[DMG Excerpt] How to create new races...*faints*

[T.G. Oskar]

So yeah: another of the official excerpts (http://media.wizards.com/2014/downloads/dnd/DMG_286.pdf) has appeared, and this one deals with the new races.

For those who miss the Eladrin, they now appear as an Elf subrace (much like the Drow). They retain their Fey Step, but are otherwise not so different to the High Elf.

So, why did I faint? Well, my faith in WotC has rekindled a bit more: we've got the Aasimar, in their 3e (and earlier) glory. Feel kinda cheated that they didn't choose to adapt more of the Deva, but I don't carenothing that refluffing can't handle. And, of course, no one has to be a Psion to figure it out; they are the good counterparts of Tieflings. They get better resistances, but their spells are not as awesome as the ones from the Tiefling in exchange.

So...your thoughts?

[Cybren]

My thoughts is you should provide a link

[Yorrin]

I already find the Aasimar more attractive as a race: Radiant and/or Necrotic resistance are much harder to obtain than Fire resistance, and unlike Tielfing, where better Int races exist for pretty much every purpose, the bonus to Wis has the potential to make them a competitive choice for certain builds. A lot depends on their actual spells, of course, but I'm sure utility spells are more useful than the junk the Tielfing gets.

EDIT: Link (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/excerpt-creating-new-race)

[Jeraa]

My thoughts is you should provide a link

Here you go. (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/excerpt-creating-new-race)

[mr_odd]

I cannot wait for this!!! Not just for guidelines on how to create new races, but for the whole thing. The PHB and MM have shown a fantastic design philosophy and work, and my expectations for the DMG are high.

[Socko525]

A lot depends on their actual spells, of course, but I'm sure utility spells are more useful than the junk the Tielfing gets.

EDIT: Link (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/excerpt-creating-new-race)

They really couldn't give us those next few lines huh? Man what a tease

[T.G. Oskar]

I already find the Aasimar more attractive as a race: Radiant and/or Necrotic resistance are much harder to obtain than Fire resistance, and unlike Tielfing, where better Int races exist for pretty much every purpose, the bonus to Wis has the potential to make them a competitive choice for certain builds. A lot depends on their actual spells, of course, but I'm sure utility spells are more useful than the junk the Tielfing gets.

Judging by the Tiefling template? Light as a Cantrip, Purify Food & Drink and perhaps Continual Flame as 1/long rest innate spells. Though it could easily be Thaumaturgy, Comprehend Languages and Continual Flame, or Light, Continual Flame and Daylight or...you get the idea.

Light is a given because they need a cantrip, and they originally had Daylight. Likewise, they could get the actual Daylight spell as a 3rd level 1/long rest spell to reclaim their "heritage" (also, because it's more powerful than the Tiefling's Darkness innate spell). Thaumaturgy because of its flexibility. Purify Food and Drink could be used to give them a constant sort of miracle, whereas Comprehend Languages would let them tap into their forefather's Truespeech ability. And, just to keep with the idea of radiance = celestial, Continual Flame isn't an attack spell of any kind. Of course, they won't get all of those spells, but only three of them.

[Easy_Lee]

Eladrin looks crazy good with free misty steps once per short rest. What with it being a bonus action, verbal only, and teleportation not provoking OA's, it's already one of the most popular 2nd level spells. I imagine Eladrin will be a popular race.

[Spinward Bound]

I've always loved "divine" bards, seeing that aasimar makes me happy.

[Rfkannen]

Awesome, anyone know when partered stores will be getting these? I want to see these guidlines so bad!

[Person_Man]

This tells me that they're likely to start churning out lots and lots of races and/or subraces, as they did in 3.X. I personally dislike having tons of different races and subraces with lots of small fiddly bonuses. It becomes annoying and difficult to track all of the different options, the options themselves mostly provide minor bonuses, and many players feel as if they have to choose the most optimal race for their specific build (especially in regards to ability score bonuses).

[JoeJ]

This tells me that they're likely to start churning out lots and lots of races and/or subraces, as they did in 3.X. I personally dislike having tons of different races and subraces with lots of small fiddly bonuses. It becomes annoying and difficult to track all of the different options, the options themselves mostly provide minor bonuses, and many players feel as if they have to choose the most optimal race for their specific build (especially in regards to ability score bonuses).

As long as the new races are tied to specific campaigns it shouldn't be a problem. If you're not playing in that particular campaign, the default assumption is that those alternate races won't fit. If you can convince your DM to let you try something new, that's great, but it's not something you should generally expect. Having a generic Book of New Races would be a much bigger issue, I think.

[Selkirk]

this looks killer. when they released the magic item list i wasn't impressed. with evil classes they got my ear...now with this...damn this thing looks like it's gonna be awesome.

[Totema]

Wait, so are Aasimar a core race now or not?

[Rfkannen]

Wait, so are Aasimar a core race now or not?

sort of? Not realy? I mean... kind of?

I would say that most dm's would allow it, but I don't think it would count as a main race. I mean it is very clearly not supposed to be one of the core races or it would be in the phb. And I doubt that most dms would be okay with you just assuming they would be allowed, and I doubt official ovents will allow them. But they are offical enough.

[Strill]

I don't like their approach to ability scores. For example, +1 WIS +2 CHA is suppsed to make Aasimar good clerics and Paladins, but that automatically favors Paladins over Clerics for no good reason. Even then, the +1 WIS is useless for Paladins, so that still makes them a sub-par choice as Paladins. You end up with a race that's just bad overall because it's trying to be too many things at once.

If they want a race to favor two classes with completely different stat priorities, they should be more flexible with the stats. For Aasimar, this is what I would offer them for stats.

+2 to your choice of WIS or CHA.
+1 to an attribute other than the one you chose.


This tells me that they're likely to start churning out lots and lots of races and/or subraces, as they did in 3.X. I personally dislike having tons of different races and subraces with lots of small fiddly bonuses. It becomes annoying and difficult to track all of the different options, the options themselves mostly provide minor bonuses, and many players feel as if they have to choose the most optimal race for their specific build (especially in regards to ability score bonuses).When I DM, I'm flexible with the racial bonuses. If someone wants to play a Dragonborn Sorcerer, but is miffed at the fact that STR is useless for them, and their racial armor bonus is redundant with their sorcerer bloodline armor bonus, I'm perfectly willing to let them have +2 CHA, +1 CON as their stats, and let them swap the racial armor bonus for some other perk.

I think stats should bend to fit story. If something seems like a cool narrative idea, but the stats don't pan out, I think the stats should change.

[JoeJ]

I don't like their approach to ability scores. For example, +1 WIS +2 CHA is suppsed to make Aasimar good clerics and Paladins, but that automatically favors Paladins over Clerics for no good reason. Even then, the +1 WIS is useless for Paladins, so that still makes them a sub-par choice as Paladins. You end up with a race that's just bad overall because it's trying to be too many things at once.

If they want a race to favor two classes with completely different stat priorities, they should be more flexible with the stats. For Aasimar, this is what I would offer them for stats.

+2 to your choice of WIS or CHA.
+1 to an attribute other than the one you chose.

When I DM, I'm flexible with the racial bonuses. If someone wants to play a Dragonborn Sorcerer, but is miffed at the fact that STR is useless for them, and their racial armor bonus is redundant with their sorcerer bloodline armor bonus, I'm perfectly willing to let them have +2 CHA, +1 CON as their stats, and let them swap the racial armor bonus for some other perk.

I think stats should bend to fit story. If something seems like a cool narrative idea, but the stats don't pan out, I think the stats should change.

Would you let a human trade their extra feat and skill for darkvision and an acid breath weapon?

[Strill]

Would you let a human trade their extra feat and skill for darkvision and an acid breath weapon?

If they could come up with a compelling enough story explaining it, yes. They'd end up with a really weak set of racial bonuses anyway, so I don't see why that would even be a concern.

[Demonic Spoon]

This tells me that they're likely to start churning out lots and lots of races and/or subraces, as they did in 3.X. I personally dislike having tons of different races and subraces with lots of small fiddly bonuses. It becomes annoying and difficult to track all of the different options, the options themselves mostly provide minor bonuses, and many players feel as if they have to choose the most optimal race for their specific build (especially in regards to ability score bonuses).


On the contrary, the fact that they are presenting these new races as examples for how you can create your own races suggests that, beyond specific campaign settings, they're going to leave creating new races to the individual DMs to use as needed for their campaigns.

[Safety Sword]

On the contrary, the fact that they are presenting these new races as examples for how you can create your own races suggests that, beyond specific campaign settings, they're going to leave creating new races to the individual DMs to use as needed for their campaigns.

I think that's the intention. "It's up to the DM" seems to be a 5th Edition staple. I like it.

However I agree that setting materials that are released will have this content as standard. Honestly I think that's how it should be!

[OldTrees1]

I really like the emphasis on "It is up to the DM"/"DM we encourage you to make stuff". However, while this is good design for most races, this kinda leaves PCs of Powerful races* as a de facto very different species than Monsters of that same race.

*Any race where the statblock in the Monster Manuel would be OP in a 1st-3rd level party.


I have heard the idea of the using the feat slots to continue to advance the powerful race.

[T.G. Oskar]

On the contrary, the fact that they are presenting these new races as examples for how you can create your own races suggests that, beyond specific campaign settings, they're going to leave creating new races to the individual DMs to use as needed for their campaigns.

I'll err on the side of caution this time.

The Dungeon Master's Guide in 3rd Edition had similar design rules, though the one for classes is the one that comes to my mind the most (the one that alters the Ranger to let you become an Undead Slayer, and the one that alters the spell list of a Sorcerer to make it a "Witch"). There were similar rules for races (in case you wanted to make Half-Human Elves rather than Half-Elves), but they didn't went for better known races like the Eladrin (now a subrace) and the Aasimar (and if given space, the Kender and the Warforged).

The Genasi are conspicuously missing, being the third "official" race of the Forgotten Realms, which is used as a "default" setting (the current Adventure Paths are on Faerun, after all), and most likely it'll appear in the upcoming Elemental Evil Adventurer's Handbook. So, new races and classes will come; this isn't a declaration of less races, but a declaration of races that didn't made the cut for the PHB but made the cut for the DMG to work as examples.

In any case, there will be less races because there will be less splats, judging by the "1 splat/3-6 months" part, suggested in the Reddit AMA with Mearls (1 splat and 1 Adventure Path).

[Rezby]

Being able to choose which stats got which racial increases was a staple of 4th edition, once they figured out they should do it.

For some reason, (simicity and streamlining?) they replaced that with subraces, which not only have the choice of secondary stay increase, but have additional components.

I just wish every official race had 2-3 subraces right from the getgo.

And I'd claim that aasimar would probably be just fine as wis dependent classes. All you really need is a +1 to that stat and you can play that class just fine, with careful use of point buy. Not every cleric needs to dump charisma hard. :p

[Forum Explorer]

Wait, so are Aasimar a core race now or not?

