|
How do we feel about the array of ability score modifier schema as presented in the Advanced Race Guide? Let me start by establishing that I like the general power-up that Pathfinder took over 3.5 (the exception being that I dislike how Humans, Half-Orcs, and Half-Elves were handled, as I've brought up in this older thread, but that is not the main thing I'm here to talk about this time), and think that +2 to two ability scores, -2 to one is a fair baseline rule. But what of some of the other schema we see there:
- +2 to two ability scores with NO penalty provided that both scores so increased are in the same camp vis-a-vis "physical/mental" is declared equal to the standard "+2 to one physical, +2 to one mental, -2 to one in either camp" schema - anyone buying this? And if so, what's the deal with Samsarans?
- How to we feel about the way bonuses above +2 are handled? There are very few of these, and the primary example is Goblins, who get +4 to one score, and -2 to to two others, one physical and one mental. This is likewise considered on par with the standard schema - think this is fair? Before the Advanced Race Guide came out, I had my own consistent reasoning regarding that sort of thing, which was quite simply incremental: If the standard is to balance +2 to two scores with -2 to one, then +4 to a single score should likewise be balanced by -2 to one, and for example, a hypothetical race that received "+6 X, +2 Y, -6 Z" would be balanced, as would "+4 X, +4 Y, -2 Z, -4 Yuzz," and the division between physical and mental abilities would not be a factor for consideration in all this. Which model do you buy?
Bear in mind I am largely making this inquiry to help guide my own homebrewing pursuits. I've been designing all sorts of things with a consistent MO, but I want to make sure what I make is "on the level" and worthy of potentially publishing.
Honestly I think all of them work.. and fairness doesn't have a ton to do with it necessarily because that's not all (and sometimes not even primarily) what drives a race in terms of power.
Samsaran does sort of irk me a bit but for more than just the stat bonuses.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I think the Race Builder is clunky and not very functional, in its entirety. While trying to bend over backwards to make sure all the base races were within a similar margin of RP, they made some things ridiculously expensive and other things ridiculously cheap, regardless of how effective (or not!) they are.
Honestly, of all the things in that book, the ability score setup was the LEAST of my complaints. The only person who should really be making races is the DM, and any half-decent DM is fully capable of deciding what kind of racial stat bonuses to give to their shiny new race.
|
|
I think that a +4 bonus to a stat being balanced against a -2 to two stats instead of one stat is because it is fairly easy to make a character that specializes in that stat and the rest of the party handles other stats.
Hmm, yes, the "Human Centipede" party. I'm a double-plus unfan of that mentality.
|
+2 in two physical stats with no penalty is better than +2 in each camp with a penalty. +2 in two mental stats no penalty is at least as good. Generally, having +2 in each camp compared to the same camp is only a bonus for the handful of hybrid classes that use each stat - and the penalty can make things really difficult for some concepts.
On the other hand if you give +2 to two physical stats, no one's getting a bad deal and some are getting a great deal. Everyone can use +2 Con; most people like a Con in the 12-14 range and almost no one dumps it. Unless you're in heavy armour, +2 Dex is handy, too, and for many characters it's their primary stat. Not everyone cares about Str but for many it's the primary stat.
Meanwhile, for primary casters getting +2 to their casting stat is the top priority, and secondary casters and some martials also like +2 to one mental stat. So most casters will get what they want from +2 mental stats, and some non-casters will still be satistfied.
On the other hand, +4 is better than two +2s because it lends itself to min-maxing. See: Orc barbarian, Goblin ninja.
|
|
On the other hand, +4 is better than two +2s because it lends itself to min-maxing. See: Orc barbarian, Goblin ninja.
I'm not entirely comfortable with that argument, but I'm willing to seriously consider the idea that a higher bonus has a non-incremental value. What do YOU think the offset for a bonus above +2 should be? I do kind of think -2 to two others is a little much.
|
|
I was perhaps too abrupt with that statement. I'd spent longer than it looks trying to organize my thoughts on two +2s so the +4 comment ended up being a throw-away. Being really good at one class or build tends to be more unbalancing than being pretty good in a number of classes or builds, and races with +4 to a stat fall under the former category. After all, you only see one build at a time and you're more likely to see the best build for the race than a below-average one. Ability scores also have a non-incremental value simply because because it costs more point-buy and more gold to increase them as you go higher. Level-up ability score bonuses work at a steady rate but are also very limited. Getting +4 in one stat gives you an edge in that system.
However, the specific stats adjusted really do matter. For example, +4 is much more valuable for a SAD stat, which tend to be Int, Cha, Wis, Dex, Str, Con in that order. Some penalties are also worse than others in some contexts. +4 Str -2 Dex -2 Con is much worse than +4 Str -2 Int -2 Cha since the characters who value Str are much more likely to value Dex and Con than Int and Cha.
The best +4/-2/-2 is probably +4 Int -2 Str -2 Cha because several builds want their Int as high as possible and also devalue Str and Cha (wizard, witch, some alchemist and magus). The worst is +4 Con -2 Dex -2 Str since almost no one wants Con as their highest stat (scarred witch doctor aside), and the ones that do also typically want Dex, Str, or both. The goblin has a pretty good arrangement. +4 Dex -2 Str -2 Cha gives you a bit more combat punch than a halfling in builds with a real dex focus like slashing grace/dervish dancing, gunslinger, or bomber alchemist. In some of those builds a relative -4 Cha is a minor hiccup, and for others (eg ninja or swashbuckler) it's about a fair trade for the extra Dex, so the array is at least as good as +2 Dex -2 Str +2 Cha. On the other hand, it's probably not as good as +2 Dex +2 Cha, which is great for support bards and archer paladins (as well as sorcs and oracles who are rarely goblins).
