How good is Powerful Build? (LA help)

[sengmeng]

Half giants are pretty cool, but in my campaign world, they would not be psionic, so would just giving them +2 Str, -2 Dex, and Powerful Build make for an LA +0 race? Could I give them a little more and still stay +0, or scrap the ability adjustments?

[Artagon]

Half giants are pretty cool, but in my campaign world, they would not be psionic, so would just giving them +2 Str, -2 Dex, and Powerful Build make for an LA +0 race? Could I give them a little more and still stay +0, or scrap the ability adjustments?

It seems ok. Since 'Powerful Build' is basically a feat I'd probably balance them against Human.. Aka.. what does a human get for abilities other than a feat? Since Powerful Build locks their feat choice, I'd give them a sliver more than the human gets..
Perhaps something like:

Half-Giant
+2 Strength, -2 Dexterity
Powerful Build
Low-Light vision
+2 racial bonus on Intimidate
Automatic Languages: Common and Giant
Favored Class: Barbarian

[sengmeng]

Sounds good. I wasn't sure if -2 Dex actually offsets +2 Str. In my campaign world, this statline would also cover juvenile giants (which explains why their are half-giants). In fact, I might make a beefier half giant at +1 or +2 LA, and use this one for people with lower amounts of giant ancestry. So maybe "Giantspawn" would be a good name for the stats you laid out.

[bekeleven]

Powerful build is better than most feats, and players that use it would be ones that need what it gives (which overlaps nicely with builds that need strength).

I think +2 STR -2 DEX and powerful build is a solid balance for LA0. Maybe throw on some trinket text like some vision help or +2 to a skill, sure, but it's already getting there.

[Fizban]

I disagree. Powerful Build has no downsides and is a huge advantage to basically every melee build, enough that no other LA 0 race can compete, especially if they still have a +2 str on top of it. The only thing that can try is flight, but LA 0 fliers get their flight gradually and still can't hover without spending an extra feat. It's not balanced against other races, only against the idea that every melee character should have Powerful Build because they're a melee character.

[sengmeng]

I disagree. Powerful Build has no downsides and is a huge advantage to basically every melee build, enough that no other LA 0 race can compete, especially if they still have a +2 str on top of it. The only thing that can try is flight, but LA 0 fliers get their flight gradually and still can't hover without spending an extra feat. It's not balanced against other races, only against the idea that every melee character should have Powerful Build because they're a melee character.

Are you saying powerful build alone puts a creature at +1 LA? Should he get the -2 Dex and no bonus?

[Artagon]

I suppose if you didn't want to stack strength and powerful build you could give them +2 con instead of strength. This would make them essentially have great strength, since larger weapons = more damage.. with the toughness to match.

In 5e the Goliath gets +2 strength, +1 con, powerful build, proficiency in Athletics, and a 1/rest damage reduction ability, as a point of comparison. This does not cause them to have a LA, though it's worth pointing out that other races also get +2/+1 for stats, if you aren't familiar with 5e stat blocks.

Powerful Build is good, but I don't think it's as amazing as Fizban makes it out to be. It gives bonuses to grappling (RUN FOR THE HILLS!), bull rush, trip and allows you to use larger weapons, which basically boils down to increased dice size on weapons. Typically you're looking at about 1-2 extra damage on your averaged rolls, though there are exceptions.

[sengmeng]

So:

giantspawn
Medium humanoid
Base speed 30
+2 Con, -2 Dex
Automatic languages: common and Giant
Favored class: barbarian.
Powerful Build

[InvisibleBison]

So:

giantspawn
Medium humanoid
Base speed 30
+2 Con, -2 Dex
Automatic languages: common and Giant
Favored class: barbarian.
Powerful Build

That seems OK for +0 LA to me (not that I'm some sort of expert or anything). About as strong as an orc.

[Fizban]

Are you saying powerful build alone puts a creature at +1 LA? Should he get the -2 Dex and no bonus?
Yes. If you must put it at LA 0 then it should take the -2 dex with no bonuses at the least, I'd say it deserves bit more of a penalty but at that point people will really start complaining and there's no precedent for more than net -2 that's not a kobold or something. I'd actually want to make the penalty strength: it's still worth it even if you're taking -2 str, as ridiculous as the idea is.