No, because it's an example on how to make a race. So it's essentially optional if the DM wants to use that example or not.

[Tenmujiin]

No, because it's an example on how to make a race. So it's essentially optional if the DM wants to use that example or not.

While this is true, your much more likely to convince a DM to let you play Aasimar (and Eladrin) now that there is a version from WotC

[Easy_Lee]

While this is true, your much more likely to convince a DM to let you play Aasimar (and Eladrin) now that there is a version from WotC

That's the crux of the matter, isn't it? Players are just as capable (often moreso) of balancing their homebrews as WoTC. But anything that gets published, even as an afterthought, is more legitimate than the most balanced homebrew.

At least this version we know there is direct support for homebrews. That will hopefully make most DMs more open to the idea, leading to more and higher quality homebrews.

[Sartharina]

This tells me that they're likely to start churning out lots and lots of races and/or subraces, as they did in 3.X. I personally dislike having tons of different races and subraces with lots of small fiddly bonuses. It becomes annoying and difficult to track all of the different options, the options themselves mostly provide minor bonuses, and many players feel as if they have to choose the most optimal race for their specific build (especially in regards to ability score bonuses).

I don't see that. I see them as trying to empower the DM to make new races, so the players can be the ones churning out new races. Then again, they tried that with spells, prestige classes, base classes, and feats in 3.0, and we all saw where that ended.

[Inevitability]

Eladrin? Aasimar? Guidelines on creating new races?

Yes. So much yes.

[Jon D]

Wait, so are Aasimar a core race now or not?

I certainly think they should have been. Bundle them together with Teiflings under the Planetouched racial group or something.

[MustacheFart]

Need more Bullywug

[CyberThread]

I certainly think they should have been. Bundle them together with Teiflings under the Planetouched racial group or something.


Nah, If you want to play an assimar go play 3.5 or something. 5e has clearly enough content already, and I think they should just make adventures. No need to complicate the edition, with thinks like a DM Guide or any sort of wierd little setting books. They made their money, now go back to thinking up 6th edition, while I play 5th edition.

[Easy_Lee]

Nah, If you want to play an assimar go play 3.5 or something.

Or we could just use the race like a normal person. More content doesn't "hurt" anyone. Take heart in the fact that they're pushing homebrew so hard this edition, since it may imply more of a focus on campaigns

[Tehnar]

So yeah: another of the official excerpts (http://media.wizards.com/2014/downloads/dnd/DMG_286.pdf) has appeared, and this one deals with the new races.

For those who miss the Eladrin, they now appear as an Elf subrace (much like the Drow). They retain their Fey Step, but are otherwise not so different to the High Elf.

So, why did I faint? Well, my faith in WotC has rekindled a bit more: we've got the Aasimar, in their 3e (and earlier) glory. Feel kinda cheated that they didn't choose to adapt more of the Deva, but I don't carenothing that refluffing can't handle. And, of course, no one has to be a Psion to figure it out; they are the good counterparts of Tieflings. They get better resistances, but their spells are not as awesome as the ones from the Tiefling in exchange.

So...your thoughts?

I don't see any difference between this excerpt and "make something up that you think is roughly the same as published races/subraces". Other then that I don't see any guidelines. To even create something simple as a Orc PC, let alone something "exotic" as a Ogre or a Thri-Kreen.

[Easy_Lee]

I don't see any guidelines to create something simple as a Orc PC, let alone something "exotic" as a Ogre or a Thri-Kreen.

What kind of guidelines would you like? "Keep new races at the same power level as those already published" is all I personally wanted to hear. In fact, I wish the 3.5e writers had followed that philosophy.

If you want more guidelines, perhaps that's something peopke can contribute to in the homebrew section.

[OldTrees1]

Or we could just use the race like a normal person. More content doesn't "hurt" anyone. Take heart in the fact that they're pushing homebrew so hard this edition, since it may imply more of a focus on campaigns

Either your sarcasm detector or my sarcasm detector is on the fritz. (For reference I am detecting sarcasm from CyberThread but not detecting any from you)


I don't see any difference between this excerpt and "make something up that you think is roughly the same as published races/subraces". Other then that I don't see any guidelines. To even create something simple as a Orc PC, let alone something "exotic" as a Ogre or a Thri-Kreen.

Huh, Orc is a surprisingly good point. I immediately went to Half Orc to see how to make it more Orcish, but I couldn't find anything to change(all the abilities are Orcish and +2Str/+1Con is as Orcish as the racial stats get).

[Easy_Lee]

Either your sarcasm detector or my sarcasm detector is on the fritz. (For reference I am detecting sarcasm from CyberThread but not detecting any from you)

Might be mine. I can't hear sarcasm through text unless there's an indicator of some kind (smileys are popular). Poe's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law) and all that.

[OldTrees1]

Might be mine. I can't hear sarcasm through text unless there's an indicator of some kind (smileys are popular). Poe's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law) and all that.

I used this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?382123-PRC-or-Kit-made-into-sub-classes-request) as an indicator.

[mephnick]

Huh, Orc is a surprisingly good point. I immediately went to Half Orc to see how to make it more Orcish, but I couldn't find anything to change(all the abilities are Orcish and +2Str/+1Con is as Orcish as the racial stats get).

Eh, I just fluff them into full orcs and remove half-orcs, which are stupid.

I'm not sure orc rape is so prevalent in any setting that half-orc needs to be a base race.

[Hytheter]

I'm not sure orc rape is so prevalent in any setting that half-orc needs to be a base race.
Implying that all Half-Orcs come from rape
Implying that a singnificant portion of humanity wouldn't bang anything with a pulse no matter how green and toothy

[Sindeloke]

What kind of guidelines would you like? "Keep new races at the same power level as those already published" is all I personally wanted to hear. In fact, I wish the 3.5e writers had followed that philosophy.

If you want more guidelines, perhaps that's something peopke can contribute to in the homebrew section.

In 3.5 we had YabatheWhat doing Feature Points, and Pathfinder has the gloriously useless and unbalanced race builder guide. Putting together a basic point range for a balanced race and giving solid examples of what different types of features should cost is a really simple, obvious, helpful process and should not have been hard for them to give us.

[mephnick]

Implying that all Half-Orcs come from rape
Implying that a singnificant portion of humanity wouldn't bang anything with a pulse no matter how green and toothy

I suppose I am severely under-representing how varied fetishes get.

[Madfellow]

Eh, I just fluff them into full orcs and remove half-orcs, which are stupid.

I'm not sure orc rape is so prevalent in any setting that half-orc needs to be a base race.

According to the PHB, the most common sources of half-orcs are (1) mingling of human and orcish tribes, and (2) treaties solidified through marriage.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Perhaps an Orc PC would benefit from the MM Orc trait where they can dash at enemies. And perhaps something like heal-on-kill.

[mephnick]

According to the PHB, the most common sources of half-orcs are (1) mingling of human and orcish tribes, and (2) treaties solidified through marriage.

Wait..when did they make orcs not crazy evil?

Neither of those things would ever happen in a million years the way I play orcs.

[OldTrees1]

Perhaps an Orc PC would benefit from the MM Orc trait where they can dash at enemies. And perhaps something like heal-on-kill.

Yeah, I think the best bet is to have the +2Str/+1Con apply to both Half Orcs and Orcs and differentiate them by varying the abilities. ^That dash looks like a good choice (maybe replace the extra skill proficiency?).

[Sartharina]

I'm not sure orc rape is so prevalent in any setting that half-orc needs to be a base race.Well, according to the monster manual, it's one of their divine imperatives.
Implying that all Half-Orcs come from rapeNot all... but have you read the lore of how the Orc Goddess of Fertility expects her progeny to reproduce?

Luthic is NOT a pleasant goddess.

I'd say the only difference mechanically between half-orcs and full orcs is the strength of the voice of Gruumsh in their heads.

[Tehnar]

What kind of guidelines would you like? "Keep new races at the same power level as those already published" is all I personally wanted to hear. In fact, I wish the 3.5e writers had followed that philosophy.

If you want more guidelines, perhaps that's something peopke can contribute to in the homebrew section.

Personally I would like a point buy system for races that allows me to build races from scratch. Something like +2 to a ability score is worth X points, skill proficiency is worth Y points, etc. With ways to play the more "exotic" races like Ogres, Pixies or Thri-Kreen.

What we have though is a entire page of text that amounts to "Meh, just eyeball it." If I wanted to make a Orc PC race (note that is the simplest kind of PC race to make, since Orcs are intelligent humanoids of medium size) that entire page contained no useful information. None. In other words if you made a Orc PC race before reading that page, you would not change anything after reading it.

[OldTrees1]

Personally I would like a point buy system for races that allows me to build races from scratch. Something like +2 to a ability score is worth X points, skill proficiency is worth Y points, etc. With ways to play the more "exotic" races like Ogres, Pixies or Thri-Kreen.

What we have though is a entire page of text that amounts to "Meh, just eyeball it." If I wanted to make a Orc PC race (note that is the simplest kind of PC race to make, since Orcs are intelligent humanoids of medium size) that entire page contained no useful information. None. In other words if you made a Orc PC race before reading that page, you would not change anything after reading it.

Well, it did give the 1st rule of homebrewing "Compare it to something else/use a model" so I would not call it void of useful information. I think that plus a discussion about the assumptions the game designers made would be more than sufficient for 5E(keeping the "DMs should trust themselves more than us" RAW).

[Forum Explorer]

What we have though is a entire page of text that amounts to "Meh, just eyeball it." If I wanted to make a Orc PC race (note that is the simplest kind of PC race to make, since Orcs are intelligent humanoids of medium size) that entire page contained no useful information. None. In other words if you made a Orc PC race before reading that page, you would not change anything after reading it.

We have an excerpt of how to make a race. Maybe there is a section immediately after labeled 'Making Exotic Races'.

Of course it didn't give much useful information, it's an advertisement. Presumably the book has more on the subject.

[rollingForInit]

Feel really hyped to play an Aasimar. There's one thing about the description that doesn't go with the selected stats, though. They say that Aasimars should be great as Paladins or Clerics, but Strength is conspicuously missing as an ability score bonus. While strength is only important to some Cleric builds, it's an essential stat for almost every Paladin. Since you cannot buy yourself to 16, I'd change the ability score bonus to something like: +1 Str, and choose +2 Wis or +2 Cha ... or: +2 Cha, and choose +1 Wis or +1 Str.

I really like that they're giving us great examples on how to build new races.


Personally I would like a point buy system for races that allows me to build races from scratch. Something like +2 to a ability score is worth X points, skill proficiency is worth Y points, etc. With ways to play the more "exotic" races like Ogres, Pixies or Thri-Kreen.

What we have though is a entire page of text that amounts to "Meh, just eyeball it." If I wanted to make a Orc PC race (note that is the simplest kind of PC race to make, since Orcs are intelligent humanoids of medium size) that entire page contained no useful information. None. In other words if you made a Orc PC race before reading that page, you would not change anything after reading it.

