antipodeF
2017-05-02, 06:07 PM
Suppose you want to build a Sorcerer. What races are you going to consider? Probably the Gnome, since they get +2 to Charisma, and Humans are always good for that variable +2 and the free feat. You'd never play a Dwarf. That -2 to CHA is going to sting, especially in stat roll games. 16 isn't terrible, but for a full caster, it's woefully suboptimal.
Suppose you want to be a Cleric. You might go for Dwarf to get +2 WIS, or, again, a Human is always a good choice. You'd never play an Ifrit, because -2 WIS just isn't worth your time. Etc etc, you get the picture.
This sort of thing really bugs me. What if I have an interesting concept for a Dwarven Sorcerer or an Ifrit Cleric? I've either gotta eat the penalties and just be really bad at what I do, or stuff these concepts under the floorboard, never to see the light of day. So, I came up with a simple alternative to make things a bit more flexible.
When you choose a race, you choose one of three options for racial ability modifiers:
1) +2 to any score, -2 to any other score
2) +2 to any two scores, -2 to any three scores (cannot select the same score twice)
3) Whatever is listed as the default option for that race
This would mean, it's still ideal to play as an "appropriate" race, or as a human (seriously, why are humans so much better then everyone?) but, if you do want to play a Dwarven Sorcerer, it's still possible to roughly keep up with members of other races. It diminishes the race/class stereotypes and magnifies the importance of the lesser racial ability scores, such as the Dwarves' Slow and Steady and Stonecunning.
I don't know if this sort of thing was necessary, but I guess I felt a bit stifled and pigeonholed by all these guides telling me not to play certain race/class combinations. I actually tried an Ifrit Cleric early in my career and was promptly scolded by the other members of my party. "Wouldn't it be perfect for the half-efreeti people of elemental fire to serve as clerics of Saranrae or Asmodeus or other fire deities?" I though. But apparently I was wrong.
I don't know, maybe someone will find this interesting.
Suppose you want to be a Cleric. You might go for Dwarf to get +2 WIS, or, again, a Human is always a good choice. You'd never play an Ifrit, because -2 WIS just isn't worth your time. Etc etc, you get the picture.
This sort of thing really bugs me. What if I have an interesting concept for a Dwarven Sorcerer or an Ifrit Cleric? I've either gotta eat the penalties and just be really bad at what I do, or stuff these concepts under the floorboard, never to see the light of day. So, I came up with a simple alternative to make things a bit more flexible.
When you choose a race, you choose one of three options for racial ability modifiers:
1) +2 to any score, -2 to any other score
2) +2 to any two scores, -2 to any three scores (cannot select the same score twice)
3) Whatever is listed as the default option for that race
This would mean, it's still ideal to play as an "appropriate" race, or as a human (seriously, why are humans so much better then everyone?) but, if you do want to play a Dwarven Sorcerer, it's still possible to roughly keep up with members of other races. It diminishes the race/class stereotypes and magnifies the importance of the lesser racial ability scores, such as the Dwarves' Slow and Steady and Stonecunning.
I don't know if this sort of thing was necessary, but I guess I felt a bit stifled and pigeonholed by all these guides telling me not to play certain race/class combinations. I actually tried an Ifrit Cleric early in my career and was promptly scolded by the other members of my party. "Wouldn't it be perfect for the half-efreeti people of elemental fire to serve as clerics of Saranrae or Asmodeus or other fire deities?" I though. But apparently I was wrong.
I don't know, maybe someone will find this interesting.