PDA

View Full Version : [4e] House Rule for Races



hoff
2011-03-12, 06:26 PM
I'm trying to come up with a fair house rule to allow more flexibility to the races in the 4e. I find it very penalizing to have +2 to 2 fixed ability scores, some combinations are just too good (wis healbot dwarf cleric, drow rogue) while others are borderline useless (dual wielding eladrin ranger, tiefling swordmage). It's sad to have this cool idea for a character to be shutdown by the restricted ability scores of the races.

I want to make a house-rule to change all races to: +2 to one ability of your choice, +2 to one of the two race main ability scores. For example an Eladrin could take +2 str and +2 int OR +2 str, +2 dex.

That leaves me the humans, I was thinking to change their racial to +3 to one ability score but limit your maximum at level 1 to 20 (so no 21 int wizard at level 1).


I'm aware that this will make the characters considerately more powerful (specially at lower lower levels) but would this make humans too powerful or much more powerful than other races? Is it too easy to break the game with some cheap feat/race/class combo this way?

As an optional I was also thinking in changing the "classic" point buy system:
8-12: 1 point
13-15: 2 points
16: 3 points
17: 4 points

to:
8-12: 1 point
13-15: 2 points
16-17: 3 points
This saves one point from characters that want to go the 20 in one ability route, maybe this reduces the difference between human and other races.

Kylarra
2011-03-12, 06:28 PM
With the essentials line, most races have +2 to a primary stat and +2 to one of two other stats which allows for enough flexibility statwise while still maintaining some modicum of being more adept in certain classes, imo.

hoff
2011-03-12, 06:30 PM
I haven't read the essentials nor will we be using it, but how did they compensate those changes in the races? What is the human bonus in essentials?

MeeposFire
2011-03-12, 06:36 PM
The same though they can trade their extra at will for the racial power heroic effort which is really nice.

Frankly races do not need to have perfect ability scores to play classes. A difference of one is not a killer. Your idea just makes the races even more similar.

Sine
2011-03-12, 06:40 PM
I haven't read the essentials nor will we be using it, but how did they compensate those changes in the races? What is the human bonus in essentials?
Still +2 to one stat. And now dwarves are clearly and unequivocally the best weapon users because they can get +2 Str and Con, and they still have Dwarven Weapon Training.

Me, I can't be bothered with all this beating around the bush. I've banned stuff like Dwarven Weapon Training, I've taken away racial defense bonuses, and I simply let everyone choose their two +2s. Including humans, and it's not a big deal.

TroubleBrewing
2011-03-12, 06:48 PM
So... You basically stripped away the point of playing any race except for flavor. GLHF, I guess. Me, I'll stick to playing the game like the rules dictate.

MeeposFire
2011-03-12, 06:54 PM
Still +2 to one stat. And now dwarves are clearly and unequivocally the best weapon users because they can get +2 Str and Con, and they still have Dwarven Weapon Training.

Me, I can't be bothered with all this beating around the bush. I've banned stuff like Dwarven Weapon Training, I've taken away racial defense bonuses, and I simply let everyone choose their two +2s. Including humans, and it's not a big deal.

Your making out the fact that dwarves can get a str boost into too big a deal. Yea it makes them slightly better in the classes that they were already good at but it really did not change much. Their value in char op changed little after the str addition. They were already light blue in many cases where the str bonus would have helped them. That would be like complaining that githzerai have a feat that makes them really good at heavy blades and they have good stats for swordmages. Really it is not that big of a deal.

hoff
2011-03-12, 07:15 PM
For me the uniques of each class comes from the racial power they have, everything else are perks.

I think you guys underestimate the power of a +2 in your main stat. Not only it gives you +1 attack rolls to most (all for most builds) your attacks but also gives one more point of damage per attack. That is 2 feats right there that stack with other feats. This bonus does get less powerful than the feat at paragon/epic tier though, but they still stack. I don't think I would play a race that doesn't have +2 on the main stat I'm using.

+2 in your secondary stat is still really useful. For classes that have at-wills [W]+stat1mod+stat2mod damage for example plus all the other utility. But this one I could live without no problems.

It might be wise to ban Dwarven Weapon Training, Eladrin Sword Training, Valenar Weapon Training and the likes though. They are kinda too powerful at heroic tier if we allow this house-rule.

TroubleBrewing
2011-03-12, 07:29 PM
... Is the ban-hammer necessary in this circumstance? I mean, play how you want, but 4e had a LOT more playtesting than 3.5, not to mention the fact that the entire design philosophy behind 4e was "balance EVERYTHING AT ALL COSTS", so it seems... unnecessary.

hoff
2011-03-12, 07:35 PM
I'm pretty sure the playtesters either didn't try out a eladrin dual-wielding ranger or they assumed no one would try/want to make one, yet that is exactly what I want to be (PC) viable. For all the idiot-proof 4e got they still can't make a incorrect race/class/build viable.

TroubleBrewing
2011-03-12, 07:36 PM
Why isn't a dual-wielding ranger Eladrin viable, exactly?

hoff
2011-03-12, 08:00 PM
It's just so much worse than say any race that gives +2 STR. It's not viable by comparison of what could have been.