That would be really difficult, though. It'd be easy to count ability score increses and skills as such, but it'd be much, much more difficult to count when combining resistances, bonuses and spells with other features. Some spells might have amazing synergy either among themselves or with other abilities, and would as such be much more powerful, whereas some features and spells might not really do much combined, but just be cool on their own. You'd end up having to decide what is worth how many points on your own anyway. Using the existing races as an example is probably the best and easiest way to go, since the races that exist are very varied.

[Sindeloke]

That would be really difficult, though. It'd be easy to count ability score increses and skills as such, but it'd be much, much more difficult to count when combining resistances, bonuses and spells with other features. Some spells might have amazing synergy either among themselves or with other abilities, and would as such be much more powerful, whereas some features and spells might not really do much combined, but just be cool on their own. You'd end up having to decide what is worth how many points on your own anyway. Using the existing races as an example is probably the best and easiest way to go, since the races that exist are very varied.

That sounds exactly like something that would go in the guide. "+2 Int is worth 6 points, but remember if you give the species a spell that keys off Int, you've made a combination worth more than its parts. In this case a good guideline is to increase the price of both features by 50%."

It doesn't have to be perfect. Guideposts to start from, though, would still be a hell of a lot more useful than "make some stuff up that feels balanced."

[Sartharina]

That sounds exactly like something that would go in the guide. "+2 Int is worth 6 points, but remember if you give the species a spell that keys off Int, you've made a combination worth more than its parts. In this case a good guideline is to increase the price of both features by 50%."That would be hellish to work with and stupid. There are very few ways to determine if something is greater or less than the sum of its parts... especially because the developers probably don't know the way their system's metagame will develop.

Of course, maybe I just have mental scars from Pathfinder's Feat Point and Race Builder bull****.

[Sindeloke]

More stupid and hellish than "whatever, just pick some numbers and talents that look sorta right"?

If two things benefit or reinforce each other (like an Int bonus and an Int spell, or a bonus to movement and a bonus to attack when you move), they're probably worth more together than individually. If two things apply to totally different parts of the system (a Str bonus and a stealth bonus) they're probably worth the same together or apart. It's not particularly difficult to eyeball if you're familiar enough with the game to DM to begin with.

Again, it doesn't have to be perfect. Just a guideline to at least start from.

And I mean it couldn't be worse than Pathfinder's race points....

[INDYSTAR188]

Personally I would like a point buy system for races that allows me to build races from scratch. Something like +2 to a ability score is worth X points, skill proficiency is worth Y points, etc. With ways to play the more "exotic" races like Ogres, Pixies or Thri-Kreen.

What we have though is a entire page of text that amounts to "Meh, just eyeball it." If I wanted to make a Orc PC race (note that is the simplest kind of PC race to make, since Orcs are intelligent humanoids of medium size) that entire page contained no useful information. None. In other words if you made a Orc PC race before reading that page, you would not change anything after reading it.

They released a one page preview, how do you know the very next page isn't a template for you to use? Maybe they got responses in the playtest that indicated to them that 'exotic' race creation/inclusion is not a priority for most players. Can we wait until the DMG is released to declare whether it contains any useful information? I'm pretty excited about Eladrin and Aasimar and at least for me that is really good news.

As an aside, why would you want to play an Ogre or Thri-Kreen? To be clear, I am not judging a player who wants to play a monster, I just don't see the appeal and am trying to empathize. One is a huge, dumb rapacious brute and the other is a hive-minded ant-man is it not? I thought the benefit to playing a Thri-Kreen in 3.5 was to get the extra arm attacks, which sounds pretty unbalanced compared to the other available races at this point.

[Sartharina]

And I mean it couldn't be worse than Pathfinder's race points....Yes it could.

[Safety Sword]

As an aside, why would you want to play an Ogre or Thri-Kreen? To be clear, I am not judging a player who wants to play a monster, I just don't see the appeal and am trying to empathize. One is a huge, dumb rapacious brute and the other is a hive-minded ant-man is it not? I thought the benefit to playing a Thri-Kreen in 3.5 was to get the extra arm attacks, which sounds pretty unbalanced compared to the other available races at this point.

Every time there's a Dark Sun campaign on offer at my table these are the go to races.

[Rfkannen]

They released a one page preview, how do you know the very next page isn't a template for you to use? Maybe they got responses in the playtest that indicated to them that 'exotic' race creation/inclusion is not a priority for most players. Can we wait until the DMG is released to declare whether it contains any useful information? I'm pretty excited about Eladrin and Aasimar and at least for me that is really good news.

As an aside, why would you want to play an Ogre or Thri-Kreen? To be clear, I am not judging a player who wants to play a monster, I just don't see the appeal and am trying to empathize. One is a huge, dumb rapacious brute and the other is a hive-minded ant-man is it not? I thought the benefit to playing a Thri-Kreen in 3.5 was to get the extra arm attacks, which sounds pretty unbalanced compared to the other available races at this point.

Because they are even weirder. Some styles like the huge big guy and like the raw savagry, also come on half orc or ogre,which would you really pick? Also THri-kreen are just filled to the brim with flavor. They have flavor up the yin-yang. I don't care about the arms, being a sleepless bugman is just to awesome to not play!

[INDYSTAR188]

Because they are even weirder. Some styles like the huge big guy and like the raw savagry, also come on half orc or ogre,which would you really pick? Also THri-kreen are just filled to the brim with flavor. They have flavor up the yin-yang. I don't care about the arms, being a sleepless bugman is just to awesome to not play!

But realistically (I know, I know we're talking about elf games here) can you imagine an Ogre or Thri-Kreen being at all useful in a social situation? Could you imagine either of those monsters striding up to the gates of Waterdeep? Why would an Ogre or Thri-Kreen want to help/save humanity?

[Rfkannen]

But realistically (I know, I know we're talking about elf games here) can you imagine an Ogre or Thri-Kreen being at all useful in a social situation? Could you imagine either of those monsters striding up to the gates of Waterdeep? Why would an Ogre or Thri-Kreen want to help/save humanity?

Well you could have your own setting, one where ogres aren't all that hated. For example pretty much everyone gets along in eberron. And darksun you have thri-kreen as one of the main races, it would be weird to not see any. For example My dm's current campaign has a bunch of hobgoblins in the main cities. and as such it is safe to assume that if any of us rolled a hobgoblin no one would care. Now I don't think he would let me roll a hobgoblin but in the setting noone would care if I was a hobgoblin any more than if I were an elf.

[Gnaeus]

But realistically (I know, I know we're talking about elf games here) can you imagine an Ogre or Thri-Kreen being at all useful in a social situation? Could you imagine either of those monsters striding up to the gates of Waterdeep? Why would an Ogre or Thri-Kreen want to help/save humanity?

Uhh, because every campaign is different? An Ogre striding up to the gates of Menzoberanzan might be in a better place socially than a human. Maybe the campaign is about saving races from the genocidal Eco-catastrophe that is the humans.

If it doesn't make sense to use your space Legos with your medieval Legos, then don't. I just want more cool building blocks, and I will use the ones I like.

[JAL_1138]

But realistically (I know, I know we're talking about elf games here) can you imagine an Ogre or Thri-Kreen being at all useful in a social situation? Could you imagine either of those monsters striding up to the gates of Waterdeep? Why would an Ogre or Thri-Kreen want to help/save humanity?

Planescape. Maybe they couldn't care less about humanity. Getting rid of a BigBad the Hardheads can't seem to catch and put down, before the panic and riots get bad and the Lady gets annoyed by the disorder and starts flaying everyone with her shadow and mazing people left and right, though? They'll go on that quest, if just to save their own skins.

Or a DM could change the MM's default alignment options and twiddle with the deities and whatnot until the default assumption is "if it's sapient, it's got no default alignment" and build up an even more cosmopolitan setting.

[Theodoxus]

And I mean it couldn't be worse than Pathfinder's race points....

Did someone in your games create some uber monstrosity with the ARG or did it just not fulfill your race building dreams? That's a lot of vile for a product I found quite balanced and fit in perfectly with the power level of the rest of the Pathfinder Universe.

[INDYSTAR188]

Uhh, because every campaign is different? An Ogre striding up to the gates of Menzoberanzan might be in a better place socially than a human. Maybe the campaign is about saving races from the genocidal Eco-catastrophe that is the humans.

If it doesn't make sense to use your space Legos with your medieval Legos, then don't. I just want more cool building blocks, and I will use the ones I like.

I'm feeling some defensiveness here and I want to reiterate that I'm not saying there's anything wrong with wanting to play a monsterous race. I'm merely asking what the motivation is. If you just want the option just to have it, that's cool I can sympathize with that I feel the same way about other stuff. If you're playing a 'monster' campaign that's cool too, I'm just asking in the course of a regular, 'core' game why you would want to be a monsterous PC.

If you want to mix your space legos with your medieval ones then do that, just fill me in on what your pretend world is like so I can add the idea to my toolbox.

[Tehnar]

They released a one page preview, how do you know the very next page isn't a template for you to use? Maybe they got responses in the playtest that indicated to them that 'exotic' race creation/inclusion is not a priority for most players. Can we wait until the DMG is released to declare whether it contains any useful information? I'm pretty excited about Eladrin and Aasimar and at least for me that is really good news.


Going from the wording available on that page there seems to be no other page.

[INDYSTAR188]

Going from the wording available on that page there seems to be no other page.

Then I can see why that would make you upset, there's really not a lot of guidance there at all. How are you supposed to create balanced racial abilities? I think you could re-fluff races to fit your needs but that is less satisfying I think.

[Sartharina]

An ogre in a social setting? That's easy to handle - Just call yourself a Goon instead, and carry a yo-yo!

[MReav]

An ogre in a social setting? That's easy to handle - Just call yourself a Goon instead, and carry a yo-yo!

QFG reference FTW.

Though technically, Goons are a cousin race to ogres, and would probably fall under Half-Ogre mechanically. You actually fight an Ogre in QFG1.

[silveralen]

Did someone in your games create some uber monstrosity with the ARG or did it just not fulfill your race building dreams? That's a lot of vile for a product I found quite balanced and fit in perfectly with the power level of the rest of the Pathfinder Universe.

There were a lot of... oddities to ARG. Not in the least that you could build an ogre+1 race for a lower cost than the standard ogre. The point cost system was basically a really really really loose guideline as I wouldn't trust anything to actually be worth what they claimed. Removing that entire section and giving guidelines to help the DM judge the relative power of racial abilities would've been much better.

They didn't even bother to follow their own rules half the time, making me seriously question why they bothered to include them. It wasn't bad, but it was very sloppy imo.


An ogre in a social setting? That's easy to handle - Just call yourself a Goon instead, and carry a yo-yo!

The best simulated rock throwing and tree climbing ever 10/10.

