing is an integral part of any role-playing game and everyone min/maxes, to some degree.
That's what people are doing here there talking about which race is the most optimal.
Now I know when my players look at characters that's where they start they make the most optimal death machine they can.
That does not mean they don't RP.
We all give personalties to stat blocks.
anyway back to the issue at hand.
I think perhaps this thread should be called how powerful is a feat is what it comes down to.
I asked one of my players and he said 'the most powerful thing in the game, undeniably' well I may have issue with that as would some nine level spells but anyway.
The thing is how much better do they have to before there better than extra feat.
Take away the whole favored class thing as I believe it is optional (I use and I should look right now but that would brake my chain of thought)
Stats wise every race is equal.
All you have do is put stats to there negative, sure that mean some will never be able to get an eighteen but not the point.
Skills are going to equal out some more than others.
But what this all comes down to is how powerful is a feat?
We can all argue till were blue in the face but it will come down to this question.
Now I allow all the core books, the three 'core' races books, players handbook two and all of the complete books that myself or players own (so not scoundrel or champion atm)
So for my players that's a pretty diverse selection.
But if your just using pathfinder book only that may mean it's power is reduced considerably.
So how powerful is a feat?
I know that. Lots of people know that.
What I'm saying is.. to some people, there is no other builds than ones that need the feats and skill
Good for them. They'll have to live with a game that has only one viable race. Or houserule. Or broaden their horizon. I don't see the need to change the game to accomodate them. We don't change the game to accomodate those who think that weaknesses are badwrongfun or those who want more restrictive classes and racial restrictions on races.
If you don't want to take all the game has to offer, you'll have to live with the consequences.
First off did you call me a racist because of how I refer to fantastical races?
Saying "all elves must be mobile and bet on mobility and have abilities that enhance mobility, and only mobility" sounds like racism. Unless you use the word specieas, then it's speciesism.
I'm not saying you're a bad person, I say that the ruling that the rules should go to such great lengths to enforce racial stereotypes is crappy design.
If you want to go to toes over this, I can furnish you with my address, but you'll have to pay for the flight for yourself.
Now when describing the four major roles I call the primary combatant the tank, but are you seriously suggesting that an elf takes the 'aggro' off people?
I do not, and never will, suggest anything with "aggro" in it.
This is a race with a constitution penalty.
Elven fighters, rangers, paladins and barbarians even sure, but you know I just don't see anyone who lives four three thousand years saying "don't worry I will tough it out."
See, that's prejudiced. It's seeing -2 con and saying they wouldn't have the guts to stand up to someone. Or call it "consider it tactically unviable" instead of not having the guts. I don't care.
An elf isn't the very best choice for someone who stands and fights, but that doesn't mean it cannot work, that it's never done, or that the game should further discourage it.
Just do an elfen fighter. A 16 in con will come out as 14, add toughness from one of his ten billion feats. Not as many HP as the dwarven fighter, but that doesn't mean that he's branded as a 4e minion and will drop from the first attack that hits. Speaking of which: His AC will be better than the dwarf's, so he'll be taking less damage.
They say "fight smarter not harder."
That doesn't even mean anything. Plus, if the elf in question makes int a dump stat, he won't be smart enough to fight smarter not harder.
Sure, elves on average are smarter but less tough than a human, but that doesn't mean that all elves are smart but feeble. Actually, saying that all elves are smart but feeble really is being racially prejudiced.
Why do players always have to play the social reject.
The fat elf, whimsy dwarf and grumpy halfling.
I see no reason that a player always has to go against grain.
It's this nonsense I'm talking about. There's more to it than a switch with "playing a carbon copy of one of the LoTR characters" and "going completely off the reservation".
And saying or even implaying an elf that prefers front-line "tank" combat to skirmish tactics will be a social reject is, again, racist, and the kind of crap that made me sick of a number of elf and dwarf players - and I'm really happy that Paizo goes out of their way to spell out that elves and dwarves in Pathfinder aren't racists.