TroubleBrewing
2011-03-12, 08:16 PM
I disagree. It's not "so much worse", it's about a 5% penalty to attack/damage rolls. Oh noes, my build is 5% less effective than it would have been if I had picked a race actually intended for melee! If you're going to play a race in a role it wasn't intended for, don't complain about the fact that your build is marginally less effective. Either deal with the "penalties" (note: lack of a bonus is not a penalty), accepting that your character concept is a cool one and worth that "not viable by comparison" factor, or play a race with a +2 STR.

Dalek-K
2011-03-12, 08:57 PM
I disagree. It's not "so much worse", it's about a 5% penalty to attack/damage rolls. Oh noes, my build is 5% less effective than it would have been if I had picked a race actually intended for melee! If you're going to play a race in a role it wasn't intended for, don't complain about the fact that your build is marginally less effective. Either deal with the "penalties" (note: lack of a bonus is not a penalty), accepting that your character concept is a cool one and worth that "not viable by comparison" factor, or play a race with a +2 STR.

I agree

I actually tend to make characters that have 3 16's ... Like..

For a Wizard I would have... Int/Con/Wis be all 16's by using racial boosts... Sure I don't have a 18 but I have never had a problem being effective.... I mean most of your to hit bonus comes from the d20 roll (well most of the game at least). But this makes m balanced in defense and secondary power boost (like wizard gets bonuses to some spells based on wis).

It helps my average roll on any d20 is a 16 :smallamused:

But OP have you played the game the way it is or is this going to be your first play through? This is huge since if it is your first time or you are still new then you shouldn't be changing a core rule just yet ^ ^

DragonBaneDM
2011-03-12, 11:50 PM
You also can unlock the Blade Banshee paragon path, which can be very good.

Of course, if you want to make better use of that +2 to Dex, which shouldn't matter too much if you use a good array, you can always go Stormwarden instead, which is generally considered the best TWF paragon path in the game.

Lord Raziere
2011-03-13, 12:08 AM
So... You basically stripped away the point of playing any race except for flavor. GLHF, I guess. Me, I'll stick to playing the game like the rules dictate.

yea, 4E is actually the most open-minded edition about this, the previous editions have -2's and favored classes and all that, getting worse as you go farther back. races are just fine, they don't need any more improvement and I love it that I can play something like an eladrin paladin with no penalties- so what if I don't get that +1 to my CHA or STR? I'm a freaking Eladrin Paladin of Corellon who still has a +3 to both of the stats I want wearing beautiful plate armor.

don't fix what ain't broken.

Daftendirekt
2011-03-13, 12:14 AM
It's just so much worse than say any race that gives +2 STR. It's not viable by comparison of what could have been.

Yeah, a +1 to hit and damage really isn't that big. At all. You say it stacks with feats and all that stuff, blah blah blah. True. But there are so many sources of bonus damage and accuracy that a +1 from your race is not going to make that much difference.

This should really only be an issue if said eladrin ranger PC wants to be as optimized as humanly possible. If that were the case, they'd probably make a shifter or something, not an eladrin.

Vknight
2011-03-13, 12:34 AM
Yeah there are plenty of viable builds that are perfectly reasonble with a less effective stat.

Twin Bladed Eladrin Ranger.
16Str
16Dex are needed

Then to balance its chance to hit Eladrin Solider gives a +2 to damage or you could be askrimishing Ranger using Str & Dex.

The point is theres nothing truly to fix.

I have 2things that I sometimes allow depending on setting.

Swap the +2Cha on Gnomes with +2Con. Ironically Tiefling can now do that thanks to essentials
and Warforged can swap the +2 Str or Con for a +2Dex. Representing a swifter designed warforged.

Hal
2011-03-13, 07:48 AM
Yeah, a +1 to hit and damage really isn't that big.

Devil's advocate time:

In my group's campaign, which recently went on hiatus, I played a Dwarven Warlord who started with a 16 in Strength and Charisma. When we ended, we were at level 9, so by that time I was rocking a +1 weapon and now had 18 in both of those stats.

For "boss" encounters, my GM liked to throw lvl+4 monsters at us, usually solo brutes. As we were using the original MM, this was a big deal: In the final encounter before we closed the campaign, I was facing a monster for whom I needed to roll 17+ to hit.

Granted, my GM was overly stingy with magic items, and that lvl 13 solo brute may have been too powerful anyhow. Still, every bonus you can get to hit is important, especially because, as a Warlord, my attacks were worthless if they didn't land.

RebelRogue
2011-03-13, 08:16 AM
Devil's advocate time:

In my group's campaign, which recently went on hiatus, I played a Dwarven Warlord who started with a 16 in Strength and Charisma. When we ended, we were at level 9, so by that time I was rocking a +1 weapon and now had 18 in both of those stats.

For "boss" encounters, my GM liked to throw lvl+4 monsters at us, usually solo brutes. As we were using the original MM, this was a big deal: In the final encounter before we closed the campaign, I was facing a monster for whom I needed to roll 17+ to hit.

