PDA

View Full Version : 4th Ed: Racial Power Progression



Person_Man
2007-08-17, 03:07 PM
So, by now you've probably seen this (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070816a):


In May of 2004, we started kicking around ideas like “the 20-level race.” In a 20-level race, at each level you gained, you’d get not only new class features, but also new racial qualities. Your race might predetermine which ability scores you increased at some levels, so a dwarf’s Constitution would always have an edge over characters of other races. It would grant you new special abilities as you advanced in level, always appropriate to your level, of course.

One key advantage we saw to this system was that it made it much easier to find room for new races without resorting to the kludgy and awkward mechanic of level adjustments. If we spread the tasty magical abilities of drow out through their levels, they could start at 1st level on a par with other character races. Races like the githyanki already anticipated some of that idea by granting new spell-like abilities at higher levels.

Well, over the next few years, things changed, as things are wont to do. We blew the game out to thirty levels, but put your most significant racial choices in the first ten. Above that, other choices started to crowd out room for special abilities coming from your race.

In the final version of 4th Edition, most of your racial traits come into play right out of the gate at 1st level—dwarven resilience, elven evasion, a half-elf’s inspiring presence, and so on. As you go up levels, you can take racial feats to make those abilities even more exciting and gain new capabilities tied to your race. You can also take race-specific powers built into your class, which accomplish a lot of what racial substitution levels used to do: a dwarf fighter with the friend of earth power can do something that other 10th-level fighters just can’t do.

The rules have changed a lot since that first idea of the 20-level race, but they still serve the same purpose: to make sure that your race stays not just relevant but actually important all the way up through thirty levels of adventure.

I abstain on voting on whether or not I like racial powers that progress.

I'm torn. On one hand, I'd like to be able to play a 1st level Drow or Ogre or whatnot, without having to screw around with LA or racial hit dice. But on the other hand, I think this may push optimization to the extreme. In 3.5, I can play a Gnome Fighter. Certainly, I'm not as powerful as a Human or Dwarf Fighter, but since racial differences are relatively small, it's not that big of a deal after early levels. So most of the focus is on fluff (what race I see my character being) rather then crunch (I'll play a Human for the bonus feat). But with racial class powers that progress, my 10th level Gnome Fighter might be at a huge disadvantage compared to a 10th level Dwarf Fighter, because all of the Gnome's racial abilities are geared towards spellcasting, and all of the Dwarf's special abilities are geared toward melee.

And what about the level of complexity that it entails? Will you need Dwarf Knight powers? Goliath Favored Soul Powers? Will every new supplement have to address every previous supplement?

Vote and discuss.

If you want to discuss 30 levels of progression, I've created this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54106). Thanks.

skywalker
2007-08-17, 03:20 PM
Well, it might be that a dwarf fighter is better off than a gnome fighter, because of the aforementioned ability switches. But I propose to you that this is creating a much more solidified D&D world, where dwarves make better fighters than gnomes because they should(most people agree that dwarves are better fighters, right?). On the other hand, I don't think they would let that happen, because they seem very interested in game balance, ya know?


But I think, overall, I will like this idea. There's my vote.

Generic PC
2007-08-17, 03:23 PM
Hmm... On one hand, it makes choosing reincarnation over Revification important. I think... Making a Dwarf Fighter 10 who suddenly becomes a gnome fighter 10 makes me wonder if you will keep your Dwarven abilities. I think i will abstain, though it has a neat base of ideas.

Jasdoif
2007-08-17, 03:26 PM
It reminds me of those racial/class progressions in the back of Complete Psionic, where you gain racial abilities alongside class levels. Granted, it's little more then a distributed "monster class" in a new framework, but I find it preferable to those monster classes, because you're getting class abilities without having to "pay upfront" in RHD or LA. And if they're doing the same kind of thing, along with getting rid of LA, that strikes me as a great improvement.

On the other hand...I don't like the idea of being forced in a particular direction with a basic race, through bonuses greatly favoring one style of play over another. It's OK for monster races, because hey: That's what they do. But I want the flexibility for basic races.

Hmm....Does this mean they're going to stop supporting PCs as monster races, or is every monster going to have its own racial quality list?

