Regarding Racial Ability Modifier Balance....

[Weirdo]

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

I see. I thought, in the context of some of what's been said up to now, that perhaps Constitution specifically was "worth" more than other abilities when penalized.

Yes, but Int is worth more as a bonus, especially as a +4 bonus since it's common in SAD builds.

I'll also point out that my previous acceptance of a race with +4 Int +2 Dex -6 Con was (1) dependent on a high point buy and otherwise good racial features and (2) the lowest bonuses I'd possibly accept, not what I actually thought was a balanced array. I find it very difficult assessing the balance of any array containing +/- 6 modifiers.

[UnArcaneElection]

Why do all the modifiers have to be even numbers, anyway? I know that odd-numbered ability score values usually don't do anything that the next lower even numbered value does (the exceptions being Strength for carrying capacity, and other stats for some feat or racial trait prerequisites), but allowing the racial ability score adjustments to be odd numbers would allow a finer granularity of balance.

[Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider]

+2 strength +2 dexterity -2 charisma is much more balanced on a martially inclined ranger or barbarian than +4 intelligence -2 constitution as a wizard. even though constitution is the only stat that a large enough penalty could justify buying a bigger casting stat. in fact, the former ranger array is more balanced tban +2 dexterity +2 intelligence -2 constitution on a wizard

[I'm Hiding In Your Closet]

Thanks for the input so far. Let me try another set. Are these following arrays balanced amongst one another, and how might they be fixed if not?

Souped-up Humans: +1 to any two separate ability scores of choice, plus an eclectic array of racial features revolving around survival and versatility

Souped-up Half-Orcs: -2 INT, -2 CHA, +2 DEX, +4 STR, plus modest energy resistances and otherwise run-of-the-mill racial features

Souped-up Dwarves: -2 DEX, +2 STR, +2 CON, plus an assortment of really good (mostly defensive) racial features and one comparatively nasty extra penalty (-1 to ranged attack rolls beyond 30 feet due to myopia)

Souped-up Gnomes: ability modifiers unchanged, plus good racial features mostly to do with perception and special protection from magic

Souped-up Elves: -2 STR, -2 CON, +2 DEX, +4 INT, plus a small assortment of quirky but not-too-powerful racial features and one really good racial feature that granted scaling-with-level spell-like abilities (that also carried considerable scaling ability score minimums to access them)

alternate Dark Elves: -2 CON, -2 WIS, +2 DEX, +2 INT, +2 CHA, also with mostly quirky-but-not-overpowered racial features and one really good scaling spell-like ability feature, as above (but with different stuff)

"Dark" Dwarves: -2 WIS, -2 CHA, +4 STR, +2 Con, plus racial features such as decent energy resistances, sizeable skill bonuses, semi-customizeable "Hatred," and one nasty extra penalty (-1 to melee attack rolls due to hyperopia)

Spriggans (AKA Dark Gnomes): +2 CON, +2 WIS, -2 CHA, plus racial features granting a broad array of slight combat advantages, as well as special protection from magic similar to what their "light" cousins get

alternate Minotaurs: -2 DEX, -2 WIS, +4 STR, +2 CHA, plus racial features, for combat and personal navigation, that are few in number but very good

[kestral287]

Humans: Worse off than they are now, generally speaking.

Half-Orcs: More than they actually need.

Dwarves: The ranged thing probably doesn't matter much since they won't be archers. Again, for most roles worse off than they are now.

Elves: Broken; we've been over this one. Making the ability scores better does not balance them being too powerful.

Drow: Sure. Maybe a tad under the mark but close enough.

Drow-Dwarves: Better Half-Orcs, save that the attack penalty actually mtters

Minotaurs: Without access to the racial feature list, I can't see why one would run one over a Drow-Dwarf or a Half-Orc.

[I'm Hiding In Your Closet]

Okay, how might one go about making the ones that don't work viable?

[kestral287]

Without looking at the full list of abilities or even understanding why you're trying to do this or what you're trying to accomplish, I can't say.

Are you trying to upgrade these races to be equivalent to the ones you posted earlier? If so, sit down and take a hard look at the races; figure out what makes them good. Are you trying to change them for the sake of changing them? Take a hard look at why you're doing that and if it makes sense.

You're also not doing yourself any favors by making three races with nearly interchangeable modifiers. Minotaurs would be nice for +4 Strength! Except that the Drow-Dwarves do it better. And if they don't, the Half-Orcs do. The immediate result is that you'll get Minotaur Bloodragers and Paladins and nothing else, because for anything else why am I not using the strictly-better options?

If you want to make these interesting, add some variety.

[I'm Hiding In Your Closet]

I'll admit, the similarity between Half-Orcs, Minotaurs, and what would be called "Mad Dwarves" in this setting escaped my notice in a forest-for-the-trees sort of way (and vis-à-vis Minotaurs only being fit for Paladins and Bloodragers, note that this would be a setting where Clerics, too, would be Charisma-based, there would also be classes brought over from 3.5, as well as possibly homebrew creations, who made extensive use of Charisma, and several other classes would likewise have the sources of their magic shell-gamed about some) - I'd argue that they're more different than you seem to think (and their other racial features would make a more substantial difference still), but it would make sense to tweak them. I guess one concrete question in that direction would be: Do you think the Mad Dwarf penalty to melee attack rolls would become too debilitating if their Strength bonus were reduced to +2 (I don't think it would, since it would be a mere partial negation, but I get the sense that many would have me reconsider).

Also: How would you balance a +4 bonus to Intelligence in the case of these Elves (let's assume that "I just wouldn't" isn't actually a helpful answer here)? I made these operating on the belief that a more or less eye-for-an-eye trade would suffice, but this thread has clearly told me it isn't that simple.