Granted, my GM was overly stingy with magic items, and that lvl 13 solo brute may have been too powerful anyhow. Still, every bonus you can get to hit is important, especially because, as a Warlord, my attacks were worthless if they didn't land.
But that's your DM being kind of a jerk - if the guidelines were followed, this would be less of a problem. (Or you know, he might have been a good DM, maybe he even informed you about this. But it has to do with the game being played in a non-traditional way more then anything else).

I think the lack of main stat support is somewhat balanced by the Feat/PP support for Eladrin and Eladrin Rangers is particular. That, and Fey Step is a nice Racial power for melee characters. Maybe not golden, but more than enough to make it playable (not to mention cool).

Kurald Galain
2011-03-13, 08:52 AM
It's sad to have this cool idea for a character to be shutdown by the restricted ability scores of the races.
But it's not. It never is. The worst picking an "off race" can do to you is reduce your to-hit rate by five percent. Five percent! In the average session that means you'll score one less hit than you would have done with your maxed-out 20-primary character with expertise.

That's not worth losing sleep over. Heck, it's not even noticeable in actual gameplay. An eladrin ranger or tiefling swordmage are both perfectly viable without any houseruling, and get a pretty good racial power to boot.

Vknight
2011-03-13, 02:19 PM
Tiefling swordmages are awesome they don't really fall under this because they get intelligence and can make charisma dump without penalties so they can boost there other important stats.
Constitution and Wisdom.

RTGoodman
2011-03-13, 03:27 PM
But it's not. It never is. The worst picking an "off race" can do to you is reduce your to-hit rate by five percent. Five percent! In the average session that means you'll score one less hit than you would have done with your maxed-out 20-primary character with expertise.

Not to mention a lot of people don't start with a 20 in their primary stat to begin with. Only two of my current five players did (the ranged Rogue and the Cha-Paladin), but the whole party gets about the same number of hits. (It doesn't help that they also have TWO Leaders - a Bard and a Runepriest - boosting their attacks most of the time anyway.)

For most characters, I like to start with 18 (16 + 2) in my primary stat, 16 (14 + 2) in secondary, then 14, 13, 10, 8. It's a moderately balanced array that works for most builds.

MeeposFire
2011-03-13, 05:02 PM
In most cases races can afford to put an 18 into their attack stat even if they do not get a bonus to that stat. For instance an elf makes a decent fighter as it can afford an 18 in its attack stat and its bonuses to dex and wisdom are very helpful. Combo that with their maneuverability and accuracy by racial power they make nice fighter despite having no str boost. I have even seen gnome fighters. Was it the best? No a dwarf would have been more powerful but it was powerful enough to fully contribute to the party as an effective character (guardian style with a rapier with invisibility and marks interesting character to say the least).

Vknight
2011-03-13, 05:19 PM
So he marks goes invisible so the target runs past him he activates the mark stopping the creatures and then gets attacked by it correct.

MeeposFire
2011-03-14, 12:33 AM
The invisibility works off of being damaged. The invisibility was tended to be used to offset a non marked targets so the fighter could get better positioning. For instance getting hit by back row enemies and then using the invisibility on his turn to stealthfully approach the target so that the enemies allies have a harder time stopping the fighter. Would often start a battle invisible from reactive stealth too which would also allow easy positioning or an unknown opportunity attack.

Sipex
2011-03-14, 09:39 AM
I find maxing out your primary stat makes for a boring character anyways. You become really good at a couple things which makes your character simply feel like a game piece instead of a character.

Bagelz
2011-03-14, 09:53 AM
I personally think that you remove some of the flavor of classes by allowing them any stat. It is supposed be rare to see a goliath rogue, or an eladrin runepriest. Not that there aren't any, just that its less likely.

Its unlikely to see a short person playing in the nba, or a very thin person to be a good swimmer.

If you are set on removing the mechanical differences from races, just remove all racial bonuses and add another 4 or 5 points to your players point buy (max 20 instead of 18).
~bagelz

Sine
2011-03-14, 11:50 AM
Your making out the fact that dwarves can get a str boost into too big a deal.
I never said that +2 anything will make or break anyone. What I do know is that most players care about racial stat boosts, and if a race doesn't at least grant a bonus to a character's prime stat, then that character idea is a lot less likely to ever see the light of play. Even if a player really likes a race/class concept, the lack of those +2s are a big mental barrier.

On the other hand, a race that lets you use second wind as a minor, has access to an OP damage feat and +2s in two melee stats is going to see a whole lot of play. Even if a player (or a DM) thinks "Ho hum, yet another dwarven bruiser," the combo is often just too cheesy to pass up.


So... You basically stripped away the point of playing any race except for flavor. GLHF, I guess. Me, I'll stick to playing the game like the rules dictate.
Have fun with that. My races have flavor and plenty of crunch to make them distinct -- racial powers, skill bonuses, non-OP racial feats, etc.


But that's your DM being kind of a jerk - if the guidelines were followed, this would be less of a problem. (Or you know, he might have been a good DM, maybe he even informed you about this. But it has to do with the game being played in a non-traditional way more then anything else).
Wait, how exactly was his DM not following the DMG guidelines with a level + 4 monster?