It's not that different with min/maxing, or, how I prefer to call it, optimisation. It's not a choice of min/maxing or roleplaying. Optimisation isn't an all or nothing.
People can be optimising without going for the ultimate build.
And sure, roleplaying and optimisation can be combined, but sometimes, the two are mutually exclusive, like when you reject the idea of an elven character specialising in melee full attacks because dwarf or half-orc would be the better choice.
The player in question can go for the elf and still optimise things like having low cha because he doesn't want to be a womaniser or leader and putting the extra points into the physical stats.
And he's allowed to use dump stats even though he went for a mechanically inferior choice.
I know that. Lots of people know that.
What I'm saying is.. to some people, there is no other builds than ones that need the feats and skill
Good for them. They'll have to live with a game that has only one viable race. Or houserule. Or broaden their horizon. I don't see the need to change the game to accomodate them. We don't change the game to accomodate those who think that weaknesses are badwrongfun or those who want more restrictive classes and racial restrictions on races.
If you don't want to take all the game has to offer, you'll have to live with the consequences.
You seem to be much more aggressive than I was expecting... I thought I was on your side.
I hope you read the rest of my post.
|
Acrobatics in PFRPG doesn't reduce your movement or can only be performed as part of your movement, so the halfling/gnome can still make a 20' move action and tumble around or through the opponent once he's next to him.
Actually, it sort of does and doesn't.
The automatic movement tax (counting Tumbled squares as double) has been removed, but only if you're willing to add +5 to the DC (it's been added to the bottom of the table on page 55).
So, if you're not confident about your Tumble skill (and let's not forget, that the opponent's BAB now counts toward the DC), you'll play safe and move half speed.
Once you have a couple of levels under your belt, and possibly some Dex-booster and Skill Focus, I can see a halfling Rogue thinking "Ah, the hell with it!", and going full speed. At least around the room full of hired goons, if not the main villain.
|
|
Or... the halfling/gnome rides in on his riding dog (movement 40') and does the same as the human (with better chance of success because of his higher acrobatics skill)... or he runs in Run (x3) (Run is actually a rather nice feat to pick up for the "slower" races at some point) and does the same as the human (with better chance etc.)...
I've lost count of the number of games we've had which included a halfling/gnome, and a big dumb guy carrying him on his back, like Master/Blaster (Mad Max 3)...
Or... the halfling/gnome rides in on his riding dog (movement 40') and does the same as the human (with better chance of success because of his higher acrobatics skill)... or he runs in Run (x3) (Run is actually a rather nice feat to pick up for the "slower" races at some point) and does the same as the human (with better chance etc.)...I've lost count of the number of games we've had which included a halfling/gnome, and a big dumb guy carrying him on his back, like Master/Blaster (Mad Max 3)...
Yeah got a variation of this going on right now in my game: Hound archon (racial progression from savage species or planar handbook) with a kobold riding it.
Acrobatics in PFRPG doesn't reduce your movement or can only be performed as part of your movement, so the halfling/gnome can still make a 20' move action and tumble around or through the opponent once he's next to him.Actually, it sort of does and doesn't.
The automatic movement tax (counting Tumbled squares as double) has been removed, but only if you're willing to add +5 to the DC (it's been added to the bottom of the table on page 55).
So, if you're not confident about your Tumble skill (and let's not forget, that the opponent's BAB now counts toward the DC), you'll play safe and move half speed.
Once you have a couple of levels under your belt, and possibly some Dex-booster and Skill Focus, I can see a halfling Rogue thinking "Ah, the hell with it!", and going full speed. At least around the room full of hired goons, if not the main villain.
Eh? Is there a new Beta version 2.0 available? It's not in my Beta book.
Or are you talking about something Jason has said will go in the final game (in which case I haven't seen it, but I haven't exactly had time to sift through all the playtest threads).Mayhaps you're referring to the "Move at normal speed or greater +5" DC modifier? I don't really see it applying, because there is no mentioning of the halving of movement in the "tumble" section of Acrobatics. If you're thinking of the "A successful check allows you to move at half speed through such situations." part, then it's included in the "balance" section of Acrobatics, not the "tumble" part.