[JoeJ]

But realistically (I know, I know we're talking about elf games here) can you imagine an Ogre or Thri-Kreen being at all useful in a social situation? Could you imagine either of those monsters striding up to the gates of Waterdeep? Why would an Ogre or Thri-Kreen want to help/save humanity?

I don't know about Waterdeep, but ogres and thri-kreen would work just fine in social situations on the Rock of Bral. From canon sources, at least one ogre works as a bouncer in a tavern there. (There's another tavern that has a beholder bartender, but that's probably too powerful to work as a PC race.)

[jkat718]

If it doesn't make sense to use your space Legos with your medieval Legos, then don't. I just want more cool building blocks, and I will use the ones I like.

Mind if I sig this? :smallsmile:

[Gnaeus]

Mind if I sig this? :smallsmile:

Go right ahead.

[Gnaeus]

I'm feeling some defensiveness here and I want to reiterate that I'm not saying there's anything wrong with wanting to play a monsterous race. I'm merely asking what the motivation is. If you just want the option just to have it, that's cool I can sympathize with that I feel the same way about other stuff. If you're playing a 'monster' campaign that's cool too, I'm just asking in the course of a regular, 'core' game why you would want to be a monsterous PC.

Sorry. It sounded like you were saying that monster races were impractical, and should therefore not be included.

But to answer the question...Aside from the reasons listed above by myself and others:
I want to make an ogre NPC, and for some reason I expect for him to be important enough to the game that I want to make him using full rules instead of just modding a monster manual entry
Player used magic or social to get an ogre to work with the party. Another new player sees the ogre NPC, and asks to mod him for play.
Player gets turned into an ogre with polymorph or reincarnate type magic. Now he has to deal with his form's limitations until he can change back.
Maybe true love's first kiss turned a PC's wife into an ogre.
Traveling through the ogre kingdom, we need a new PC and normal races are unlikely.
Maybe someone wants to play an ogre who has rebelled against the social norms of his people, and is now a ranger traveling around the world with a magical cat statue, a dwarf, and a barbarian. (Nevermind, that one is dumb)

Half the time, I don't know where MY campaigns are headed. I've never played an ogre. I played a (gravetouched) ghoul, and a Half-Red Dragon Centaur, and they made sense in their contexts. I can see ogre coming up someday.

[OldTrees1]

That would be hellish to work with and stupid. There are very few ways to determine if something is greater or less than the sum of its parts... especially because the developers probably don't know the way their system's metagame will develop.

Of course, maybe I just have mental scars from Pathfinder's Feat Point and Race Builder bull****.

Correction: It is easy to tell if 2 things are greater or less than the sum of their parts(does synergy or antisynergy exist?) It is hard to determine the magnitude of the increase/decrease beyond the sum.

Otherwise I agree with you wholeheartedly. Designers are too close to their creations to be able to accurately suggest a point based race system.

[Easy_Lee]

Correction: It is easy to tell if 2 things are greater or less than the sum of their parts(does synergy or antisynergy exist?) It is hard to determine the magnitude of the increase/decrease beyond the sum.

So you're saying things that are perceived to "synergize" should cost more? I guess warlocks shouldn't be allowed to pick Drow then, since darkness synergizes with devil's sight.

I think that's silly. Just value features individually, same as they do in MTG.

[OldTrees1]

So you're saying things that are perceived to "synergize" should cost more? I guess warlocks shouldn't be allowed to pick Drow then, since darkness synergizes with devil's sight.

I think that's silly. Just value features individually, same as they do in MTG.

I am saying that things that synergize are more powerful than the sum of their parts. (Just as things that have antisynergy are less powerful than the sum of their parts.)

In the case of races: Races were designed with the assumption your group would either all pick races that synergized with your classes, or you would pick races with some other metric. As such the synergy between HalfOrc and Fighter or Halfling and Rogue or Drow and Warlock was attempted to be balanced against each other. If someone was to walk into the same group with a HalfOrc Warlock, you would expect them to be weaker due to the lack of synergy and the existence of antisynergy. How you as the DM deal with this is up to you. I would estimate the degree of difference and then either shrug it off(if the difference was small) or correct for the difference(if the difference was large).

So yes if someone made a race that had 10x the synergy with Rogue that Halfling does, then that would be unbalanced relative to Halfling Rogues. If Halfling Rogues were an example of the standard at their table, then the a Rogue of the new race would be OP for their table.

Likewise if someone made a Tiefling with a Wisdom based racial cantrip as the only change, then they should recognize that they removed synergy(Cha bonus + Cha cantrip). This might factor into how they balance their new race.


So in summary:
Yes, antisynergy should cost less/be buffed if it deviates from the standard too much for your table.
Yes, synergy that deviates too much from your table's standard is likely to be OP.
No, there is no problem with a Drow Warlock. Unless you make it a problem by moving your table's standard too far away from the default assumption(probably requires homebrewing to move that far).

PS: They do not evaluate abilities individually in MtG. Compare the Attack of First Strikers to the Attack of equal cost Double Strikers. Then compare the costs of "Effect when hits a player", "Unblockable", and "Unblockable and Effect when hits a player".

[T.G. Oskar]

Personally I would like a point buy system for races that allows me to build races from scratch. Something like +2 to a ability score is worth X points, skill proficiency is worth Y points, etc. With ways to play the more "exotic" races like Ogres, Pixies or Thri-Kreen.

What we have though is a entire page of text that amounts to "Meh, just eyeball it." If I wanted to make a Orc PC race (note that is the simplest kind of PC race to make, since Orcs are intelligent humanoids of medium size) that entire page contained no useful information. None. In other words if you made a Orc PC race before reading that page, you would not change anything after reading it.

No wonder why you feel it's not what you intended. I'll have to echo Sartharina's words and those of others, particularly the 1st rule of Homebrewing mentioned by OldTrees: the easiest way to make a good race is to compare it to others and use them as a template. That said, the way they handled the Eladrin and the Aasimar show that it's not as lazy as it seems. Compare the High Elf subrace with the Eladrin subrace; the former has a cantrip and an extra language, the latter has a 2nd level spell usable 1/short rest. Indeed, it's a qualitative appreciation of racial features, but it's understandable that a 2nd level spell like Misty Step is stronger than a Cantrip most of the time, and thus the extra language was gone. With the Aasimar, they went for stronger resistances but a focus on "utility" spells over the more offensive spells granted by the Tiefling. Eyeballed, this is a fair trade; the mechanics are extraordinarily similar on the first, and yet the Eladrin makes for a better Rogue than Wizard; the High Elf with the language also makes a great Rogue, but a Wizard may make better use of the Cantrip. A very minor change brings a huge fluff-related change.

I'll add another axiom to homebrewing: point-based systems are designed to be broken, and in homebrewing, that is no exception. Playing with point-based systems (like GURPS) shows; sometimes, you can make broken characters just by choosing the best abilities, or the ones most intended to be used, and spend most if not all of your points there, while choosing the limitations that affect you the least. "Min-maxing" wasn't entirely a D&D term; it's strongly related to point-based systems where you max the best attributes and choose the largest amount of limitations with the minimal amount of effect (like, say, Allergies?).

I also saw the Advanced Race Guide, and while the new races were cool at times, the point-based system to construct them was completely out of whack. There was also a point-based 3rd party system to design 3.5 classes and judge their "balance" between each other by means of setting points, and even THOSE were out of whack, because it judged spellcasting unfairly compared to full BAB; however, if full BAB was judged lower, then you could have a class that sacrificed other features for full BAB and STILL could get 9th level spells. This is the problem: you're trying to quantify a purely qualitative concept, and no matter how balanced you try to make it up to be, someone WILL eventually break it and make a class that's perfectly balanced within the system itself but horribly unbalanced outside of it. This is why there is no unified system behind homebrewing: using one is an invitation to break it.

Let's do a bit of history. The Half-Orc in 3rd Edition was the only race that had two racial penalties instead of one. In page 173 of the DMG v3.5, they use a system of equivalencies for ability scores, and they mention the Half-Orc by name; they mention that a penalty to Intelligence and Charisma was equivalent to a penalty to Strength, and that was well after they had a major revision to the 3rd Edition. Right at the middle of 3.5, by the time Magic of Incarnum was released, you can look at the one Incarnum race that has a Strength bonus (the Skarn) having only ONE ability score penalty, and more class features than the Half-Orc, which only had Orc Blood, Orc Weapon Familiarity and Darkvision; compared to the Dwarf, the latter had a speed penalty and lacked the "Orc Blood" racial feature but otherwise had more racial features. Can you say the 3.5 Dwarf and the 3.5 Half-Orc are anywhere near balanced? The former makes just as good a Barbarian as the latter, if only because you have to worry less about Strength but still have enough Intelligence for the skill points; the latter also makes a better Wizard (no Int penalty) and a better Fighter, curiously enough. In fact, alongside the Half-Elf, the Half-Orc was consistently mentioned as one of the worst races, with some outliers making them more useful. By the time the Skarn was designed, the designers realized Strength wasn't as powerful as intended.

Now, assume that, as early in the edition as it is, the designers went for a point-based system. Can you imagine, even with two editions behind their back, how unbalanced the system may be? Even Pathfinder, with about 6-8 years of content and a few more by the time they released the Advanced Race Guide, made an unbalanced system. Judge as you may about their content, but the fact that they couldn't make a truly working system to create new races that are balanced towards each other is less a sign of their failure as developers and more a sign of the failure of a point-based homebrewing system.

5e is aiming for simpler creation, and the DM always has the last word. Do you really want a system that's complicated for the DM to balance and that may end up being unbalanced, when you want a simpler system? Their aim towards creating new systems is merely stating the "obvious"; look at what works, then build from there. That's solid advice there.

[MaxWilson]

Correction: It is easy to tell if 2 things are greater or less than the sum of their parts(does synergy or antisynergy exist?) It is hard to determine the magnitude of the increase/decrease beyond the sum.

Excellent, excellent point.

Subsystems with which players interact at game-time need mechanics because that interaction is part of the game. Subsystems which are used solely by the DM at design-time can benefit from mechanics if those mechanics are well-designed, but don't require them. For example, I'm glad to see the return of the random dungeon generator, but there is no pressing need for detailed point-buy guidelines for dungeon creation based on number/level of PCs, access to mobility spells/skills, trap-spotting abilities, DPR, and short/long rest dependencies, and if your dungeon exceeds its budget you must tweak it until it works. Dungeon construction is always eyeballed, and providing detailed budget guidelines wouldn't measurably improve the game.


I'll add another axiom to homebrewing: point-based systems are designed to be broken, and in homebrewing, that is no exception. Playing with point-based systems (like GURPS) shows; sometimes, you can make broken characters just by choosing the best abilities, or the ones most intended to be used, and spend most if not all of your points there, while choosing the limitations that affect you the least. "Min-maxing" wasn't entirely a D&D term; it's strongly related to point-based systems where you max the best attributes and choose the largest amount of limitations with the minimal amount of effect (like, say, Allergies?).