I personally think that you remove some of the flavor of classes by allowing them any stat. It is supposed be rare to see a goliath rogue, or an eladrin runepriest. Not that there aren't any, just that its less likely.
TSR editions use this same philosophy to justify race-based class restrictions and stat prereqs. (Dwarves must have 13 Con, only humans can be paladins, and you have to roll a 17 Cha to get in...) If you like that kind of rule, you're welcome to it but I don't take the game that seriously. PCs are by definition exceptions to traditional norms.

Kurald Galain
2011-03-14, 12:00 PM
I never said that +2 anything will make or break anyone. What I do know is that most players care about racial stat boosts,
Whoa, stop right there. Most players? Really? Have you spoken to every single D&D player in the world, and noted that more than half of them agree with you? Or are you perhaps exaggerating just a teeny bit?

You're assuming that "most" people agree with your opinion, but so far, most people in this thread don't agree with you.


the lack of those +2s are a big mental barrier.
That's an apt description: the barrier is purely in their mind, not in the actual gameplay. So the solution here is not to change the game rules to match your players's misconceptions, but to convince them that no, a +2 really isn't a big deal.


TSR editions use this same philosophy to justify race-based class restrictions and stat prereqs.
There's a huge difference between "dwarves cannot be rangers" and "dwarves are 5% less effective at rangering than elves".

Master_Rahl22
2011-03-14, 01:47 PM
I'm gonna pile on and say that changing the races is totally unnecessary. I'm currently playing an Elf Fighter with Polearm Momentum at level 5. I bought an 18 Str and used racial boosts and one level boost to get my 15 DEX and WIS for the feat. Using this race meant not only that I could qualify for a feat with secondary and tertiary scores earlier, but it also means that I have an awesome racial power and the ability to shift in any terrain. This is totally worth starting with 18 STR instead of 20 from a STR boosting race.

Shyftir
2011-03-14, 03:21 PM
I'm currently playing a Tiefling Barbarian. I basically get no help at all from my boosts except that I get more talent in certain skills than I'd have otherwise. I don't really care. Storyline and the racial ability are plenty of reason for my character to live. Yes, I felt that I was missing out a bit for not getting the +2, but it didn't stop me. (I did it because of a couple cool feats from the Tiefling race book.

Anyway I want certain races to naturally be better at certain things. It's kinda the idea of having races in the first place. It's a lot more viable than 3.5 race/class "bad" combos. For instance, I have an Half-Orc Warlord, which would have been non-viable with 3.5 half-orcs.

Gillric
2011-03-14, 03:58 PM
I have to say, in my real life gaming group most of the players could care less about the mechanical benefits of optimizing. They mostly build whatever they think would be cool or fun to play.

I personally looks for races that stat out well for what I want to play but I don't always take what would be the best race for a given class or even what class/race combo would be best for the synergy of the party.

Darth Stabber
2011-03-14, 04:14 PM
The Actual variance between levels of optimization in 4e is significantly smaller in 4e than 3.5. You have to actively try to make a bad character in 4e, 3.5 it can easily happen accidently if you are not up on build-fu. Also race mattered heavily, and Humans were kinda more awesome than any other race evar. In 4e each race has a few things it's great at, and just good at everything else (and humans who are really good, but not great at everything). With no racial penalties floating around, playing against racial type is almost painless. Remember racial bonuses are bonuses, and bonus means extra, as in not something to plan on, but nice to get.

RebelRogue
2011-03-14, 04:40 PM
Wait, how exactly was his DM not following the DMG guidelines with a level + 4 monster?
The level is ok, but combine it with a DM stingy with magic items, and you've got a situation that favors optimizing to hit way more than a 'standard' game.

Sine
2011-03-14, 05:00 PM
Whoa, stop right there. Most players? Really? Have you spoken to every single D&D player in the world, and noted that more than half of them agree with you? Or are you perhaps exaggerating just a teeny bit?
I'm sorry, I forgot that The Rules require me to back up common knowledge with international statistics. As it happens though, the owner of my FLGS is an amateur statistician and likes to poll us. Out of 112 gamers polled:

13 don't care about racial mods
54 won't use a race/class combo without at least prime/secondary stat synergy
28 won't use a race/class combo without prime stat synergy
And 17 will only use race/class combos with full synergy

Whether you want to trust a FLGS poll or a few forum-goers, who have the benefit of 'net anonymity, is up to you. All I'm telling you is that floating stats aren't a big deal. It doesn't spontaneously create a bunch of halfling warden PCs (or whatever it is people here are afraid of). I have seen more than the occasional tiefling infernalock though, and players are more willing to play characters they really want to play rather than what's 'optimal.'


That's an apt description: the barrier is purely in their mind, not in the actual gameplay. So the solution here is not to change the game rules to match your players's misconceptions, but to convince them that no, a +2 really isn't a big deal.
Ah, you're an idealist. Good luck with that.