I fear that some of these modifiers and explanations can seem contradictory because of the amalgam of former skills the new Acrobatics tries to cover.
For Chaos
First off did you call me a racist because of how I refer to fantastical races?
Saying "all elves must be mobile and bet on mobility and have abilities that enhance mobility, and only mobility" sounds like racism. Unless you use the word specieas, then it's speciesism.
I'm not saying you're a bad person, I say that the ruling that the rules should go to such great lengths to enforce racial stereotypes is crappy design.
No i'm not a bad person, your just saying that I should go hang with the KKK and the new band the Hitler Youth.
Thanks for clearing that up I know now when I refer to a minus two on stat block that represents a persons ability recive damage and shows general health that I am a racist.If you want to go to toes over this, I can furnish you with my address, but you'll have to pay for the flight for yourself.
Now when describing the four major roles I call the primary combatant the tank, but are you seriously suggesting that an elf takes the 'aggro' off people?I do not, and never will, suggest anything with "aggro" in it.
Well you see thats what a tank is it takes aggro off people as per the popular game world of warcraft.
Someone that tanks creates enough aggro so that they will be the center of attenction and that other player will be able to do there other jobs.Or perhaps the elf you were talking about was named Sherman? or Panzer?
By the way can I have your address because being called a rasicst bigot is really starting to get old and talking about old I have always wanted to vist the old lands plus I can send the idea to the fox network and they will sponcer me for it and make a whole TV show out of it, 'what people used to able to get away with'
This is a race with a constitution penalty.
Elven fighters, rangers, paladins and barbarians even sure, but you know I just don't see anyone who lives four three thousand years saying "don't worry I will tough it out."See, that's prejudiced. It's seeing -2 con and saying they wouldn't have the guts to stand up to someone. Or call it "consider it tactically unviable" instead of not having the guts. I don't care.
An elf isn't the very best choice for someone who stands and fights, but that doesn't mean it cannot work, that it's never done, or that the game should further discourage it.
Just do an elfen fighter. A 16 in con will come out as 14, add toughness from one of his ten billion feats. Not as many HP as the dwarven fighter, but that doesn't mean that he's branded as a 4e minion and will drop from the first attack that hits. Speaking of which: His AC will be better than the dwarf's, so he'll be taking less damage.
That doesn't even mean anything. Plus, if the elf in question makes int a dump stat, he won't be smart enough to fight smarter not...
They say "fight smarter not harder."
Ok first off that doesn't mean anything?
Nice comeback, Your douche bag ooohhh that does mean anything.No it means the person in question is a douche bag.
Ohhh your just a ropperstomper.
Frankly I am dumbfounded that your trying to defend that comment.
Your talking about a stat block!
A stat block and your trying to call me racist for it!
This is off the wall crazy not like regular bat shit crazy.
First off your complete ignoring all of the flavour to the race.
There long lived first thing up there bam.
Read about how they use half elves as shock troops in wars because there more sturdy.
Elves know there not particularly well build!
Acording to varis sources they have hollow bones like a bird which give them there natural grace, this means if something hits you, you can get seriously hurt and die from a singel injury.
So they fight smarter.
OK FOR PEOPLE WHO DOES NOT KNOW WHAT IT MEANS TO FIGHT SMARTER, IT MEANS YOU USE THE TERRAIN TO YOUR ADVANTAGE and YOU DEFLECT BLOWS RATHER THAN TAKING THEM.
Thats fighting smarter, outwiting your opponent in a fight making there disadvantge your advantage, negating there stregths.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING WHAT ARE YOU AN ADDICT?!
I am sorry if you are someone else reading this but I just can't see how anyone can come to these conclusions.
Your worried about them being lord of the rings rip offs well guess what the game was founded on?!