This problem is particularly bad when there are lots of interacting non-linear abilities to choose from which are given linear cost. In GURPS 4e you can make a stupidly broken, extremely deadly ability by modifying Innate Attack to give it a tiny damage (linear reduction in cost), an absurdly high RoF (logarthmic cost but also logarthmic effect), the shotgun style (no cost, can't choose burst size, at less than 1/10 range all RoF attacks hit in one gigantic mass), and a long range. Thus you end up with a huge, 150d6-150 attack with hundreds of yards of range and +5000% cost, but since the base ability is only 1d6-1 for 1 CP your total cost is only 50 CP. Any DM/GM will look at that ability package and immediately say, "It's stupidly broken. Banned." but if you're just going to eyeball things anyway in the end, what did your point system buy you?

I love GURPS play but I hate the chargen system; I hope D&D 5E never goes in a modular, point-buy direction. Classes and levels are more discretized and therefore more interesting (in a zero-one knapsack kind of way) and less abusable.

[Hytheter]

Did someone in your games create some uber monstrosity with the ARG or did it just not fulfill your race building dreams? That's a lot of vile for a product I found quite balanced and fit in perfectly with the power level of the rest of the Pathfinder Universe.

Considering the race builder places humans as being weaker than the other races, I'm not so sure it was accurate or balanced.

[Sartharina]

I'm not so sure if it can make OP monstrosities, but every race I try to make with the builder comes out Gimply McGimp.

[toapat]

Considering the race builder places humans as being weaker than the other races, I'm not so sure it was accurate or balanced.

humans typically are the strongest race, even in 5th when you account for the variant which is better then High-Elf, Drow, or Tiefling for native spellcasting

[Hytheter]

humans typically are the strongest race, even in 5th when you account for the variant which is better then High-Elf, Drow, or Tiefling for native spellcasting

That's... exactly what I'm saying.

According to the PF Race Builder, Humans are weaker than Dwarves, Elves, etc when in fact they are usually superior. Hence, the PF Race builder is not accurate.

[toapat]

That's... exactly what I'm saying.

According to the PF Race Builder, Humans are weaker than Dwarves, Elves, etc when in fact they are usually superior. Hence, the PF Race builder is not accurate.

at least IIRC i believe Dwarves are actually the best race in the Core rulebook of pathfinder before halfelves have the "Negate weakness of Sorc/Oracle" spell, if only because like in the PHB of 3rd, 1 feat isnt exactly better then other benefits

[Sartharina]

at least IIRC i believe Dwarves are actually the best race in the Core rulebook of pathfinder before halfelves have the "Negate weakness of Sorc/Oracle" spell, if only because like in the PHB of 3rd, 1 feat isnt exactly better then other benefits

You mean, other than one feat being a full two levels of progression on the feat chains/taxes that plague 3e and Pathfinder. Getting both Point-Blank Shot AND the feat you actually want at level 1 is absolutely critical in Pathfinder. As is getting Weapon Focus+Slashing Grace as a Swashbuckler (My latest complaint - because otherwise you're stuck with a weapon you can't use for two levels). Or getting Weapon Finesse+Two Weapon Fighting at level 1 for any dex-based character ever.

There are almost NO racial features that can compensate for not having to waste two or three levels to do what you actually want to do.

This is also the guide that says a 2d6-save-for-half 30' breath weapon twice a day is as powerful as all the racial features of an Aasimar.

[Sindeloke]

... a whole bunch of stuff about balance and half-orcs

So your contention is basically "it might not be balanced so better if they don't try"? That doesn't make sense. By that logic they shouldn't be making games at all. Don't write out spells, they might end up like Simulacrum; better to have the DM make up all the magic. Don't make subclasses, they could end up like the BM ranger; tell the DM to wing it based on their favorite other d20 game.

Of course we hope they understand their system this time, and would give better guidelines than the half-orc or PF builder provide. But isn't that the point of going to 5e - the better balance, flow, and general evidence they've learned from 3 and 4? I mean if they *didn't* understand their system to the degree that the half-orc represents, they would still have made the undertuned half-orc and "compare your new race to an existing one" would be advice that was just as terrible as "here are the poorly-chosen point values we used to figure out our broken half-orc." If they don't understand their system to the degree that their point system is useless, the rest of the system won't be any more useful and we might as well go back to 3.p where the flaws are well-understood.


Their aim towards creating new systems is merely stating the "obvious"; look at what works, then build from there. That's solid advice there.

It's advice I could get from a fortune cookie. Those are free. The DMG is decidedly not, so it seems only fair to ask for more.

[T.G. Oskar]

So your contention is basically "it might not be balanced so better if they don't try"? That doesn't make sense. By that logic they shouldn't be making games at all. Don't write out spells, they might end up like Simulacrum; better to have the DM make up all the magic. Don't make subclasses, they could end up like the BM ranger; tell the DM to wing it based on their favorite other d20 game.

To whom is that tidbit directed? To the developers, or to the homebrewers?

My contention is as follows: a system that adjudicates balance as a set of points is a system that's designed to be twinked and broken. That kind of system won't work; the best way to handle it is eyeballing it, using stuff that you feel is balanced and then working out the things that you feel don't work to add the things you feel they do. That bit doesn't require a point-based system to understand.

However, I feel you exaggerated WAY too much, and I feel you thought I was directing this to homebrewers, which is not. In one way or another, the DM might be the one doing the homebrewing, yes; after all, the DM will be the one doing the game. If you want to do homebrewing and play it on another table, the DM has the last word on whether it'll accept it or not; that's the challenge of homebrewing, after all. All DMs have their own sense of balance, so it's their prerogative whether they approve or not; however, that doesn't mean you can't do homebrewing after all, without being a DM. Maybe the DM trusts your sense of balance and approves of your homebrewing, but don't expect everyone to do that. For everything else, there's peer reviewing in no less than four forums (the official Wizards forum, ENWorld, Minmax Boards and here in GitP), all of which have differing degrees of balance. Yes, a spell may end up like Simulacrum, or a subclass may end up being like the Beastmaster, but that doesn't mean you can't do it; go ahead, do it. However, thinking that a point-based system will ensure balance and adhere to it expecting that your construct will be balanced IS wrong, IMO.

You're welcome to quote, bold and paraphrase how did you approach that idea, aside from my bit about the Half-Orc, which is an example of how the developers thought of something that years of gaming eventually proved wrong; if the very developers of the system made that mistake, it doesn't mean you can't. However, it DOES mean that basing a system of race, class or feat creation with rigid and inflexible guidelines in an attempt to create something balanced and expect people to adhere to it is wrong, and I gave the Half-Orc as an example of how developers may underrate or overrate parts of their own system.


Of course we hope they understand their system this time, and would give better guidelines than the half-orc or PF builder provide. But isn't that the point of going to 5e - the better balance, flow, and general evidence they've learned from 3 and 4? I mean if they *didn't* understand their system to the degree that the half-orc represents, they would still have made the undertuned half-orc and "compare your new race to an existing one" would be advice that was just as terrible as "here are the poorly-chosen point values we used to figure out our broken half-orc." If they don't understand their system to the degree that their point system is useless, the rest of the system won't be any more useful and we might as well go back to 3.p where the flaws are well-understood.

Sure, but what it means is that developers aren't perfect. They allow things that may end up being wrong. The shift from 2e to 3e was a good example: on removing some of the restrictions of spellcasters and unifying the progression of classes to make the game easier, spellcasters gained a massive boost. Cook & Tweet still had some of the 2e mentality when they made the game, and thought full BAB was equivalent to 9th level spells and didn't judge whether this was true or not. Ideally, Mearls & Crawford, who designed/developed for 3e and 4e, should have greater understanding of the rules they're developing, but that doesn't mean they will.

However, that doesn't mean that two editions' worth of experience will make for a perfect point-based system. No matter how much they understand their system, grievous imbalance in point-based systems is a thing. That is why I mentioned GURPS; from its inception, GURPS has been a point-based system, where EVERYONE has to play under the same point cost, and has advantages and disadvantages. The system is designed for every kind of game, and the Core Rulebook should allow you to do so. Even at its 4th Edition (meaning the developers should have just as much if not MORE experience than Mearls & Crawford, or Buhlman), the character creation system can STILL be gamed. And here, if you want to play a different race, you MUST spend from your points to create it by giving it the powers you desire, which take from your build overall.

It is a reason why, in my second paragraph, I placed it as an axiom: by understanding that point-based systems aren't perfect and that they can be broken, you can understand just how DIFFICULT one can be. Judging by the Advanced Race Guide, which is designed by people who are supposed to understand their own system AND the system they base their design upon. Therefore, by your own logic, the rest of Pathfinder should fail and thus might as well return to 3.5 with all its flaws, right? And yet, Pathfinder is the top roleplaying game at the moment, with 5th Edition attempting to regain its spot. Certainly it's not for the point-based race-building system.


It's advice I could get from a fortune cookie. Those are free. The DMG is decidedly not, so it seems only fair to ask for more.

I'll leave this (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advancedClassGuide/designingClasses.html) and the following thought as an answer: the Advanced Class Guide costs around 40 bucks, and one of its chapters is this. Sure, this part of the Pathfinder (System) Reference Document, but for the most part, they are aiming to produce money by selling their opinion on how a class should be made. Note that, unlike with the ARG, they didn't went for a point-based system this time.

But, to provide a real answer: the advice you gained "from a fortune cookie" is actually something you grasp when you seek how to do good homebrewing. The ACG chapter on how to make a class/PrC? The same as the wisdom of homebrewers; you don't need to pay 40 bucks for someone to tell you that. Certainly, this tidbit might not appear in the DM Basic Rules, but we're not having the DMG and we're here discussing this, so it's not like it's gonna cost anything. Beyond the example race/subrace given, we know nothing about the advice given by the DMG. For al we know, it may be a simple paragraph, a concise piece of advice, or a rigid method.

[Sindeloke]

To whom is that tidbit directed? To the developers, or to the homebrewers?

My contention is as follows: a system that adjudicates balance as a set of points is a system that's designed to be twinked and broken. That kind of system won't work; the best way to handle it is eyeballing it, using stuff that you feel is balanced and then working out the things that you feel don't work to add the things you feel they do. That bit doesn't require a point-based system to understand.

However, I feel you exaggerated WAY too much, and I feel you thought I was directing this to homebrewers, which is not.

Not at all. As I understood your post, you were saying that Wizards shouldn't give us a point-based system, because Wizards has been wrong about what things were worth in the past, so their point-system wouldn't be helpful or accurate. That doesn't sound at all logical to me, because if we can't trust them to be helpful and accurate about their system, why are we using it at all? That's what my spell and subclass examples were meant to illustrate: if we can't trust them to assign accurate point values to different racial traits, then we can't trust them to make balanced spells, or balanced subclasses, or balanced anything. We shouldn't even be playing their game if we don't think they can evaluate things fairly.