I have too many questions to put forth a vote.

brian c
2007-08-17, 03:30 PM
I agree with Skywalker; some races are predisposed to be better at certain things, and though that doesn help optimization it also is "realistic", in a sense. However, I got the impression that you were given options for your racial abilities; for example, the quote says "a dwarf fighter with the friend of earth power", which to me implies that not every dwarf fighter has the friend of earth power. Perhaps it's something like a racial bonus feat every 5 levels, with a decent variety to choose from. Most dwarven bonus feats, or Ogre bonus feats, are going to be melee-oriented, and more gnome feats will be magical, but not all. At least, that's how I hope it will be.

Matthew
2007-08-17, 03:30 PM
I have to admit I am none too interested in this element of the new edition. It sounds suspiciously like they are taking Racial Abilities and spreading them out over thirty levels. If that's the case, then it means that the higher level your Character is, the more differentiated he is by race, which strikes me as odd, even if it might be fun. On the other hand, it could be an interesting experiment.

Falrin
2007-08-17, 03:32 PM
A lot will dpeend on the given abilities:

As a matter of fact you can already do this by breaking up the current races in different LvLs.

1) +2 Con, -2 Cha
2) +2 Saves Vs Spell effect.
3) +2 Vs poison, ...

This allows more races to be played and resembles the 'bloodlines' from UA.

If the race-powers are not to class-specific or powerfull I don't see a problem with this. You could point out that a Dwarf Tank will be better then a Gnome Tank, but when it comes to mobility fighting the gnome takes the edge. So in the end we can state: As long as Racial levels don't force you in specific roles, I'm okey with that. There is no problem with a Dwarf being Slightly better at Tanking then a gnome, that's already the case. Even more: the Gnome will almost 'always' be better sorceror.

Question: Why would a 20th LvL dwarf be different from a 1st LvL Dwarf? well, he would have better HP, AC, feat, ... , but that's beside the point. You could state it like this: Why would a 20th lvL dwarf be MORE dwarf then a 1st LvL dwarf?

Lapak
2007-08-17, 03:36 PM
I have to admit I am none too interested in this element of the new edition. It sounds suspiciously like they are taking Racial Abilities and spreading them out over thirty levels. If that's the case, then it means that the higher level your Character is, the more differentiated he is by race, which strikes me as odd, even if it might be fun. On the other hand, it could be an interesting experiment.Actually, that kind of makes sense to me: an elvish peasant isn't THAT different from a human peasant. But a High Lord of the Elves riding around on his forest deer is quite different from King Hugh the Human on his warhorse.

horseboy
2007-08-17, 03:40 PM
Question: Why would a 20th LvL dwarf be different from a 1st LvL Dwarf? well, he would have better HP, AC, feat, ... , but that's beside the point. You could state it like this: Why would a 20th lvL dwarf be MORE dwarf then a 1st LvL dwarf?

Long beards? A young dwarf may be head strong, but an older/more powerful dwarf will be straight up a curmudgeon. I don't know. The jury is still out on 4th.

Matthew
2007-08-17, 03:41 PM
Actually, that kind of makes sense to me: an elvish peasant isn't THAT different from a human peasant. But a High Lord of the Elves riding around on his forest deer is quite different from King Hugh the Human on his warhorse.

In what ways do you have in mind?

SurlySeraph
2007-08-17, 03:43 PM
I have a strong reaction to this: whatever. I mean, it doesn't entirely make sense, it'll likely encourage too much race-based optimization, and it sounds like it'll be trickier to apply and calculate than simple level adjustment, but it could work well and be interesting. I don't know well enough to decide yet.

Fax Celestis
2007-08-17, 03:45 PM
I like it, since it makes your race more important than prior editions, where an elf ranger and a human ranger were different in a few minor ways and one had pointier ears.

Indon
2007-08-17, 03:49 PM
Question: Why would a 20th LvL dwarf be different from a 1st LvL Dwarf? well, he would have better HP, AC, feat, ... , but that's beside the point. You could state it like this: Why would a 20th lvL dwarf be MORE dwarf then a 1st LvL dwarf?

Well, they said the more common classes will have most of their abilities by 10'th level, max.

So, while a 10'th level Dwarf may be more Dwarf than a 1'st level Dwarf, a 20'th level Dwarf won't be more Dwarf than a 10'th level Dwarf...

While in contrast, a 20'th level Dragon will be more Dragon than a 19'th level Dragon...