I have to say, in my real life gaming group most of the players could care less about the mechanical benefits of optimizing. They mostly build whatever they think would be cool or fun to play.
Couldn't care less. Your players couldn't care less about optimizing.

Sorry, that's a pet peeve of mine.

Sine
2011-03-14, 05:02 PM
The level is ok, but combine it with a DM stingy with magic items, and you've got a situation that favors optimizing to hit way more than a 'standard' game.
Ah yes, I see. Good point.

Kurald Galain
2011-03-14, 07:59 PM
I'm sorry, I forgot that The Rules require me to back up common knowledge with international statistics.
Well, that's because what you claim isn't common knowledge (as shown in this thread). I could point out how 112 people is way too small a sample size, or that it has a location bias, but actually it's even funnier: your own statistics directly contradict the point you're trying to make.

As you say, out of 112 gamers, a clear supermajority of 67 will play any race/class combo that matches at least one primary or secondary stat. Okay, so how many combinations does that cover?

Well, in just the PHB1, there are 64 race/class combinations. By the above definition, a whopping 55 of those are playable right out of the book, and a grand total of 60 are playable with the 4.4 errata. In other words, nearly every class/race combo has a stat overlap. Based on that, where exactly is the problem you're trying to solve?

hoff
2011-03-14, 09:55 PM
I appreciate your guys input. I guess you guys are right about the mods, it's just that I do run with an "evil" DM and the players like it that way. Everyone tries to optimize and synergize the more they can when we run.

Yet I still think the stat bonus is relevant at low levels, to the point it can suck not to have the right bonus. On the other hand I have come to the conclusion that the "weapon racial feats" (dwarf/eladrin/elf/etc +2 to damage with some weapons) were specially made to reduce the lack of +2 STR and if we allow my house-rule they would be too strong. Indeed I was wrong about my comment about the lack of playtesting, these feats were probably made specifically for those builds with off-stat races.

The mental barrier that was discussed before do indeed exist and it's quite strong from my experience. Anyone that knows a little about the system would be affected by it to varying degrees.

With all that was said here I will still try to pit this to the GM. He does like creative builds and this will allow us to do it and still have an optimized build. I surely don't think that every group needs this house-rule and some maybe even better off without it.

Darth Stabber
2011-03-15, 03:00 PM
Which sounds more appealing
Half orc bard in 3.5
Half orc bard in 4e

Are people already that used to the superfriendlyness of 4e?
Did people forget that dwarves were completely incapable of arcane magic in AD&D?
original D&D - nonhuman races were also classes
2e - Nonhuman races couldn't be certain classes and could only take classes to a certain level.
3.5 - Any race can be any class ('cept Karsite). No garauntee of playability.
4e - Any race can be playable as any class (though certain races are slightly better at certain things than others)

Should a 3'4" gnome be as powerful a barbarian as an orc. Unless the gnome is significantly more skilled (ie Higher level), the orc has natural advantages that play to what a barbarian does, the gnome is a smart midgit. Put a pitbull vs a poodle and see what happens, even if they have both had the same training routine. Orcs are pitbulls, gnomes are poodles. Now put them in a competition involving preforming tricks, the poodles lighter frame greater agility, and keener intellect come into play and it will dance circles around the pitbull. If we assume that doing tricks = magic then we have a good analogy. Plus gnomes are yappy

Sine
2011-03-17, 10:05 AM
Well, that's because what you claim isn't common knowledge (as shown in this thread). I could point out how 112 people is way too small a sample size, or that it has a location bias, but actually it's even funnier: your own statistics directly contradict the point you're trying to make.
Sigh, no. All I said was that "most players care about racial stats." And my FLGS stats, and most gamers I talk to, support my claim. 99 out of 112 gamers want at least secondary stat synergy, and 45 of those want at least primary stat synergy. So clearly, most of my FLGS gamers do care about racial stats, to one degree or another.

You're putting words in my mouth so that you can argue against them. Who are you really arguing against, and why so much investment in proving the superiority of the RAW?

Yakk
2011-03-17, 12:04 PM
Prior to the essentials "give races a choice", my solution was "all races get 2 stats they get +2 in, and a third floating bonus". Humans got 2 floating bonuses.

Sine
2011-03-17, 12:51 PM
Yet I still think the stat bonus is relevant at low levels, to the point it can suck not to have the right bonus. On the other hand I have come to the conclusion that the "weapon racial feats" (dwarf/eladrin/elf/etc +2 to damage with some weapons) were specially made to reduce the lack of +2 STR and if we allow my house-rule they would be too strong. Indeed I was wrong about my comment about the lack of playtesting, these feats were probably made specifically for those builds with off-stat races.
That's exactly what happened. An optional feat for +2 damage was supposed to make up for an automatic +1 attack and damage. The weird thing is, and you might want to point this out to your DM, that even without your house rule certain races get their +2 Str and their cheesy racial feat. And in the case of dwarves, they get a sweet racial power that's perfect for melee PCs on top of that.


Prior to the essentials "give races a choice", my solution was "all races get 2 stats they get +2 in, and a third floating bonus". Humans got 2 floating bonuses.
Not a bad solution at all.