I do think the race builder over-values the +4, though. They rate +4/-2 mental/-2 physical equal with +2/+2, and I'd take +2/+2 on almost any character. Maybe it'd be even if the +4 is a mental stat and so are the pared +2s. Which is another problem: they treat mental and physical stats as equivalent categories but builds tend to prefer a stacked mental stat compared to a spread of physical stats. It's probably an attempt to take synergy into account but they don't really succeed, especially since there's no accounting for synergy elsewhere in the race builder. And that's important. Orcs make solid barbarians and fighters between their stats and ferocity, but if you swapped ferocity for something boosting casting they'd be pretty bad. (They're not fantastic as-is but that's more because they just get less than the Core races than because of the stats.)
|
|
If I get the gist of what you say, my answer has always been something along the lines of "the solution to pollution is dilution" - if one ability score reveals itself to be more valuable than others, I blame the array of existing content, and the solution is new content that shifts the paradigm. For example, you say almost nobody wants Constitution to be their highest ability score, but 3.5 took care of that by introducing Incarnum magic.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a bit more complicated than some stats being more or less valuable.
Almost no one wants Con as their highest stat, but almost no one wants it as their lowest stat. So +4 Con isn't very good, but -2 Con is very bad.
Conversely, many characters want Int or Cha as their highest stat - but those stats are also commonly dumped. So +4 Int or Cha is very good, but -2 Int or Cha is not so bad (unless the other racial features encourage high scores in those stats).
I'm not sure exactly what Incarnum did, but if you wanted to make all stat bonuses and all combinations of stat bonuses equal regardless of the type of stat, it would take more than adding a Con-based class. You'd also have to make sure each stat was equally painful when dumped, and that classes on average don't value any particular stat combinations - for example, most high Str builds wanting higher Con or high Int builds having little value for Cha.
If you're doing a lot of home-brew for yourself feel free to tackle that, but it might take playing with the actual system rather than just adding more content. For example, one fix I've seen for the "mental stats are SAD" issue is to have spells per day and spell DCs use different stats. You'd probably also need a Str application that made it as hard to really dump for casters as Dex and Con are. Adding opportunities to shuffle stats around (eg using Str for Fort saves or Int for Initiative) might help, or it might just encourage more imbalanced stats since you can use your highest two stats for all the important stuff.
i totally want to see a Wood Elf like Race with +2 Strength +2 Dexterity -2 Charisma or even a small race with a strength bonus and a 40 foot movement speed, a Grey Elf like race with +2 Intelligence +2 Charisma -2 Strength or a race with a bonus to Constitution and Intelligence.
the Aasimaar might not have a penalty, but they pay for it with poor racials that are negligible past level 4 and the fact that there isn't really an optimal build that utilizes both attribute bonuses. plus, a lot of the races with a penalty, have a penalty that a class can build around ignoring.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not entirely comfortable with that argument, but I'm willing to seriously consider the idea that a higher bonus has a non-incremental value. What do YOU think the offset for a bonus above +2 should be? I do kind of think -2 to two others is a little much.
On the other hand, +4 is better than two +2s because it lends itself to min-maxing. See: Orc barbarian, Goblin ninja.
I think a -2 to two others works just fine, but a -2 to three others (ala an Orc's penalty to ALL mental stats) is way overkill.
Ideally it'd be a -2 to one other stat, and simply a dearth of other racial abilities...which is basically what Orcs have anyway.
But it DOES have more intrinsic value than simply a +4 over a +2. For example, let's take a build that wants 18 Str at 1st level, and let's first look at the array a Human would go with on 20 PB.
16 14 14 10 10 10 as an example.
Now, take an Orc. An Orc can more easily afford something like:
14 14 14 12 12 11.
If he simply had a -2 to two other stats (Int and Cha for example), he would be roughly on par with the Human, having a single point advantage over him in total point buy. Negligible for the unavoidable -2.
However, the -2 to THREE stats means he's actually left with overall 1 point less...his final stat arracy would be 18 14 14 10 10 9. He gets less bang for his buck in total than the Human.
the Aasimaar might not have a penalty, but they pay for it with poor racials that are negligible past level 4 and the fact that there isn't really an optimal build that utilizes both attribute bonuses. plus, a lot of the races with a penalty, have a penalty that a class can build around ignoring.Poor racials? Assuming you mean racial traits, their SLA begs to differ--- early-entry rules made that one extremely valuable. Their variant heritages also solve your other issue. Idylkin make good Sorcerers/Oracles/Paladins, Angelkin make extremely good Oracles/Paladins (kind of ridiculous there, honestly), Lawbringers are straight upgrades over Dwarves for Clerics, Musetouched is again solid for Sorcerers/Oracles/Summoners, Plumekith make for some really good Warpriests/Clerics/Druids. Only Emberkin are the odd ones aside from the baseline.
Really their lack of good favored class bonuses holds them back more than anything else.