I say, though, that we can trust them to make pretty accurate point values. Yes, sometimes they'll get something wrong, they'll over-value an attribute boost or under-value a combination. D&D isn't pure math, it's got a lot of effects and combinations that are hard to quantify, and mistakes will get made. Spells like Simulacrum will get written, even by the experts. But most of what they give us, especially what they've given us in 5th edition, is helpful, reasonable, and within a pretty good margin of error for balance. Most of a point buy system for racial traits would be within a good margin, too, if they put it together with the same care. Yes, we'd still have to eyeball it and make adjustments when we were done, but it's a lot easier to do that than to make up everything right from scratch.

And to take a closer look at your half-orc example: as you say, designers can make mistakes early in the life of a system, like over-valuing strength. But again as you say, later in the game's life, they had learned more, and other races were made that didn't over-value strength, and were much better balanced than the half-orc. This is the virtue of a living game: errata. They can throw a PDF up on their website that says "on page 221 of your DMG, it says that a 1st-level spell 1/day is worth 6 points; that's wrong, turns out it's only worth 4."


However, thinking that a point-based system will ensure balance and adhere to it expecting that your construct will be balanced IS wrong, IMO.

I don't expect them to be able to put together a point system where you can just build a race all paint-by-number, call it good, and call it a day. You're quite right, that's obviously never going to happen.

I do think they could put together a point system that would serve as a strong and solid foundation for new races, though. Picture something like a chart: skill proficiency is worth X, +2 to an ability is worth Y, an ability equivalent to a cantrip is worth Z, et cetera; they tell you the target is like, 20-30 points, and they break down several of the existing races by points to show you how it works.

Then there's a blurb like so:



Of course, these are just guidelines, and the true test of any race is in play. For example, notice that the Widgetmakers only have a point total of 16. Originally they had an Int bonus as well, but during the closed beta we discovered that the Exploding Widget power is much more useful than its description suggests, so we trimmed the race down a little until it was more in line with the others. You may find that your own custom race is weaker or stronger than its point value suggests, so don't be afraid to make adjustments based on your experience in the game.

Do you see how much guessing this takes out of the process? You can build a 25 point race in five minutes, then try it out, and then make minor adjustments up or down as you need to - and the guide would even make that easier, because it would give some insight on what adjustments are minor and which are huge. Without such a guide, you could spend days just trying to figure out whether two +2 bonuses plus advantage to stealth is too much, forget ever getting your new race into play.


I'll leave this (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advancedClassGuide/designingClasses.html) and the following thought as an answer: the Advanced Class Guide costs around 40 bucks, and one of its chapters is this. Sure, this part of the Pathfinder (System) Reference Document, but for the most part, they are aiming to produce money by selling their opinion on how a class should be made. Note that, unlike with the ARG, they didn't went for a point-based system this time.

But, to provide a real answer: the advice you gained "from a fortune cookie" is actually something you grasp when you seek how to do good homebrewing. The ACG chapter on how to make a class/PrC? The same as the wisdom of homebrewers; you don't need to pay 40 bucks for someone to tell you that. Certainly, this tidbit might not appear in the DM Basic Rules, but we're not having the DMG and we're here discussing this, so it's not like it's gonna cost anything. Beyond the example race/subrace given, we know nothing about the advice given by the DMG. For al we know, it may be a simple paragraph, a concise piece of advice, or a rigid method.

Honestly, something along the lines of that ACG link actually would be something worth putting in there, IMO. I've spent a lot of my life studying game design, both video and tabletop, so sure, that's all old hat to me, it's stuff that it's really second nature to think about. But for someone who's just starting out, just telling them what questions to ask themselves can be a huge, huge help. If some novice DM who's only even played the game once, never even thought about house rules much less homebrew, gets a group together, and one of his players says "can I be a catfolk?", we want him to be able to say "yes." And part of that is giving him some context on what else he needs to think about apart from "ok,well, they look like cats..."

So if the DMG does just have a few pages of opinion on "think about niche, here are the traits you can give bonuses to, if you want a race to all be bards give them a bonus to Cha," I would give them some kudos for that. I'd still want more for myself, since that's not helpful to me personally, while a point system would be, but I'd at least feel like it was helpful to someone and was serving an important purpose in helping players of the hobby to have more fun playing it.

[D.U.P.A.]

So high elf and eladrin are not the same thing? I always thought so, even 4e had as elf Elf (wood elf), Eladrin (high elf), Drow (dark elf). What's the difference then between high elf and eladrin?

[Daishain]

So high elf and eladrin are not the same thing? I always thought so, even 4e had as elf Elf (wood elf), Eladrin (high elf), Drow (dark elf). What's the difference then between high elf and eladrin?
4E is actually an aberration in that regard. Standard elves in previous editions were high elves, with wood elf and drow as variants.

In 2nd and 3rd edition, Eladrin were actually a type of celestial from the chaotic good portion of the heavenly realms, were a collection of several distinct races, and were definitely not intended to be PCs. They reminded me of good aligned Djinni and demons more than (D&D) elves in some ways. I don't think they existed at all in 1st edition.

Actually, while we're on the subject, 4E in general is a bad baseline for D&D lore. They changed so much in that edition it was barely recognizable.

[Sartharina]

In 2nd and 3rd edition, Eladrin were actually a type of celestial from the chaotic good portion of the heavenly realms, were a collection of several distinct races, and were definitely not intended to be PCs. They reminded me of good aligned Djinni and demons more than (D&D) elves in some ways. I don't think they existed at all in 1st edition.Eladrin were extremely fey-like in the older-editions, despite being Chaotic Good Outsiders.

[Gnaeus]

My contention is as follows: a system that adjudicates balance as a set of points is a system that's designed to be twinked and broken. That kind of system won't work; the best way to handle it is eyeballing it, using stuff that you feel is balanced and then working out the things that you feel don't work to add the things you feel they do. That bit doesn't require a point-based system to understand.

However, that doesn't mean that two editions' worth of experience will make for a perfect point-based system. No matter how much they understand their system, grievous imbalance in point-based systems is a thing. That is why I mentioned GURPS; from its inception, GURPS has been a point-based system, where EVERYONE has to play under the same point cost, and has advantages and disadvantages. The system is designed for every kind of game, and the Core Rulebook should allow you to do so. Even at its 4th Edition (meaning the developers should have just as much if not MORE experience than Mearls & Crawford, or Buhlman), the character creation system can STILL be gamed. And here, if you want to play a different race, you MUST spend from your points to create it by giving it the powers you desire, which take from your build overall.

I guess it depends about your goals in a system.

GURPS, as you say, can be gamed. It is possible to find a way, with limitations on powers, to come up with results that are obviously unfair and unintended by designers. On the other hand, it is entirely likely that if the players are not intending to game the system and the DM is paying a little attention that it is an entirely workable game system, certainly much more fair than any edition of D&D before 4th, and containing more options for character creation than 4th ever dreamed of.

Yes, the more moving parts you introduce into a system the greater the likelyhood that it can be gamed, or have results be unbalanced. Heck, if I look at the 5e point buy system for attributes, are we going to pretend that all the various stat combinations are equal? That doesn't mean that point allocations are bad. You just can't seriously expect that they will result in equal outcomes in all cases.

[Shining Wrath]

Link is behind firewall at the moment, but one thing I'm thinking of houseruling is that there's Old Races (Elves, Orcs, Humans, ...) and New Races (Dragonborn, Tiefling, Aasimar, ...).

New Races get started when some divine-level power takes some members of an Old Race and meddles with them. Usually, the Old Race is humans, because there's lots of humans and humans are the most adaptable race per RAW. But what if the power starts with some other race? Since, e.g., Elves are less malleable than humans, if Asmodeus creates Tieflings from Elven stock, the differences are not as pronounced; the TiefElf is recognizably different from an Elf, but not as dramatically altered as a Tiefling is from a human.

So instead of CHA+2, INT+1, Fire resistance, and some spells, you get the Elven DEX+2, Asmodeus' desired CHA+1, the spells, and the elven immunity to sleep / advantage against charms instead of fire resistance. No tail, but there's still a vaguely devilish aspect to the face and small horns.

Similar things can be done if ol' Asmo mucks about with hobgoblins, halflings, bullywugs, and so on.

[Daishain]

Eladrin were extremely fey-like in the older-editions, despite being Chaotic Good Outsiders.
That's exactly the point. D&D elves have about as much to do with their folklore fey origins as we do with tarsiers. Hell, goblins are a better match for fey than D&D elves are.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is what it is.

[Rfkannen]

That's exactly the point. D&D elves have about as much to do with their folklore fey origins as we do with tarsiers. Hell, goblins are a better match for fey than D&D elves are.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is what it is.

Because of your referance to fey goblins, I am going to use this exerpt to make fey goblins.

[T.G. Oskar]

Not at all. As I understood your post, you were saying that Wizards shouldn't give us a point-based system, because Wizards has been wrong about what things were worth in the past, so their point-system wouldn't be helpful or accurate. That doesn't sound at all logical to me, because if we can't trust them to be helpful and accurate about their system, why are we using it at all? That's what my spell and subclass examples were meant to illustrate: if we can't trust them to assign accurate point values to different racial traits, then we can't trust them to make balanced spells, or balanced subclasses, or balanced anything. We shouldn't even be playing their game if we don't think they can evaluate things fairly.

I wasn't referring to Wizards as a whole. I referred to the fact that designers erred on that part; I could find another example from another system to state the point. That doesn't mean they should be judged by that fault; it merely says that they can't make a perfect system, as that is highly improbable for anyone (that I know of). My gripe is less that they can't make a good system, and more that relying on point-buy for concepts such as the creation of homebrewed content WILL lead to severe imbalance, since you can't humanely judge for all parameters. My example was how they overvalued Strength at that moment; if they had translated that to a point-based race creation system, that would be unbalanced. Races are much better now, since while the Human (variant) is still king, the Half-Elf has grown immensely, the subraces of the other Core 4 (Dwarf, Elf, Halfling) are also very useful, and overall races feel like they're useful. However, the system is still at its very beginning; some of the problems of 3.5 were realized from the very beginning (full spellcasters being more powerful than martial characters) and others were realized with further content (Pun-Pun, the Mailman, etc.) In that regard, I used PF's Advanced Race Guide as an example; a system that's' doubly mature (as in, it's supposed to be developed from the foundations of an already mature system, and then it had further time to develop), developers that are meant to know about their system, and still they made a point-based race creation system that's nowhere near balanced. The difference is that you can compare to the foundation system to judge its balance: Half-Elves and Half-Orcs are very distinct between 3.5 and PF: if you can make a race that has better traits than a 3.5 Half-Elf in terms of points, then you can see the system is flawed.