I will tell you know that it was not the TRANSFORMERS!
3.5 steped away from it but anyone who knows anything about the game knows that is where this game evloved from.
And were talking about standered elves here were not talking about drow or wild elves from dragon lance were talking about elves standered forest loving elves.
Why is suggesting something that they base there strengths on wrong?!
I am a racist for that that is just off the feaking wall!
Yes tell them all the benfits of the half-orc bards and how wonderful the dwarven scout is.
We can play those but everything in the flavour says that those are not the standered!
Your talking about elves not being smart enough to fight smart?
What can I say?
There is nothing to say.
Have you ever worked with wood against the grain see that was something that I tried to comment last time and you completely ignored.
IT splinters and staps you.
If you want to work against the grain that is fine but you shouldn't be suprised when that happens.
You want to talk about real racism how about this quote from Chris Rock. From 8:00 in part five to 3:36 in part six
"what could be impacting us today? that happened four hundered years ago?
See that?
Thats not me, Unless you think I am Chris Rock?
Yes selective breeding has caused certain markers to become more prodominant.
Thats the real world.
Now elves live for three thousand years.
And the minus two stat repesents that years genetic motifaction, making feats, abilites and alternative class makes you a racist.
...Did I miss something?
Anyway I give up.
Rather than replying to what I said about feats and stuff you try and defend your undefendable comments and even if you do try do defend them doesn't mean there defendable.
So I give up trying to comment on here.
Try and make reasonable comment I'll go for slander instead.
I Know what you mean Set.
But alot of the time people want to play the best possiable charater and this seems to be alot more about min/maxing than roleplaying have most optimal character.
Perhaps thats why it brings out people competive streak, Quandary said that it could drag on forever and it could.
My solution to this was racial feat trees.
In my campagin I have a couple different races to the standered but still I have some standered ones.
I also have minor traits that are unique to that race.
I looked at the racial supstution that Quandary suggested and there alright.
And thats what you need to have for people to want to play a race you want them to play a race because they do something that no one else can do or they do it better than anyone else can do.
There is a number of solutions that you could go about but I think have the options open to racial substutions, racial feat trees and unique abilites to races is the only way you can make it more fair.
Where arguements like this become redundant.
Where it's impossiable to measure the difference between them.
Where people are trying to measure abilites such as the limited teleport of 25ft from 4e to an extra feat.
Where when taking into account different races in different classes, you would have to take into account the racial substutions and feat trees availiable to that race.
Arguements would become redundant.(or really complex and the average person wouldn't care)
Kaisoku, said about using the racial modfications in the DMG but this is the problem.
It can't be like that, thats why fourth ed came along.
One of there major goals was so that everyone when they said they were playing D&D were playing the same game.
I could be playing three point five and still be playing the same 'game' somewhere else but things would be different people would forget some rules implement others.
As things stand the only way to make in better in my opinion is expand or restrict because as things stand no-one here is going to say race isssue is balanced.
To Caladors:
Dude, chill man. KaeYoss isn't calling you a racist in the real world sense, implying that you're bigoted against people of other skin colours.
He's pointing out that if you reduce the races to only their stereotypical roles and implying that they can't ever be anything other than those roles, that's a "racist" way of looking at them. And we're talking FANTASY racist here, where we actually have different races and not just variations of origin like here in the real world.
Reading comprehension, it's a great thing to learn.
Also, calling him "Chaos" instead of using his proper screen name here isn't exactly playing nice either, even though that might be how you phonetically say it.
EDIT:
Just wanted to comment on this too:
I am sorry if you are someone else reading this but I just can't see how anyone can come to these conclusions.
Your worried about them being lord of the rings rip offs well guess what the game was founded on?!
I will tell you know that it was not the TRANSFORMERS!
3.5 steped away from it but anyone who knows anything about the game knows that is where this game evloved from.
Actually, the game wasn't directly founded on LotR, it evolved from miniature gaming... as anyone who knows anything about the game would know.