*Aasimaar Resistance is useless compared the Dwarven Hardy Ability
*Darkvision Cancels Each Other Out
* the speed favors the Aasimaar in light armor
*Daylight SLA only works for PRCs that require 3rd level Arcane spells, and doesn't count for 1st or 2nd level spells
*the Dwarf Gets a Dodge bonus against a common mid to high level mook type, free limited use trapfinding/trapspotter when underground, attack bonus against the 2 most common low level enemy mook types, and well, even if Aasimaar don't need to be casters for item creation, PRCs aren't worth the early entry in PF except to have a bland low level hybrid that while viable up to level 13, doesn't have many base class features.
|
|
The hobgoblin is probably a better example of +2/+2 and not much else than the aasimar. +2 Dex +2 Con is great for pretty much any martial build - but the only other features they get are Darkvision and +4 Stealth.
EDIT: Though variant aasimar are a great example of how where you put the +2s matters.
Worth noting that PF actually has a couple Con-based classes; Scarred Witch Doctor (available to Half-Orcs) and Occult's Kineticist.
I did mention the scarred witch doctor. It's notably tied to a race that doesn't get a +4 Con (the half-orc could take it and put the floating +2 in Con, but that's more about the value of the floating +2).
In other words, if I'm homebrewing races, my own judgement is good enough and I shouldn't nitpick about whether I'm using the same design logic as other stuff?
More like the ARG is likely to be less consistent with the design logic of other stuff than your judgment. Seriously, the race builder is a big heap of wasted paper. Mine the abilities for ideas if you need inspiration, but beyond that it's just not very good for its apparent purpose (balancing races against one another).
So there seems to be a consensus that -2 to two other scores is, in fact, a fair trade for +4 to one.
I'm generally less than happy with a +4/-2/-2 trade, but it really depends on what stats you are changing. +4 INT/-2 STR/-2 CHA would make an extremely attractive race option for wizards for example.
|
|
Okay, let's bounce some yo-yos off this wall: I'll display a sampler of some of the odder racial ability modifier suites from what I've homebrewed to date. Tell me if you'd call them balanced, and what you might do with them you feel they aren't:
- +6 CON, -4 WIS
- +4 STR, +2 INT, -4 CON
- +2 STR, +4 CHA, -2 DEX, -2 CON
- +4 CON, +4 INT, -2 STR, -4 WIS
- +6 CON, +2 INT, +2 WIS, -2 STR, -4 CHA
- +2 DEX, +4 INT, +2 CHA, -4 STR, -2 CON
- +2 STR, +2 DEX, +2 CON, -2 WIS, -2 CHA
- +2 DEX, +4 INT, +4 CHA, -4 CON, -4 WIS
- +6 WIS, -2 CON, -2 CHA
- +4 STR, +4 CON, -2 DEX, -2 INT, -2 WIS
- +2 INT, +2 WIS, +2 CHA, -4 DEX
- +6 INT, -2 STR, -2 DEX
- +4 STR, +4 CHA, -2 DEX, -4 WIS, no CON score due to being a form of creature that combines elements of Undead and Construct
- +6 CON, -4 WIS
Witch Doctor, Oradin. I think one of the Occult classes uses Constitution as his primary ability score, not sure how that would work out.
- +4 STR, +2 INT, -4 CON
Hm... This one doesn't really pop out at me. Hurling-based thrower?
- +2 STR, +4 CHA, -2 DEX, -2 CON
Paladin Brute would love this!
- +4 CON, +4 INT, -2 STR, -4 WIS
Just about any INT-based caster will love this to bits. Wizard, witch, sage sorcerer, dex-based magus, investigator.
- +6 CON, +2 INT, +2 WIS, -2 STR, -4 CHA
Amazing for just about any INT or WIS-based caster who wants to be a little more durable and not planning to be in melee. Also a very good spread for a traditional rogue since the con and wis helps offset his poor saves.
- +2 DEX, +4 INT, +2 CHA, -4 STR, -2 CON
Very good (but not amazing) stat spread for an int-based caster. -4 strength is negligible, -2 con hurts.
- +2 STR, +2 DEX, +2 CON, -2 WIS, -2 CHA
This one I actually think is interesting. Great spread for a martial class that's not terribly worried about saves, like a barbarian.
- +2 DEX, +4 INT, +4 CHA, -4 CON, -4 WIS
Great spread for an archer paladin. +4/ int/cha is really nice for a caster, but -4 con is painful for a class with a low hit die.
- +6 WIS, -2 CON, -2 CHA
Amazing spread for a wis-based primary caster. Shaman, druid, cleric etc.
- +4 STR, +4 CON, -2 DEX, -2 INT, -2 WIS
Great spread for a martial, though -2 WIS makes me nervous for will saves. If saves are not an issue, obvious choice.
- +2 INT, +2 WIS, +2 CHA, -4 DEX
Interesting spread for most casters. Nice option for an Arcanist.
- +6 INT, -2 STR, -2 DEX
Hands down the best spread for an INT-based primary caster posted so far. Wizards would kill for this stat line.
- +4 STR, +4 CHA, -2 DEX, -4 WIS, no CON score due to being a form of creature that combines elements of Undead and Construct
Really depends on how the undead/construct traits works out. Could be a good Bloodrager spread?
Out of all of these I like the +2 STR/+2 DEX/+2 CON/-2 WIS/-2 CHA and +2 INT/+2 WIS/+2 CHA/-4 DEX spreads the most. Lots of +2s is great for MAD classes, which can usually use the help. Conversely +4/-2/-2 classes help the SAD classes get ahead, which usually already have a head start.
