PDA

View Full Version : Racial Point System [3.75]



Vorpal word
2009-05-03, 09:41 PM
So for my 3.75 project, what I was really wondering about was races. They're not as obvious a problem as classes, spells, or feats, but as they are one of the starting steps to making a character, they are important to the system.

The way I've looked at things, there are basically two options for racial adjustments:
v3.x) +2/-2 to two ability scores
4e) +2/+2 to two ability scores

The key here is evaluating all scores equally, so that a Wizard has enough magic to ignore his Strength stat entirely in favor of Intelligence. But overbalancing classes to all have the same number (more or less) of abilities and making these abilities almost entirely combat-based (key word: "encounter power", not "1/minute power" or "1/hour power") can lead to a decline in roleplaying, so I'd prefer to avoid it.

As I've decided, the 4e option is better, but if anyone can give a good argument towards v3.x I'll gladly listen. Either way, there are 16 different basic stat combinations with these arrangements including the choose what you like option, (ie.Str/Dex, Str/Con, etc), and for now I think I'll try and limit things to 16 races at most(I'll add more based on separate abilities).

Either way, what I'm thinking of is a point system to allow homebrewing races more easily. A creature at valued at +0 LA has a 10-point value. Here's an example:

Human
+2 to one score (2 points)
Bonus Feat (5 points)
+1 Skill point/level (3 points)
Languages: Common

More details on specific point values for specific features coming soon!

Hadrian_Emrys
2009-05-03, 10:33 PM
I like the point system, but I'd push that all races actually get options rather than pre-set abilities. For example, a dwarf CAN get +2 Con (since stat bumps are available to all races) but instead of the potential racial benefits vs giants/orcs/goblinoids, the player can opt for other racial traits, or add to non-racial areas.

Vorpal word
2009-05-04, 06:32 AM
I like the point system, but I'd push that all races actually get options rather than pre-set abilities. For example, a dwarf CAN get +2 Con (since stat bumps are available to all races) but instead of the potential racial benefits vs giants/orcs/goblinoids, the player can opt for other racial traits, or add to non-racial areas.

That's the reason for subraces :smallbiggrin:

Draz74
2009-05-04, 11:01 AM
So for my 3.75 project, what I was really wondering about was races. They're not as obvious a problem as classes, spells, or feats, but as they are one of the starting steps to making a character, they are important to the system.
Well, as a warning, they're also very setting-specific. But that might not bother you, especially if you stick to races that exist in almost every setting, like Dwarves and Elves. (So, no Warforged, no Raptorans ...)


The way I've looked at things, there are basically two options for racial adjustments:
v3.x) +2/-2 to two ability scores
4e) +2/+2 to two ability scores
Pathfinder uses +2/+2/-2 to three ability scores. Not saying it's better, just that you should consider it.


Either way, what I'm thinking of is a point system to allow homebrewing races more easily. A creature at valued at +0 LA has a 10-point value. Here's an example:

Human
+2 to one score (2 points)
Bonus Feat (5 points)
+1 Skill point/level (3 points)
Languages: Common

Sounds needlessly complicated unless you are going to let people pick and choose which Dwarven features their Dwarf will have. Which you say you won't. I'm not sure what the benefit of the points system is, unless it's just to help you judge the balance of your own racial design, which will only work if you assign all point values accurately.

On a side note, I'm not a fan of having subraces. Good, worthwhile racial feats (or, at most, racial paragon classes) are the best ways IMHO to make races somewhat customizable.

Hadrian_Emrys
2009-05-04, 02:23 PM
That's the reason for subraces :smallbiggrin:

Ugh. If I am in the mood to play a dainty, charismatic dwarf that has nothing against any other race, I don't want to have to dig through years of Dragon mag until I find some whacked out subrace/template that the DM might not approve of. Point based systems let players be exactly what they want to be without screwing with the fluff.

Thane of Fife
2009-05-04, 02:33 PM
Note that having pluses and minuses allows for greater differentiation than only having pluses does: in 3.x, for example, you have half-orc strong (+2), human strong (+0), and halfling strong (-2). In 4e you only have two levels of strength.

You may not mind, but it's something to consider.

Vorpal word
2009-05-04, 02:55 PM
Note that having pluses and minuses allows for greater differentiation than only having pluses does: in 3.x, for example, you have half-orc strong (+2), human strong (+0), and halfling strong (-2). In 4e you only have two levels of strength.


The way I see it, the problem with 3.x is that racial penalties can really screw up some things. For example, Orcs have penalties to both Int and Cha, but what this means is that any Orc arcane caster will never get 9th level spells without items unless they roll high or take huge penalties to everything else: A dangerous proposition to say the least. And the Wisdom penalty for Orcs means that their divine casters aren't much good either, but there are certainly priests of Gruumsh out there somewhere.

What I think 4e says is that races should have strong points, but not weak points, since strong points may be of advantage or not depending purely on the character design, but weak points almost always hurt. With these rules, it's perfectly alright to be an Orc Wizard, just that Eladrin Wizards are stronger.

Thane of Fife
2009-05-04, 05:05 PM
What I think 4e says is that races should have strong points, but not weak points, since strong points may be of advantage or not depending purely on the character design, but weak points almost always hurt. With these rules, it's perfectly alright to be an Orc Wizard, just that Eladrin Wizards are stronger.

See, having races which are bad of things doesn't upset me at all. I mean, they're orcs. When have orcs ever been depicted as powerful wizards?

Now, you might think that players should be allowed to play whatever they want. To compromise, you could, perhaps go the Pathfinder route, with +2, +2, -2, and make the penalty optional. That way you can please everybody.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-05-04, 09:26 PM
See, having races which are bad of things doesn't upset me at all. I mean, they're orcs. When have orcs ever been depicted as powerful wizards?

Now, you might think that players should be allowed to play whatever they want. To compromise, you could, perhaps go the Pathfinder route, with +2, +2, -2, and make the penalty optional. That way you can please everybody.

Another route might be to give each race their choice of two +2s and their choice of two -2s (so an orc might be able to have +2 Str -2 Int, +2 Str -2 Cha, +2 Con -2 Int, or +2 Con -2 Cha), which helps avoid the "elves are graceful but weak humans, orcs are strong but ugly humans, etc." trap and so you don't force any race to be good or bad at something--there can be multiple "good wizard" races, and an orc won't necessarily have to be a bad wizard.

lesser_minion
2009-05-05, 03:14 AM
If worst came to worst, you could always chuck out ability score modifiers altogether and evoke everything through other traits. Try to offer everyone a few scaling traits, and consider giving player races some drawbacks.

I like the idea of allowing players to buy off drawbacks with positive traits, however.