Howler Dagger
2011-03-19, 08:42 AM
if one thinks it through they will realise that the racial bonuses are essentially +2 to any 2 stats. How? Think of it this way:
Lets say you were an Eladrin TWF ranger. You need Strength and Dex. Lets say you were to use this standard array:
Str DexCon.Wis.Int.Cha.
16 14 12 13 10 11
Now, you goal is to get +2 str&dex. You get +2 dex already, so not a problem with that. Now you get +int, which allows you to have a total of 10, with 8 as your base. So we come out with a base array like this:
StrDexCon.Wis. Int.Cha.
18 16 10 12 8 11
then with the bonuses you get
Str DexCon.Wis.Int.Cha.
18 18 12 13 10 11
So, essentially, they allow you to have an extra dump stat without having a negative skill penalty for it.

Fox Box Socks
2011-03-20, 01:00 PM
I think this is less a case of "I don't like the way race is handled in 4e" and more a case of "My Eladrin Ranger's Strength is 2 less than it would be if he were a Shifter Ranger, and that isn't fair".

Which seems rather silly.

Doug Lampert
2011-03-20, 02:59 PM
original D&D - nonhuman races were also classes

No! This is flatly and totally wrong. Original game <> Basic D&D.

The original game had Magic Users, Fighters, and Clerics, and any player race could be any of those classes. Greyhawk added Thieves and Paladings, Blackmore added Monks and Assassins.

DougL

Belobog
2011-03-22, 11:53 AM
I think this is less a case of "I don't like the way race is handled in 4e" and more a case of "My Eladrin Ranger's Strength is 2 less than it would be if he were a Shifter Ranger, and that isn't fair".

Which seems rather silly.

Except those two are the same thing? Racial ability score bonuses are the worst part about race selection in 4e, since ability scores define so much about a character's capabilities. Detaching ability score from race is not a bad idea, because it allows for more diversity in character creation ideas. The OP's method is just a step further along from what WotC has already implemented with their racial stat errata anyway, so there's precedent for this sort of thing in the rule set. What does he have to lose by trying it out?

Lord Ascapelion
2011-03-22, 01:27 PM
Something else to consider is that even if you don't get a bonus to an attack or secondary stat, the other stat bonus can still be useful in qualifying for a certain feat.

WickerNipple
2011-03-24, 11:25 AM
There is nothing wrong with playing a dual wielding Eladrin ranger under the current rules.

It won't be fully optimized, but considering the number of classes Eladrin can be fully optimized in and the number of races that can be fully optimized as Rangers it's truly a non-issue unless you think for some strange reason that everyone should be potentially superb at anything they want to be.

Stats of course aren't everything, and aren't at all the end-all of char op.

Eladrin can easily be fully optimized Warlords without +Str because of the fantastic feat support that exists to bridge the gap. No such impressive feat support exists for Eladrin Ranger which gives you an even further indication that that race/class combination will never be optimized - even if you somehow magic rainbow them up to +Str.

evirus
2011-03-24, 12:35 PM
I have found that if you run monster of the week games, players will want more synergy and become foccused on their stats. In such a case, you can house rule to your heart's content because the "flavor" or races is normally not high on the list of priorities anyway.

If you want to run a campaign, I find that players tend to want to make memorable characters and focus more on strange and less seen combinations (The Warforged Druid taking top honours). Combat is still seen as important, but players are willing to leverage their "oddball" characters strengths in unexpected ways and are willing to trade off +1 hit/dam to play something they will invest in.

Kurald Galain
2011-03-24, 12:53 PM
Combat is still seen as important, but players are willing to leverage their "oddball" characters strengths in unexpected ways and are willing to trade off +1 hit/dam to play something they will invest in.
The point is that "elven accuracy" or "fey step" or "dwarven durability" aren't oddball character strengths, but perfectly obvious and usable character strengths. That means that even from an optimization viewpoint, it is a perfectly viable option to trade +1 to hit for the ability to teleport. Indeed, most optimizers are quite well aware that you don't need "matching" stats in order to end up with a powerful character, for the exact same reason that you don't need to take Expertise and Superior Weapon/Implement as your first two feats.

evirus
2011-03-24, 01:33 PM
Indeed, most optimizers are quite well aware that you don't need "matching" stats in order to end up with a powerful character, for the exact same reason that you don't need to take Expertise and Superior Weapon/Implement as your first two feats.

I agree completely. Also most if not all racial powers are "worth" more than +1 hit. But I think the point he is trying to make is "why not have those racial options AND +1 hit". Balance wise, I dont think changing what ability score gains the bonus will break the game. That being said, I prefer sticking to the core rules because I do feel it adds flavor and makes for memorable characters.

If as a GM hoff, you are concerned that your players will only take races for their attack bonus values, why not just give them a flat to hit? Say +4 to hit instead of abil modifier and +2 for their off stat when the power calls for one? That is basically what you want to do anyway by changing what ability gets the bonus anyway no?

This will remove the importance of stacking your abilities and they will likey spread out their points to qualify for feats or bonuses to skills all while taking exciting races.