In general, I hate that races get stat modifiers at all. +2 is pushing it for me, so +4 is already too high for what I think race should affect, and +6 is ridiculous. The only arrays of yours that I'd consider balanced are the {+2, +2, +2, -2, -2} and {+2, +2, +2, -4} arrays, but I still dislike the latter aesthetically and would avoid penalties above -2 as well, if I had a choice.
I just realized I forgot why I was typing up the stat arrays as I was going through them. Honestly, I probably wouldn't allow any of them in a normal game, though the two I mentioned at the bottom are the closest to "balanced" in my opinion.
|
|
Generally I think +6s are a bad idea for PC races and absolutely would not give one in a casting stat.
- +6 CON, -4 WIS
Too powerful if it can get at Con-based casting. If you keep the scarred witch doctor as orc-only, this is a non-orc (that can't get racial heritage), and you don't use a 3rd party Con caster, this is about as safe as a +6 gets. Good for a paladin or non-Wis combat casters who want more durability and aren't too worried about will saves. Potentially a good option for barbarians though possibly risky.
- +4 STR, +2 INT, -4 CON
Probably fine. A -4 Con hurts for pretty much everyone that wants +4 Str so that's a fair trade-off.
- +2 STR, +4 CHA, -2 DEX, -2 CON
A little strong. A double penalty to Dex and Con makes for squishy, but +4 Cha is tempting for Cha casters and adding the +2 Str makes it worth it for battle oracles or paladins (who are durable enough not to mind the defense hit). Dropping the +4 Cha to +2 would make it a bad deal, though, and getting rid of the +2 Str makes it less interesting. +2 Str +2 Cha -2 Con would be both interesting and balanced. But if you don't want to knock the array back to standard, you could just make the rest of the racial traits lacklustre and don't give them casting abilities.
- +4 CON, +4 INT, -2 STR, -4 WIS
Too powerful. Int casters would love this. -4 Wis isn't too bad when Will is your good save, especially when +4 Con gives you room to skimp on that stat in favour of not tanking your Wis to hard. -2 Str is a non-issue. Drop +4 Int to +2, or drop +4 Con to +2 and make the rest of the racial features unimpressive.
- +6 CON, +2 INT, +2 WIS, -2 STR, -4 CHA
Weird. A bit stronger than the first set since tanking Cha isn't as dangerous as tanking Wis and +2 Int +2 Wis is at least a fair trade for -2 Str. Probably the strongest build here is a magus, alchemist, or druid - they like the +2 Int/Wis, benefit from the +6 Con more than a wizard, and aren't really slowed down by the penalties. A dex build is better but even if you're using Str you can afford a -2 penalty for +6 Con. Plus, alchemists have poor will saves. I'd probably drop the +6 to +4 Con, which makes it still nice for a tanky non-Cha caster or part caster but a bit more balanced.
- +2 DEX, +4 INT, +2 CHA, -4 STR, -2 CON
Compared to the elf, you're getting +2 Int, +2 Cha, -4 Str. That is a good deal for an Int-based caster since Str is a common dump stat. An arcanist finds it extra juicy. The elf array is already good for a caster so this is overly strong. Might be OK overall if the other racial features are not casting-related but I would probably flatten the +4/-4 to +2/-2. Getting rid of the Dex bonus is an alternative but watch your casting traits.
- +2 STR, +2 DEX, +2 CON, -2 WIS, -2 CHA
I like this. Feels like an orc/hobgoblin cross. It's a little on the strong side since as mentioned above physical stats like a good "spread" and most people only care about one mental stat so the penalties aren't too bad. But I don't think it's too strong. Just don't give the race any really nice features for martials (like hardy or ferocity) - stuff like skill bonuses or low-light will do it. Good choice for a martial class, alchemist, or magus. Even rangers, monks, and bloodragers would probably be OK with the hit on their mental stat in exchange for all the physicals.
- +2 DEX, +4 INT, +4 CHA, -4 CON, -4 WIS
Too strong. This is great for an archer paladin who is tough enough to deal with the Con penalty, and even a squishy caster can mitigate risk by putting their second and third highest stats in Con and Wis. With a 15 PB, a wizard could buy 16, 14, 14, 13, 7, 7 for Str 7, Dex 15, Con 10, Wis 10, Int 20, Cha 11 which is a very nice array for that PB. Maybe less good if you use rolled stats since you can't count on buying your squishy stats back up but still probably worth it. The archer paladin will dominate.
- +6 WIS, -2 CON, -2 CHA
A cleric would trade -2 Con -2 Cha for +6 Wis and they use Con and Cha. It's even better for a druid where Cha is a dump stat. +4 Wis tops and an unimpressive rest of race.
- +4 STR, +4 CON, -2 DEX, -2 INT, -2 WIS
Holy barbarian! Str/Con is a powerful stat bonus combo. 15 PB can get you 14, 14, 14, 13, 11, 7 for Str 18, Dex 12, Con 18, Int 9, Wis 11, Cha 7. That's a lot of offensive power without any real sacrifices to defense - and you can always buy Con a little lower. I would recommend dropping Str or Con to +2.
- +2 INT, +2 WIS, +2 CHA, -4 DEX
I like this. It's certainly not overpowered since few characters want multiple mental stats, and -4 Dex is painful. Could make some interesting characters, though - I'd like it on a cleric for casting/channeling/not having terrible skill points.
- +6 INT, -2 STR, -2 DEX
Int casters do not care about -2 Str, and -2 Dex nowhere near balances the +6 Int. Even dropping it to +4 Int it would still be a good deal unless the other racial features were terrible. Maybe.