I say, though, that we can trust them to make pretty accurate point values. Yes, sometimes they'll get something wrong, they'll over-value an attribute boost or under-value a combination. D&D isn't pure math, it's got a lot of effects and combinations that are hard to quantify, and mistakes will get made. Spells like Simulacrum will get written, even by the experts. But most of what they give us, especially what they've given us in 5th edition, is helpful, reasonable, and within a pretty good margin of error for balance. Most of a point buy system for racial traits would be within a good margin, too, if they put it together with the same care. Yes, we'd still have to eyeball it and make adjustments when we were done, but it's a lot easier to do that than to make up everything right from scratch.

I can trust them to have good judgment; what I can't trust is a point-based system to serve as a foundation. Your last sentence makes mention of it; at the end, you'll have to adjust in order to make the race more balanced, so you'll have to deviate from the system at the very end; it would be easier, from my point of view, to see what you feel is a balanced race, see what makes it work, and use it as a guideline.

As it stands, Races in 5e are incredibly easy to build. There's an implicit template that precludes the need for a point-based system: all races (save for Humans and Half-Elves) have +2 to one ability score and +1 to another. All races have a Size and Language section. Some of the races have subraces, and those subraces allow you to determine the +1 ability score bonus from the race and some of its other traits, generally one or two. You don't have to have the DMG to see that.

Translating what's not implicit into a point-based system, though, will be troubling. Races that have a set of sub-races were traditionally known for their multiple subraces in earlier editions: Elves had High Elves and Wood Elves (and Drow, which were meant to be more powerful); Dwarves had Hill Dwarves, Mountain Dwarves and Duergar; Gnomes had Rock Gnomes, Forest Gnomes, Hill Gnomes and Svirfneblin; Halflings had Lightfoot, Tallfellow and Strongheart. To what extent does something that's both fluff and crunch can be justified by a point restriction? As in, how many points have to be allocated to a subrace for each option to be balanced, while at the end figuring that what you feel is the iconic ability of the race takes too many points while another that's complete in terms of fluff still has points that can be spent? And, in the second option, even if they can be spent, what says that the complete subrace and the incomplete subrace (once completed) aren't equivalent, even if they have a gulf of build points between each other? Removing the restriction of points and using judgment is better, even if it has to be built. Part of the fun of doing homebrewing is building your own sense of balance; otherwise, you end up with a race that you like, that is horribly unbalanced, and that no matter how other wiser people tell you, you defend it because "it's built based on the guidelines and it has X points, so it's balanced!" Whether you attempt to game the system or do it unintentionally, this will happen.


And to take a closer look at your half-orc example: as you say, designers can make mistakes early in the life of a system, like over-valuing strength. But again as you say, later in the game's life, they had learned more, and other races were made that didn't over-value strength, and were much better balanced than the half-orc. This is the virtue of a living game: errata. They can throw a PDF up on their website that says "on page 221 of your DMG, it says that a 1st-level spell 1/day is worth 6 points; that's wrong, turns out it's only worth 4."

Sure; errata exist for every book out there. However, it's better if they don't have to errata all the time, as they did in 3.5 (and 4th) by having them make a simpler option. That said, if what Mearls said about the "Living Rules" is right, the players themselves will influence the errata, not the designers (by polls and comments, probably).

That said: a point-based system for homebrew creation will see so much errata that the document alone will change to the point of being unrecognizable. What one designer feels it's balanced one year may differ on the other, and new options may further change or even revert a previous change. Or, as many other point-based systems do, rarely change the mechanics and keep things all the same.


I don't expect them to be able to put together a point system where you can just build a race all paint-by-number, call it good, and call it a day. You're quite right, that's obviously never going to happen.

I do think they could put together a point system that would serve as a strong and solid foundation for new races, though. Picture something like a chart: skill proficiency is worth X, +2 to an ability is worth Y, an ability equivalent to a cantrip is worth Z, et cetera; they tell you the target is like, 20-30 points, and they break down several of the existing races by points to show you how it works.

Do you see how much guessing this takes out of the process? You can build a 25 point race in five minutes, then try it out, and then make minor adjustments up or down as you need to - and the guide would even make that easier, because it would give some insight on what adjustments are minor and which are huge. Without such a guide, you could spend days just trying to figure out whether two +2 bonuses plus advantage to stealth is too much, forget ever getting your new race into play.

Considering the racial template that currently exists is pretty simple to understand implicitly (without having someone to tell you), a chart like that would be redundant. A chart with points only serves to turn it into a rule, not a guideline, which kinda runs counter to the nature of the system (rulings, not rules). People WILL use the system to count all the changes, and then say "oh, it's unbalanced because it exceeds the recommended range by X points, so remove stuff", even if it'd be otherwise balanced; on the other hand, without a system like that, they're required to use their judgment, rather than a chart.

I don't look in expediency when creating stuff, and 5e subclass creation without guidelines is already expedient (not 5 minutes, but 10 minutes was enough for me to work the foundation of a Paladin Sacred Oath I made). Sure, I have more experience in homebrew creation than a newcomer, but I was new to the system as well, so by definition it shouldn't have been that easy. I went for what I felt was necessary for that subclass, not what a set of points said, and all class features adhere to their given fluff strictly, while still being quite balanced. Peer-reviewing helped refine that, or at least determine what needs to change. I, personally, couldn't have that liberty with a point-based system because people would adhere to it and insist I have an unbalanced race/class/subclass because it doesn't adhere to the rules; when a system such as that becomes a rule rather than a guideline, then it becomes a hindrance rather than an aid. That is the other side of a point-based homebrew creation system: either it allows someone to, intentionally or not, create unbalanced content that's otherwise point-compliant, or forces already balanced content to change because it's not point-compliant. The example you gave of a chart with points HAS a point-range as a goal.

Encompassing or not, a point-based system for homebrew creation is limited by design, and flawed by design. If you have to simplify the point costs to make the system simpler, then you're ending up with the flaw of over or undervaluing certain traits that are similar by category but different in utility or power; if you have to consider EVERY single trait as a separate thing, then you end up with a needlessly complex system that may be more balanced, but also more complicated to understand. You can tweak each "gauge" to approach a "happy medium", but the chances of approaching a system that doesn't end like the PF ARG or the 3rd party class-creation system is very slim. Winging it by that point is far, far easier, and with advice such as "look at what you feel it works and use it as inspiration", nowhere near as complex.


Honestly, something along the lines of that ACG link actually would be something worth putting in there, IMO. I've spent a lot of my life studying game design, both video and tabletop, so sure, that's all old hat to me, it's stuff that it's really second nature to think about. But for someone who's just starting out, just telling them what questions to ask themselves can be a huge, huge help. If some novice DM who's only even played the game once, never even thought about house rules much less homebrew, gets a group together, and one of his players says "can I be a catfolk?", we want him to be able to say "yes." And part of that is giving him some context on what else he needs to think about apart from "ok,well, they look like cats..."

So if the DMG does just have a few pages of opinion on "think about niche, here are the traits you can give bonuses to, if you want a race to all be bards give them a bonus to Cha," I would give them some kudos for that. I'd still want more for myself, since that's not helpful to me personally, while a point system would be, but I'd at least feel like it was helpful to someone and was serving an important purpose in helping players of the hobby to have more fun playing it.

I feel the opposite way. Not about the advice: that was just a response to "paying 50 bucks for advice a fortune cookie would give" (to me, the ACG advice is the equivalent), but about the point-buy system.

To me, creating your own content without restrictions and then using peer-reviewing to refine it is more helpful, for various reasons. First, it's an academically proven system: most college-level English classes aimed towards critical thinking, or any class aimed towards critical thinking, uses peer-reviewing (it simply doesn't end in peer-reviewing). Second, peer-reviewing helps you surpass any writing or ruling blocks you may have: by asking for ideas, you can get what you're looking for, or at least a hint of what you should be looking at. Third, it builds your judgment: by seeing so many different opinions either agree or disagree, you end up fine-tuning your own sense of balance when brewing content. Finally, it ends up perpetuating the system: by seeing how people react to your content and building your own judgment, you're free to assist others with that accumulated experience. To me, helping players of the hobby involves letting them have contact with peers and hear their opinion, in order to create a sense of balance that guides them to create better content (and maybe gather the fame to have that content become more popular; also, might guide them to seek a job at the gaming commmunity).

However, let's consider the example of a novice DM. The best thing a novice DM can do is to understand the system first, before using houserules. A player that becomes a DM isn't exactly a novice; it has its previous DMs as examples, and it has its own playing experience as another example. At least one of those DMs may have used houserules. A DM is well under its right to say "no, I don't plan to use houserules", or under its right to say "sure, but let me make it" or even say "sure; just let me give it the once-over and I'll see if you can use it". Even for a novice DM that has never played the system (making this its first contact), a point-based system won't be of great utility as you may think, because it may eventually color its subsequent experiences negatively. If it's a novice group (the DM hasn't played the game, and all the players are novices too), this may lead to either great fun or great disaster. If it's a purely novice DM playing with experienced players, those players may, implicitly or explicitly, take advantage of the new DM (doesn't mean it WILL; only that it MIGHT), and in that regard, a point-based system looks more like a rule than a guideline. The DM may end up learning a lesson, which in that regard may be beneficial, but more likely than not the lesson will be "next time, I won't use this system because it's unbalanced".

I guess we're at a heavy impasse, though. I don't find all point-based systems are bad: after all, point-buy is certainly more balanced than rolling, but that's because it's a mathematical method for adjusting numbers. It's not perfectly balanced, but it works (in fact, SAD and MAD can be proven via point-buy because it restricts all characters to a same pool of points, and thus to think which score is more important). Likewise, a point-based game can be fun (Shadowrun 4e and GURPS are good examples, though I personally prefer 3e to 4e because Innate Attack is a nightmare to understand), and it doesn't have to be balanced. However, from previous experience, point-based content creation systems aren't as fun, or as balanced, or as effective as good old writing + peer reviewing. Whether because you, consciously or not, find an unbalanced combination of points that ends up in an unbalanced character, or because you use it as a rule rather than a guideline, when the "writing + peer reviewing" is meant to be a guideline and never a rule, creating a point-based content creation system in the guise of "expediency and simplicity" is never a good idea. In fact, a point-based character creation system is neither expedient nor simple; how can you expect content-creation by the same regards to be expedient and simple, let alone balanced?

[Gnaeus]

Likewise, a point-based game can be fun (Shadowrun 4e and GURPS are good examples, though I personally prefer 3e to 4e because Innate Attack is a nightmare to understand), and it doesn't have to be balanced. However, from previous experience, point-based content creation systems aren't as fun, or as balanced, or as effective as good old writing + peer reviewing. Whether because you, consciously or not, find an unbalanced combination of points that ends up in an unbalanced character, or because you use it as a rule rather than a guideline, when the "writing + peer reviewing" is meant to be a guideline and never a rule, creating a point-based content creation system in the guise of "expediency and simplicity" is never a good idea. In fact, a point-based character creation system is neither expedient nor simple how can you expect content-creation by the same regards to be expedient and simple, let alone balanced?