Note also that having the giant type was also considered an LA +1 minimum feature on it's own for quite some time, as immunity to humanoid targeting spells is a thing, goodbye Dominate Person. There are a few non-humanoid LA 0s, but they tend to have net negative stats (Elan, Warforged), or barely any racial abilities (Killoren). But you can't just change the type to humanoid like you would for lesser planetouched, because then you've made powerful build even more powerful since now they only need Enlarge Person instead of the personal-only Expansion power.

[Solaris]

Dexterity is the more valuable stat than Strength; penalizing Strength hurts less than penalizing Dexterity. Also, penalizing Strength doesn't work well with the theme.
Constitution is likewise more valuable than Strength; sources of damage are easier to come by than bonus HP.

Powerful build really only helps melee builds, and it helps grapplers a lot more than it helps regular attackers. It provides next to no advantage to anyone else. It's the rough equivalent of a good feat - the existence of bad feats doesn't change that. Mathematically, the damage increase is fairly piddling (we're talking 1-2 points) until you start getting into higher levels and combining it with powers/spells that increase size by more than one category. That doesn't make powerful build more powerful than, say, a level of cleric or druid. It's not even on par with a level of very poorly built fighter, considering fighter at least advances your HP and Fort save (the BAB is roughly on par with the damage advancement).
That's not worth a level adjustment.

[nikkoli]

I may just be used to pathfinder where races are on average better than 3.5, ie tiefling or aasamar are LA 0 and humans get a +2 to whatever Stat they want. My table also uses the race builder, and powerful build isn't an option in it. We have valued it alone at 6 race points. Other 6 race point options are a non damaging lvl 3 spell at will and that sort of stuff. In pathfinder a human is 9 rp having a floating +2 (0rp), a bonus feat (4rp), +1 skill point/ level (4rp) and the ability to learn any non secret language from its in bonus at lvl 1 (1rp). On the same token an aasamar is 15 rp +2 wis/cha (2rp), energy resists (3rp), SLA (3rp), outsider type (3rp), skill bonus for perception and diplo, (each 2rp for a total of 4).
By the pathfinder definition anything over 20 rp is where the adjustments come in for every 10 over ie 21-30=la1, 31-40 =la2.

Since the core races in 3.5 are a little weaker than in pathfinder (net Stat adjustmentioned of 0 vs +1) I would say is you did anything over 12 points asthe starting point for LA it would work fine.

So with this I would break down the giant
Giant type 2 rp since it gives low light and immunity to humanoid targeting spells, I valued it the same as PF valued fey.
Ability adjustments +2 str -2 Dex would be 0 points since that's the normal balance points for abilities
Powerful build would be 6 points.
So that would make it an rp 8 race.

3.5 humans have a feat, bonus skill points, and the same language thing keeping them at 9 points.

On the same token elves have immunity to some spells, a save bonus, skill bonus, free secret door detection, martial weapon proficiencies, and low light vision.

So the giant as is (giant type, +2str, -2dex, powerful build) doesn't look any stronger than a human or an elf. Honestly I agree with the bonus to intimidate Artagon suggested.

[Solaris]

Elf is a bad benchmark to gauge against, being as they're one of the weaker races. Humans and dwarves are a better point of comparison in core, being as they're widely regarded as some of the better races out there.
After all, if you make a race that's weaker than the baseline options, you're not making something that your players are likely to want to play.

[Xefas]

You're actually in a very good position for deciding the relative strength of a particular racial ability, because you aren't writing something for mass consumption - you're writing something to be used at your specific table, for a specific game, in a specific party, with specific players.

Here's the thing: Are any of your players interested in playing a Half Giant with Powerful Build?

(1) If not, then it doesn't matter if it has +1 LA or not.

(2) If so, look at the rest of the party and then decide. Is it a Half Giant Fighter in a party with a Human Artificer, Erudite, and Druid? Then don't give it a level adjustment, because that Powerful Build is completely and utterly worthless. It's a bonus to grapple and a couple extra points of damage vs partymates that can summon things more powerful than the Fighter's entire character as permanent allies. Is it a Half Giant Warblade in a party with three Elf Commoners? Then, yeah - that Powerful Build is actually useful. It's a bonus to grapple and a couple extra points of damage! Holy crap!

The breadth of potential power in D&D is so vast that any ability's strength is a matter of perspective. And it doesn't truly matter if you write something that is 'balanced' in a vacuum, when you're writing it for something that is very specifically not a vacuum.