- +4 STR, +4 CHA, -2 DEX, -4 WIS, no CON score due to being a form of creature that combines elements of Undead and Construct
Similar to the third array but more so: +4 Cha is great for Cha casters and they can afford the penalties (thanks to high will save), and the extra Str and shifting the penalty to Wis makes it a better choice for paladins and combat oracles. If the undead bit gives you Cha to HP or allows you to resist mind-affecting effects (blunting the Wis penalty) it's even better. Needs some dialing down but how, exactly, depends on the nature of the creature.
|
|
Okay, thank you; that tells me a thing or two. For what it's worth:
- +6 CON, -4 WIS is meant for my crack at a positive energy genasi
- +4 STR, +2 INT, -4 CON is for a negative energy genasi
- +2 STR, +4 CHA, -2 DEX, -2 CON is for a mineral quasielemental genasi (as per the PLANESCAPE tradition) who'd also enjoy things like immunity to petrification and stone shape as a spell-like ability 1/day.
- +4 CON, +4 INT, -2 STR, -4 WIS is for a vacuum quasielemental genasi whose other racial features would be things like fire and cold resistance 2, no need to breathe, and call the void 1/day as a spell-like ability (bear in mind, I was initially working on these back when racial level adjustments were a thing) - you clearly think this one's too powerful; I suppose I could shrink the package down to a standard array or +4/-2/-2, in this case.
- +6 CON, +2 INT, +2 WIS, -2 STR, -4 CHA is meant for an adaptation of the Plaguelords race from Warlords: Battlecry III; the responses to this race have been interesting (especially since one of the calls for what it would be good for was Alchemist, and that was one of the classes I'd intended the race to have an affinity for).
- +2 DEX, +4 INT, +2 CHA, -4 STR, -2 CON is also meant for a Warlords: Battlecry III adaptation (I did them all, but these two were just two that stood out for their interesting ability modifiers), this time the Fey race. I could reasonably tone it down.
- +2 STR, +2 DEX, +2 CON, -2 WIS, -2 CHA was meant for a weird subrace of Dwarf tied to 3.5 Pact Magic (since the Tome of Magic introduced Karsites, an offshoot of Humans mutated by ties to Pact Magic, I tried doing one for the other common races, as well).
- +2 DEX, +4 INT, +4 CHA, -4 CON, -4 WIS was also meant for a Pact Magic-warped common race, in this case Elves; this was meant as a "really high penalty, really high reward" race through-and-through, and one of their other racial features would have been an inability to use divine magic of any kind (just as the aforementioned Karsites were made incapable of arcane magic); I'm hearing what you think this would be best for, but I'm not hearing it actually being said it's unbalanced....
- +6 WIS, -2 CON, -2 CHA - this was my cursory crack at the Astomus race, an obscure mythical race from the writings of Pliny the Elder; they were covered in fine fur, had no mouths, and subsisted off scent; naturally, one of their racial drawbacks would be Mute.
- +4 STR, +4 CON, -2 DEX, -2 INT, -2 WIS - this is where I started getting really different; I made up fantasized races from each planet (as well as some other notable bodies) of the real-life solar system (so, my vision of a Lovecraftian science-fantasy cosmos); this was for Venusians, whose other racial features included Low-Light Vision, fire and acid resistance 15, no need for water, and statuesque beauty that enabled them to add their Constitution modifier to Charisma-based skill checks against Humanoids and Monstrous Humanoids. I can certainly adjust it some.
- +2 INT, +2 WIS, +2 CHA, -4 DEX - as above, but this was for my Saturnians who also have Large size, a good fly speed with Good maneuverability (as well as a feeble land speed), Low-Light Vision, and cold resistance 10 (and I don't consider myself done with any of these). The response to this has been encouraging, and I agree with it.
- +6 INT, -2 STR, -2 DEX - this was for Plutonians, who would also be slow for their size (Medium, but speed of 20 feet), have Low-Light Vision, Darkvision 30 feet, cold resistance 60 (i.e. immunity to all but the coldest of cold), and acid resistance 5 (I'm not sure, but that methane snow might sting a little, otherwise). Understand that this would not be a very common race at all. I would still like there to be a way to go as high as +6 to an ability score somehow.
- +4 STR, +4 CHA, -2 DEX, -4 WIS, no CON score due to being a form of creature that combines elements of Undead and Construct - these would be the Sednans, whom I envisioned as half-insane wrecks long-since abandoned by mysterious progenitors on their small and remote homeworld (any resemblance to Aballonians is purely coincidental, I envisioned this years before all that); they would be Small in size, have feeble speed (15 feet), Darkvision 60 feet, Tremorsense 30 feet, and whatever "Sednan Immunities" would constitute (I did say this is all not finished, and very experimental) - I am particularly happy to hear people's overall openness to this one.
Personally, I feel that every race in the game would be vastly improved with the following stat array:
+2 X, -4 Y, -2 Z
After all, it works for Kobolds.
. . . No really, you guys are looking at fairly powerful arrays whilst ignoring the guys who have, what is I believe, the absolute worst stat array in the game.
At the very least, I can't think of anything even remotely that bad with stats.
I don't see anyone arguing otherwise. I certainly felt kind of that way when I looked at them.
|
|
Wait, Venusians get +4 Str and Con and Con to Cha skills? And I thought my Suli bloodrager was an odd diplomat. o_O
- +6 INT, -2 STR, -2 DEX - this was for Plutonians... Understand that this would not be a very common race at all. I would still like there to be a way to go as high as +6 to an ability score somehow.