{Scrubbed}

And then lets look at D&D. Every 4 levels you get 2 advancement points. A stat bump costs an advancement point. Feats cost either 1 point or 2. Via feats you change advancement points into hit points, or proficiency points. Fighters get additional advancement points at certain levels. In 3.5 you had level points, where every level gain was a point, but there were also races and templates which could be bought with a level point. Another point system from gold points, which could buy all kinds of advantages. Feat points could be used to give you a power that can turn level points into gold points. Gold points buy items that can give feat points. We are covered in point systems. Point systems that convert back and forth into each other. We just pretend it isn't a point system. And this is easier than GURPS how?

[Chambers]

Wait, so are Aasimar a core race now or not?

This brings up something I've been thinking about. Is there a definition of what Core means in 5e as opposed to other editions? I.e. in 4e everything was Core, in 3.5 it was the 3 main books (PHB, MM, DMG). What's the plan for 5e?

[silveralen]

This brings up something I've been thinking about. Is there a definition of what Core means in 5e as opposed to other editions? I.e. in 4e everything was Core, in 3.5 it was the 3 main books (PHB, MM, DMG). What's the plan for 5e?

Well, alot of times I see core used as a way of saying it's not an optional feature. Everything in the DMG probably has the "let players use it if you want" disclaimer, so it is probably an optional race, despite being mentioned in core.

I've seen people use it in other ways though.

[OldTrees1]

Wow. Its never a good idea. And all because of your previous experience. Thank you for correcting half of the successful game designers of the last 2 decades. I eagerly await the day when your game system puts SG games out of business.

And then lets look at D&D. Every 4 levels you get 2 advancement points. A stat bump costs an advancement point. Feats cost either 1 point or 2. Via feats you change advancement points into hit points, or proficiency points. Fighters get additional advancement points at certain levels. In 3.5 you had level points, where every level gain was a point, but there were also races and templates which could be bought with a level point. Another point system from gold points, which could buy all kinds of advantages. Feat points could be used to give you a power that can turn level points into gold points. We are covered in point systems. Point systems that convert back and forth into each other. We just pretend it isn't a point system. And this is easier than GURPS how?

You are missing a very important point.
Using a Point system as the rules =/= using a points system as the rules for creating point system content for the rules.

In English: Using the level by level multiclassing to build characters has flaws but is a decent system. In contrast using a point buy system to design classes to then buy level by level has even more flaws. (See negative xp per level to level in 2nd edition)

[Gnaeus]

You are missing a very important point.
Using a Point system as the rules =/= using a points system as the rules for creating point system content for the rules.

Actually, 3.5 did that too ;-). Custom magic item rules. It did it badly and as an afterthought, so by the time it happened it was plagued with problems because it didn't match well with existing item values. And as Oscar will no doubt point out, it was eminently gamable. On the other hand, their custom magic weapon/armor rules (by rating different powers as +1, +2, etc...)worked passably well for making gold point system content.


In English: Using the level by level multiclassing to build characters has flaws but is a decent system. In contrast using a point buy system to design classes to then buy level by level has even more flaws. (See negative xp per level to level in 2nd edition)

Actually, I'm pretty sure we were talking about race building, which seems rather easier than class level building. But anyway...

[silveralen]

Actually, I'm pretty sure we were talking about race building, which seems rather easier than class level building. But anyway...

You'd think that, but then we look at the ARG....

Not that pathfinder did an amazing job with their new classes (cavalier anyone?)

[OldTrees1]

Actually, 3.5 did that too ;-). Custom magic item rules. It did it badly and as an afterthought, so by the time it happened it was plagued with problems because it didn't match well with existing item values. And as Oscar will no doubt point out, it was eminently gamable. On the other hand, their custom magic weapon/armor rules (by rating different powers as +1, +2, etc...)worked passably well for making gold point system content.

Yeah, the difference between the custom magic items rules and the custom magic weapons/armor rules is a good example of the difference between a race point system and a set of races as examples.


Actually, I'm pretty sure we were talking about race building, which seems rather easier than class level building. But anyway...

You mentioned advancement points and level points. I took that as an excuse to generalize my point and to support the generalization with a 2nd edition level points example. I still think the topic is race building though.

[Gnaeus]

Yeah, the difference between the custom magic items rules and the custom magic weapons/armor rules is a good example of the difference between a race point system and a set of races as examples.
.

I can't really see how. No one suggested that "If you want to make a +2 brilliant energy frost sword, you should eyeball it compared with the listed weapons and price it based on whether it is better or worse than the listed +3 orcbane sword of speed or the +1 Keen flaming electric acidic sword. The following sword properties are worth 1 "weapon point", these are worth 2. These are worth 3. Add them together and compare them with this chart and you know how much your custom created magic item is worth. It isn't perfect, and it is limited in scope. But it is creating legal custom gear based on a point system, and it worked pretty well.

[OldTrees1]

I can't really see how. No one suggested that "If you want to make a +2 brilliant energy frost sword, you should eyeball it compared with the listed weapons and price it based on whether it is better or worse than the listed +3 orcbane sword of speed or the +1 Keen flaming electric acidic sword. The following sword properties are worth 1 "weapon point", these are worth 2. These are worth 3. Add them together and compare them with this chart and you know how much your custom created magic item is worth. It isn't perfect, and it is limited in scope. But it is creating legal custom gear based on a point system, and it worked pretty well.

Here is an iceberg/mountain/pyramid.
A: Choose a specific weapons
B: Choose weapon abilities
C: Craft your own weapon abilities
D: Craft your own rules for crafting your own weapon abilities
E: Craft your own rules for crafting your own rules for crafting your own weapon abilities

(A) is a system with content but no customization. 3.5's races kind fit here.
(B) is a system with content and customization. You don't have rules for creating content, but the content you have can be moved around via a point system. Leveling fits here.
(C) is a system with user customized content and further customization. Not only do you have a point system for adjudicating the creation of content, but you then use that content in a (B) system. 3.5 Custom magic items fit here.
(D) and (E) do not exist to my knowledge but are there to show the pattern.

The big difference between (B) and (C) is the orders of magnitude more options and even more orders of magnitude more combinations. This quickly leads to the system being too large for a human to balance. 2E custom classes, 3.5's custom magic item rules and 3.5's Savage Species LA calculator are all examples of (C) and have all had huge imbalances. In contrast a much smaller percentage of (B) systems are imbalanced in D&D.

Currently 5E races are a type (A) system*. This is not sufficient. However the section in the DMG is trying to use the DMs to turn 5E races into a type (B) system. Personally I would have preferred a more explicit type (B) system with DMs expanding the system but I also prefer more complexity.

*I do not count the subraces as sufficient for a type (B) system at this point since it can be modeled as a type (A) system of specific subraces without increasing multiple orders of magnitude.

[Knaight]

The big difference between (B) and (C) is the orders of magnitude more options and even more orders of magnitude more combinations. This quickly leads to the system being too large for a human to balance. 2E custom classes, 3.5's custom magic item rules and 3.5's Savage Species LA calculator are all examples of (C) and have all had huge imbalances. In contrast a much smaller percentage of (B) systems are imbalanced in D&D.

There's plenty of balanced homebrew, all of which is in class C. Moreover, several games better balanced than D&D have class C mechanics - take Fate, where aspects are as class C as you can get.

[OldTrees1]

There's plenty of balanced homebrew, all of which is in class C. Moreover, several games better balanced than D&D have class C mechanics - take Fate, where aspects are as class C as you can get.

Homebrew tends to fall into expanding (B) not into (C). If there was a point based system that the homebrewers were using to homebrew, that system would be a (C) system.

I do not know enough about Fate to confirm or refute your claim.

[Knaight]

Homebrew tends to fall into expanding (B) not into (C). If there was a point based system that the homebrewers were using to homebrew, that system would be a (C) system.

I do not know enough about Fate to confirm or refute your claim.

Using homebrew falls into expanding B. Making homebrew is a C process.

[OldTrees1]

Using homebrew falls into expanding B. Making homebrew is a C process.

No. Using homebrew is (B). Making homebrew is expanding (B). Making homebrew only becomes (C) if the homebrewer is using a point buy system for the creation that is not existent for someone using their homebrew. (Ex: Savage Species's LA calculator)

[T.G. Oskar]

Bit of an update, since a store in Rome apparently sold a DMG before the release date and the buyer started revealing (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?381805-I-have-the-DMG!) some of the content until the store asked him to stop (because WotC asked the store to do so). Coincidentally, one of the answered questions was the Aasimar spell line-up, so there's a pretty clear idea on how the Aasimar will fare up to the Tiefling. Using the stat format from the PHB:

Ability Score Increase. Your Wisdom score increases by 1, and your Charisma score increases by 2
Size. Aasimar are about the same size and build as humans. Your size is Medium.
Speed. Your base walking speed is 30 ft.
Darkvision. Thanks to your celestial heritage, you have superior vision in dark and dim conditions. You can see in dim light within 60 ft. of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light. You can't discern color in darkness, only shades of grey.
Celestial Resistance. You have resistance to radiant and necrotic damage.
Celestial Legacy. You know the light cantrip. Once you reach 3rd level, you can cast the lesser restoration spell once per day as a 2nd level spell. Once you reach 5th level, you can also cast the daylight spell once per day. Charisma is your spellcasting ability for these spells.
Languages. You can speak, read, and write Common and Celestial.

--

...the ease of setting up that kind of format is that you can extrapolate content from what already exists. The age may be similar to that of a Tiefling, while the alignment bit will be somewhat the opposite (maybe using the tidbit from the DMG description). Speculation was almost dead-on; honestly didn't expect Lesser Restoration (it's not what it was before, but it collapses what was Neutralize Poison and Remove Disease in earlier editions), so it's your call if it's better than Hellish Rebuke.

Still would like to see a complete write-up that at least acknowledges the Deva fluff (the Deva being the 4e response to the Aasimar), though tying it with the new fluff for the Rakshasa makes it hard. Perhaps on the Forgotten Realms campaign setting guide, if any?

[MaxWilson]

In English: Using the level by level multiclassing to build characters has flaws but is a decent system. In contrast using a point buy system to design classes to then buy level by level has even more flaws. (See negative xp per level to level in 2nd edition)

Ah, yes, the good old class-creation guide. I didn't realize you could get it to negative XP but you could build some incredibly overpowered classes that way. Especially if you dual-classed on top.

Metagame point systems for creating rules are trouble.

[thepsyker]

Celestial Legacy. You know the light cantrip. Once you reach 3rd level, you can cast the lesser restoration spell once per day as a 2nd level spell. Once you reach 5th level, you can also cast the darkness spell once per day. Charisma is your spellcasting ability for these spells.
I believe you mean Daylight, if I remember correctly from the thread you cite.