Belobog
2011-03-24, 08:02 PM
The point is that "elven accuracy" or "fey step" or "dwarven durability" aren't oddball character strengths, but perfectly obvious and usable character strengths. That means that even from an optimization viewpoint, it is a perfectly viable option to trade +1 to hit for the ability to teleport. Indeed, most optimizers are quite well aware that you don't need "matching" stats in order to end up with a powerful character, for the exact same reason that you don't need to take Expertise and Superior Weapon/Implement as your first two feats.

This is how it should operate, but it will only really be this way once races lose racial modifiers. Teleportation and an attack reroll are very nice and worth using and building a character around, but you can receive these options from other sources, such as class or items. The attack bonus from statistics is something you can't make up; someone with an 18 in their primary attribute is always going to be behind a guy with a 20. In fact, the only race option I can think of that's worth taking and can't be replicated is the minor action healing surge from being a dwarf.


If as a GM hoff, you are concerned that your players will only take races for their attack bonus values, why not just give them a flat to hit? Say +4 to hit instead of abil modifier and +2 for their off stat when the power calls for one? That is basically what you want to do anyway by changing what ability gets the bonus anyway no?

I'd bump that up to +5 to hit/+3 to secondary, but this is another good idea for those who don't want to worry about min/maxing stats for combat effectiveness.

Kylarra
2011-03-24, 08:09 PM
The attack bonus from statistics is something you can't make up; someone with an 18 in their primary attribute is always going to be behind a guy with a 20. This is only really true if you're assuming that both are optimizing for +to hit. Otherwise the 20 stat person could easily opt for a +2 weapon/non-accurate superior implement with a special trait that they like whereas the 18 stat person grabs the +3/accurate superior implement and then they'd be equivalent as far as to-hits go. I am assuming that both will be picking up the appropriate expertise feat eventually, but at heroic level that's another one.

Belobog
2011-03-24, 08:40 PM
This is only really true if you're assuming that both are optimizing for +to hit. Otherwise the 20 stat person could easily opt for a +2 weapon/non-accurate superior implement with a special trait that they like whereas the 18 stat person grabs the +3/accurate superior implement and then they'd be equivalent as far as to-hits go. I am assuming that both will be picking up the appropriate expertise feat eventually, but at heroic level that's another one.

You could also assume the reverse, in that the player with the 18 doesn't care about optimizing, and the player with the 20 does. The 18 player could just as easily go for the cool +2 scimitar instead of the +3 longsword, or skip the Weapon Expertise feat tax for something he's more interested, like Linguist; If the 20 player takes the bonus to hit weapons and feats of his own volition, he outpaces the 18 player that much more. Even if you assume the best case, which is the same class/feats/equipment, the 18 player is behind the 20 player and cannot catch up, no matter what he does.

Kylarra
2011-03-24, 08:59 PM
You could also assume the reverse, in that the player with the 18 doesn't care about optimizing, and the player with the 20 does. The 18 player could just as easily go for the cool +2 scimitar instead of the +3 longsword, or skip the Weapon Expertise feat tax for something he's more interested, like Linguist; If the 20 player takes the bonus to hit weapons and feats of his own volition, he outpaces the 18 player that much more. Even if you assume the best case, which is the same class/feats/equipment, the 18 player is behind the 20 player and cannot catch up, no matter what he does.You only call that the best case because it supports your hypothesis. :smalltongue: A true "best case" for the 18 statter is the one where the 20 stat guy doesn't bother for any of the +hits and the 18 stat guy ends up with his expertise and +3 weapon/accurate implement feat to end up a net +1 ahead on to hits (in heroic anyway).

Anyhow, you're missing my point. Your assertion was that the 18 stat person will always be behind the 20 stat person. If you want to include qualifiers you're welcome to, but the original statement is proved false by the existence of a single instance where it does not hold. The fact that there are instances where it does hold true is irrelevant, as I made no claims to that end and would be silly to do so.

Belobog
2011-03-24, 10:59 PM
You only call that the best case because it supports your hypothesis. :smalltongue: A true "best case" for the 18 statter is the one where the 20 stat guy doesn't bother for any of the +hits and the 18 stat guy ends up with his expertise and +3 weapon/accurate implement feat to end up a net +1 ahead on to hits (in heroic anyway).

Anyhow, you're missing my point. Your assertion was that the 18 stat person will always be behind the 20 stat person. If you want to include qualifiers you're welcome to, but the original statement is proved false by the existence of a single instance where it does not hold. The fact that there are instances where it does hold true is irrelevant, as I made no claims to that end and would be silly to do so.

I will be clearer, then. When I say base case, I mean the case with the least amount of disparity between both parties, where the only difference is race selection: one choose a race with a +2 bonus to his primary stat, the other chooses a race without a +2 bonus to his primary stat. Assuming both are even in all other aspects, the player who chooses the non-bonus race cannot become even with the player who chose the race with the bonus.