You certainly can, but keep in mind that it then becomes more powerful than the standard PC races. If you were building these when level adjustments were in common use, that would account for it. It would also work fine if all your players were choosing from among the more powerful races - The Plutonians look balanced fine against the Venusians and the Sednans. Alternatively, you could give the more powerful races a lower point buy to compensate for the better racial stat modifiers, making them less exceptional for their own races than the rest of the PCs but still far beyond the common folk of the campaign. Think Captain America (a truly unusual human) and Thor (an above-average Asgardian) on roughly even ground in the Avengers. Probably 15 vs 20 PB would do it.
- +2 DEX, +4 INT, +4 CHA, -4 CON, -4 WIS was also meant for a Pact Magic-warped common race, in this case Elves; this was meant as a "really high penalty, really high reward" race through-and-through, and one of their other racial features would have been an inability to use divine magic of any kind (just as the aforementioned Karsites were made incapable of arcane magic); I'm hearing what you think this would be best for, but I'm not hearing it actually being said it's unbalanced....
- +2 DEX, +4 INT, +4 CHA, -4 CON, -4 WIS
Too strong. ... With a 15 PB, a wizard could buy 16, 14, 14, 13, 7, 7 for Str 7, Dex 15, Con 10, Wis 10, Int 20, Cha 11 which is a very nice array for that PB. ... The archer paladin will dominate.
That said if "inability to use divine magic" meant an inability to be targeted by such spells, and interfered with supernatural paladin abilities this might work OK against the standard party. I still think it would make a great race for a witch with the healing patron: as the gods have turned their faces from us, I have made a pact with a different entity with whose power I keep myself and my kindred whole... coherent concept, solid buffing/debuffing and I don't have to worry about where my cures are coming from.
- +6 WIS, -2 CON, -2 CHA - this was my cursory crack at the Astomus race, an obscure mythical race from the writings of Pliny the Elder; they were covered in fine fur, had no mouths, and subsisted off scent; naturally, one of their racial drawbacks would be Mute.
That actually would probably be a balanced PC race if being mute interfered with spellcasting. +6 Wis isn't OP if you need to cast all your spells Silenced, or dip the Oracle class for the deaf curse (which I think affects all your spells just like a sorc bloodline arcana does).
|
|
Wait, Venusians get +4 Str and Con and Con to Cha skills? And I thought my Suli bloodrager was an odd diplomat. o_O
The idea being that if beauty is tied to any ability score, it would be the one representing physical health.
- +6 INT, -2 STR, -2 DEX - this was for Plutonians... Understand that this would not be a very common race at all. I would still like there to be a way to go as high as +6 to an ability score somehow.You certainly can, but keep in mind that it then becomes more powerful than the standard PC races. If you were building these when level adjustments were in common use, that would account for it. It would also work fine if all your players were choosing from among the more powerful races - The Plutonians look balanced fine against the Venusians and the Sednans.
Yeah, this - that helps remind me what I was thinking. It really helps put everything else you told me in context, too.
Alternatively, you could give the more powerful races a lower point buy to compensate for the better racial stat modifiers, making them less exceptional for their own races than the rest of the PCs but still far beyond the common folk of the campaign. Think Captain America (a truly unusual human) and Thor (an above-average Asgardian) on roughly even ground in the Avengers. Probably 15 vs 20 PB would do it.
That's one idea, though figuring something else out might be preferable - another way is to install unpleasant weaknesses. For example, I designed a Harpy PC race that balanced out good ability bonuses, talon attacks, and flight with (in addition to some ability penalties) multiple nasty penalties to certain skills, the inability to wear footwear of any sort (because talons), and severe vulnerability to sonic effects and damage.
- +2 DEX, +4 INT, +4 CHA, -4 CON, -4 WIS was also meant for a Pact Magic-warped common race, in this case Elves; this was meant as a "really high penalty, really high reward" race through-and-through, and one of their other racial features would have been an inability to use divine magic of any kind (just as the aforementioned Karsites were made incapable of arcane magic); I'm hearing what you think this would be best for, but I'm not hearing it actually being said it's unbalanced....
That said if "inability to use divine magic" meant an inability to be targeted by such...- +2 DEX, +4 INT, +4 CHA, -4 CON, -4 WIS
Too strong. ... With a 15 PB, a wizard could buy 16, 14, 14, 13, 7, 7 for Str 7, Dex 15, Con 10, Wis 10, Int 20, Cha 11 which is a very nice array for that PB. ... The archer paladin will dominate.
Whoops, okay, I spaced that; yes, it would mean no spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities from such classes (Paladins were just about the furthest thing from what I had in mind for that race). I wasn't thinking of making them incapable of, for example, receiving healing from other sources, though that is an idea....
And the Astomoi, yes; come to think of it, they'd make great Monks, too, wouldn't they (I also made Sciapods, who are very Monk-like in character, but didn't mention them since their ability modifier array was less noteworthy)?
Personally, I feel that every race in the game would be vastly improved with the following stat array:
+2 X, -4 Y, -2 Z
After all, it works for Kobolds.
. . . No really, you guys are looking at fairly powerful arrays whilst ignoring the guys who have, what is I believe, the absolute worst stat array in the game.
At the very least, I can't think of anything even remotely that bad with stats.
Considering that allowing players to do this with their race choice is already house ruling, its not that strange to house rule poor races like the Kobold. I know I did.
I use the array -2 strength, +2 dexterity, +2 intelligence for my own kobolds. I did away with the con penalty. I am of the opinion that creatures with draconic origin should not have con penalties. I also figured that since these guys dig up complex lairs and craft traps, they'd probably be smart little buggers.
|
|
Wait, Venusians get +4 Str and Con and Con to Cha skills? And I thought my Suli bloodrager was an odd diplomat. o_OThe idea being that if beauty is tied to any ability score, it would be the one representing physical health.
Makes sense. Just thought it could be used for a really interesting barbarian "face" with those stats.
That's one idea, though figuring something else out might be preferable - another way is to install unpleasant weaknesses. For example, I designed a Harpy PC race that balanced out good ability bonuses, talon attacks, and flight with (in addition to some ability penalties) multiple nasty penalties to certain skills, the inability to wear footwear of any sort (because talons), and severe vulnerability to sonic effects and damage.
I personally don't like using too many weaknesses as balance factors because then you can end up with superman-like characters. They dominate everything until confronted with their weakness, at which point they collapse. Inability to benefit from certain effects (like magic boots or morale bonuses) is probably less volatile than penalties or vulnerabilities because it's more about restricting the heights a character can achieve than adding collapse conditions.
And the Astomoi, yes; come to think of it, they'd make great Monks, too, wouldn't they (I also made Sciapods, who are very Monk-like in character, but didn't mention them since their ability modifier array was less noteworthy)?
I didn't even think of monks because +6 Wis just screams "caster" at me, but that's a good idea! Zen archers in particular love Wisdom (as do Senesi but their main ability depends on oratory).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I feel that every race in the game would be vastly improved with the following stat array:
+2 X, -4 Y, -2 Z
After all, it works for Kobolds.
. . . No really, you guys are looking at fairly powerful arrays whilst ignoring the guys who have, what is I believe, the absolute worst stat array in the game.
At the very least, I can't think of anything even remotely that bad with stats.
Considering that allowing players to do this with their race choice is already house ruling, its not that strange to house rule poor races like the Kobold. I know I did.
I use the array -2 strength, +2 dexterity, +2 intelligence for my own kobolds. I did away with the con penalty. I am of the opinion that creatures with draconic origin should not have con penalties. I also figured that since these guys dig up complex lairs and craft traps, they'd probably be smart little buggers.
This is the exact stat array that I house rule for them witht he same justifications. Even with that they're still not a strong race, but at least not a weak one either.
You know it's bad if your stat adjustments are so poor that you get a -1CR penalty.. over the PC races.
EDIT: As for the OP's topic... I would also outright avoid anything higher than a +4 unless I'm just expecting everyone and their enemies to be +2 higher in every stat than normal. It's just too easy to exploit. Even a +4 is very generous IMO, but if counterbalanced by twin -2s it is just barely acceptable as long as you ensure they aren't in the exact optimal buff/dump pattern for a caster. This means it can only really be +4 to str or dex, all other stats shouldn't be higher than +2.
One thing to keep in mind is that many races have what they *claim* to be (fast, strong, etc), then what they actually are. They will take someone with two 14s and a 12 and claim he has a +4, +4, +2 stat adjustment rather than the +2,+0,+0 he actually has. And this pride runneth deep. Also, +4 is so good that someone that is considered borderline *disabled* by that race's standards would be considered average for a normal humanoid race.
|
|
So, we've discussed our judgment of what an exceptionally large bonus ought to "cost" - let's turn that question on its head and ask, what good stuff should an exceptionally large penalty make permissible? Starting with the premise that -2 to one score is worth +2 to two others, what might a -4 penalty earn a race? A -6?
Since I expect people to have a definite reaction to this, hypothetically speaking, What kind of power would a race with a -6 penalty to Constitution have to offer before you felt comfortable playing it?
Speaking in a more likely-to-bear-actual-fruit vein, let's say I wanted to give Elves +4, rather than +2, Intelligence - what would make that fair? How about adding an additional -2 Strength penalty? How about removing their Dexterity bonus (so they simply have -2 CON, +4 Int)? I'm aware that the Elven Constitution penalty scares a few players away from the race.
Not all ability scores are created equal. In the hands of the right class, a +4 or +6 will utterly dominate the party.
I made a mistake once in created a homebrew race of child-like elf creatures that had a +4 bonus to Charisma. Their small sized, and their other racial abilities focused on agility and music. I imagined them mostly as bards, but my friend saw that +4 and decided to make a sorcerer.
Since Charisma was the only thing he really needed, he didn't lose anything from the physical penalties they were given.
If you want to give a +4 or higher bonus, I'd say make sure other aspects of the race make the abusable, SAD class options less desirable, either as weaknesses or by making the rest of their abilities unhelpful to that class.
So, we've discussed our judgment of what an exceptionally large bonus ought to "cost" - let's turn that question on its head and ask, what good stuff should an exceptionally large penalty make permissible? Starting with the premise that -2 to one score is worth +2 to two others, what might a -4 penalty earn a race? A -6?
Since I expect people to have a definite reaction to this, hypothetically speaking, What kind of power would a race with a -6 penalty to Constitution have to offer before you felt comfortable playing it?
Speaking in a more likely-to-bear-actual-fruit vein, let's say I wanted to give Elves +4, rather than +2, Intelligence - what would make that fair? How about adding an additional -2 Strength penalty? How about removing their Dexterity bonus (so they simply have -2 CON, +4 Int)? I'm aware that the Elven Constitution penalty scares a few players away from the race.