Consider your example, where the 20 player does not pursue hit bonuses, but the 18 player does. Assume that, at some point in the future, the 20 player feels he is not as effective as he wants to be. He takes the proper Expertise feat with his next feat, gets a more accurate weapon, and so on. He takes all the bonuses he can, and surpasses the 18 player, who now feels he is under performing. The 18 player then seeks to increases his attack bonus, but finds that the only way to do so would be changing his race, a much bigger deal than picking a new feat or a new weapon. It is entirely possible that he would not be allowed to do so, or would not be willing to do so, since it is a large part of character identity. He could reskin the race and keep the flavor, but he likes the other properties, just not the modifiers.

Ability scores have more problems than just racial ability modifiers, but separating race from ability scores is a good way to handle one of the biggest ones.

Kylarra
2011-03-24, 11:11 PM
Well if you simplify it to "we are exactly the same except one of us went for the 20 and the other sacrificed those 2 points for absolutely nothing valuable because I consider all of those other things to be worthless or easily obtainable" then yes, the 18 guy is SOL. I, on the other hand, would assume that, generally speaking with equal optimization levels, the person choosing the non prime race is gaining something, and a loss of a single +1 to hit is not the end of the world in any situation.

mobdrazhar
2011-03-24, 11:17 PM
I have found that if you run monster of the week games, players will want more synergy and become foccused on their stats. In such a case, you can house rule to your heart's content because the "flavor" or races is normally not high on the list of priorities anyway.

If you want to run a campaign, I find that players tend to want to make memorable characters and focus more on strange and less seen combinations (The Warforged Druid taking top honours). Combat is still seen as important, but players are willing to leverage their "oddball" characters strengths in unexpected ways and are willing to trade off +1 hit/dam to play something they will invest in.

This what we have in the game i GM... the Warforged Druid that beast forms into a Wombat. Along with the Warforged Monk|Barbarian that is built to pick up a chair and throw it at people

Kurald Galain
2011-03-25, 04:58 AM
This is how it should operate, but it will only really be this way once races lose racial modifiers.
You're looking at this the wrong way. Optimization isn't simply the statement that "bonuses are good". Optimization is asking yourself, what are you paying for that bonus. It's all about trade-offs.

For example, you could claim that a greatsword is a better weapon than a halberd, because it has a +3 bonus and the halberd only gets +2. But you would be wrong: the halberd has reach and the greatsword does not. So you have to make a choice between reach or a +1 bonus.

With races it's exactly the same. Sure, the dragonborn may have +1 to hit over the elf, but the elf has speed 7 and can shift in difficult terrain. It is not automatically true that the former is better for any character.


The attack bonus from statistics is something you can't make up; someone with an 18 in their primary attribute is always going to be behind a guy with a 20.
Suppose a human fighter makes 8 attacks in a combat with a 70% to-hit rate. Now suppose an eladrin fighter has only a 65% to-hit rate, but can make nine attacks - then the eladrin ends up being better. It is easy to see how the eladrin's fey step could give him an extra attack, for example if he ends up immobilized, or behind a patch of nasty terrain.

A good racial power does more for your character's effectiveness than a +1 to-hit. And that's why there's nothing wrong with races as they are now.

evirus
2011-03-25, 11:12 AM
A good racial power does more for your character's effectiveness than a +1 to-hit. And that's why there's nothing wrong with races as they are now.


I don't think anyone is arguing that there is anything wrong with races as they are. I for one like the balance of each and wouldn't make any changes to them but. I think Hoff is looking for help with his existing house rule.



That leaves me the humans, I was thinking to change their racial to +3 to one ability score but limit your maximum at level 1 to 20 (so no 21 int wizard at level 1).


Hoff, as for your question I think that the point buy system may be too drastic. If you are already going to give the other races the ability to chose their bonuses and are looking to give the humans some kind of an additional edge, instead of +3 to an ability try +2 and an additional +1 elsewhere. This will keep you from having your 21 problem.

Belobog
2011-03-25, 09:19 PM
You're looking at this the wrong way. Optimization isn't simply the statement that "bonuses are good". Optimization is asking yourself, what are you paying for that bonus. It's all about trade-offs.

Yes, and my argument is that in most cases, the +1 bonus to hit received from racial modifiers trumps any other benefit a race could give you. Racial ability modifiers are something you can only get from your race, which is more than can be said for a teleportation power, or 7 speed; and while you could build a character all around teleportation or being fast, every class benefits from being 5% more effective at 90% of what they'll be doing, which is attack powers. In my experience, racial modifiers overshadow all other considerations, which is why detaching them from race is a good idea, and is why the OP shouldn't be shy about doing it: instead of making a monk and picking from 'the DEX races', you get more people who make a monk and pick a race based on powers or passive abilities or even a theme you want to explore. It is a definitive Good Idea.


That leaves me the humans, I was thinking to change their racial to +3 to one ability score but limit your maximum at level 1 to 20 (so no 21 int wizard at level 1).

Thanks for quoting this, evirus, I totally missed this. I wouldn't increase the human bonus beyond +2, even if you're not allowing higher limits; mixing even and odd ability bonuses between races is klunky, and if you're worried humans might fall behind, I'd just give them another +2 like everyone else. Human racials are much stronger than most other races, though, so you might not want to bother.