IMO I wouldn't never played a race with so low Con. Elves do put me off a bit as-is, but -2 is easy enough to work around. -6, though? That would mean, as a martial character with a base of 10, you begin play with 7 hitpoints, and as a caster, you begin play with 3 hitpoints.
A single hit from a 1st level goblin's dagger would be enough to knock you unconscious, and a single sneak attack from a rogue could outright kill you in a single hit. No thanks.
+2 to one stat for every character. If a race would be harmed by this change (as would Hobgoblins), they get an extra racial trait of DM choice and player picking equal to the RP difference.
|
|
So, we've discussed our judgment of what an exceptionally large bonus ought to "cost" - let's turn that question on its head and ask, what good stuff should an exceptionally large penalty make permissible? Starting with the premise that -2 to one score is worth +2 to two others, what might a -4 penalty earn a race? A -6?
Since I expect people to have a definite reaction to this, hypothetically speaking, What kind of power would a race with a -6 penalty to Constitution have to offer before you felt comfortable playing it?
DR, fast healing, or some other ability that lets me not die.
More seriously, if you give me a high enough boost to a casting stat I can put an 16 in con for a survivable final score of 10 and make an at-range caster preferably with d8 hit die and a good Fort save (cleric, alchemist, maybe bard), Zen Archer, or archer paladin. The worst possible bonuses I could see taking would be +4 Int/Wis/Cha, +2 Dex, and that's assuming I get a 25pb equivalent or higher to make the 16 in Con affordable and that the race is otherwise interesting and suitable for one of the aforementioned concepts.
I wouldn't recommend it though, since you'll scare many players away and the rest will be pushed into heavy stat manipulation territory (I actually put together a few stat arrays in my head to determine I'd want at least a 25 PB to take +4 Int +2 Dex -6 Con over the elf's +2 Int +2 Dex -2 Con).
Bumping the casting stat to +6 makes it a better deal but you're also likely to get some ridiculous characters. Someone with a better tolerance for low Con and general min-maxing than me might try buying themselves an 18 Int and starting with a 24.
Speaking in a more likely-to-bear-actual-fruit vein, let's say I wanted to give Elves +4, rather than +2, Intelligence - what would make that fair? How about adding an additional -2 Strength penalty? How about removing their Dexterity bonus (so they simply have -2 CON, +4 Int)? I'm aware that the Elven Constitution penalty scares a few players away from the race.
Both. -2 Str -2 Con +4 Int, especially if you wanted to keep the elven bonuses to casting. +2 Int for -2 (relative) Dex is a good trade for full Int casters and not terrible for hybrids, and +2 Int for -2 Str is even better. Oly's suggestion of -2 Con -2 Wis is also fine; it's a little better for the hybrids which can use strength but a little worse for the full casters who dump it. Note that either option really shoves elves in the "arcane caster" box and away from nature-based options like rangers and druids.
{. . .} For example, one fix I've seen for the "mental stats are SAD" issue is to have spells per day and spell DCs use different stats. You'd probably also need a Str application that made it as hard to really dump for casters as Dex and Con are. Adding opportunities to shuffle stats around (eg using Str for Fort saves or Int for Initiative) might help, or it might just encourage more imbalanced stats since you can use your highest two stats for all the important stuff.
Somewhat off-topic, but I've been toying with this idea myself, although for a different reason. Default caster would be like an Arcanist, but highly MAD:
Intelligence: Determines how many spells of each level you can know, and maximum level of spell you can know; the latter limitation does not apply if you find some way to cast a spell instinctively (so that you don't really know it), but it would be harder to get around of this limitation than the corresponding limitations for Wisdom and Charisma.
Wisdom: Determines how many different spells of each level you can prepare, and maximum level of spell you can prepare; the latter limitation does not apply if you can find a way to cast a spell without preparing it (perform Ritual, etc.).
Charisma: Determines how many spells per day you can cast, and maximum level of spell you can cast; the latter limitatino does not apply if you can find a way to power a spell other than your own power (multiple cooperating casters, external power source, etc.).
Due to MADness, such an ultimate caster actually wouldn't get very car without having exceptional abilities, so most of these that DIDN'T have exceptional abilities would actually be instructors (usually an NPC job). More specialized casters would be archetypes of this that unanchor spellcasting from one or two of the ability scores, in ways suggested after the phrases that start ". . . the latter limitation does not apply if . . ." above. These more specialized casters (Wizard, Cleric, Sorcerer, etc.) would be the ones that more commonly go adventuring, expressly because they are not as MAD. However, this would not get rid of all MADness. By default, fine pools such as Arcane Pool, Grit, Ki Pool, Panache, Soul Pool, etc. that let you spend variable numbers of points based upon how much you are trying to do would be based upon Wisdom; by default, coarse pools such as Arcane School and Domain abilities, Lay On Hands, and Summoner's Summoning that let you spend a use (rarely more than one use) for a scaling ability that is coarse-grained in its power would be based upon Charisma.
|
|
Let me clarify; do you think -2 CON, +4 INT with no other bonuses or penalties is also fair?
No, that's why I suggested adding an additional -2.
That's assuming it's otherwise an elf. If the other racial features are counterproductive to arcane magic it might be OK, though even then I'd be a bit nervous. Casters love them their casting stats.
I don't think it's painfully bad but that's possibly because I personally play more MAD characters and my group rolls stats. When I can't divert points from my highest to secondary stat, +2/+2 means I'm more likely to get the well-rounded array that I prefer.