Fhaolan
2007-08-17, 03:49 PM
Being as one who plays non-standard races a lot, I can see the attraction of the idea.

However, I'll need to see exactly what the rules are for this one. I can think of several different ways they may have implemented what they just described, and half of those ways would be very, very annoying or confusing.

The idea of actually being able to play a Centaur from lvl 1, and not have to houserule a bunch of weird stuff to get it to work is definately appealing, though.

Matthew
2007-08-17, 03:52 PM
I like it, since it makes your race more important than prior editions, where an elf ranger and a human ranger were different in a few minor ways and one had pointier ears.

There's a world of difference between mechanical and descriptive differences. Personally, I don't really want Elves, Dwarves, Humans, Half Elves and Halflings to be radically different from one another mechanically. I can see why people might, but it's not really for me.

Lapak
2007-08-17, 03:57 PM
In what ways do you have in mind?I was speaking in terms of the fantasy fiction/stories that D&D emulates, not in mechanics, but in general I would expect the two to be very different, even if both were fighter-types. Even if both were knights.

I'd expect the high-level elf to be able to awe his foes through majesty and power and to be agile and quick, bounding from melee to melee astride his seemingly-delicate steed while weaving a net of elvish steel and leaving his foes slain behind him.

I'd expect the human to be bold and brave, sturdier than the elf if not as quick, steadfast in the face of danger. Quick to adapt to the battlefield, to spot a momentary opportunity that might change the course of the battle and acting on it instantly, hammering down his foes with a weighty blade while taking their return strikes on the planes of his shield or plate armor.

I wouldn't expect Edwin Elf, Forest Farmer, to be able to awe the powers of darkness with his ancient heritage, even if he was 400 years old. He'd had the elvish grace and beauty, but not the superhuman quickness or terrible majesty.

I wouldn't expect John Human, Wandering Tinker, to be able to seize on a subtle change in circumstance to turn matters to his advantage. He'd have the human ability to turn his hand to any job that might fall to him, but not the ability to find his genius in it.

And so on.

EDIT: Seeing your latest post, I agree that this change would probably not be one that you would see as a good one. I like the idea, but I understand if you don't.

Jasdoif
2007-08-17, 03:59 PM
There's a world of difference between mechanical and descriptive differences. Personally, I don't really want Elves, Dwarves, Humans, Half Elves and Halflings to be radically different from one another mechanically. I can see why people might, but it's not really for me.I have a similar view. I wouldn't mind them being radically different through choice. But intrinsically, by level? This I do not like.

Matthew
2007-08-17, 04:08 PM
Differences

EDIT: Seeing your latest post, I agree that this change would probably not be one that you would see as a good one. I like the idea, but I understand if you don't.

Thing is, I'm not particularly opposed to the idea either, but it looks a lot like the 'Elf Class' from Basic D&D, or rather a combination of Elf and Class X, which is interesting, but even more likely to yield a mechanical stereotype. If, on the other hand, there are choices within the Elven Racial Type, that might be quite good [i.e. at Level X you choose a new Elven Racial Trait].

Fax Celestis
2007-08-17, 04:16 PM
I'm betting it's closer to Racial Sub Levels in conjunction with Racial Feats than anything else.

Ichneumon
2007-08-17, 04:18 PM
It seems like races are something like an extra class, with new abilities as you grow in level, this seems cool.

I would love the idea that subraces (Yes, I am looking at you, drow) be different variants or choices you could make to the same racial class. that would be cool

Person_Man
2007-08-17, 04:49 PM
Thing is, I'm not particularly opposed to the idea either, but it looks a lot like the 'Elf Class' from Basic D&D, or rather a combination of Elf and Class X, which is interesting, but even more likely to yield a mechanical stereotype. If, on the other hand, there are choices within the Elven Racial Type, that might be quite good [i.e. at Level X you choose a new Elven Racial Trait].

Yeah, the devil is in the details. Depending on how they execute it, I may love it or hate it.

From what they've written it seems as if every race starts with a racial power, like stability or evasion. You can then improve this power by investing feats into it. Sounds good. (Also, it tells us they're preserving feats, which I love. So that's also good).

In addition, you can take something very similar to racial substitution levels (or racial powers, or whatever they end up being called). They had such a fun time creating racial substitution levels for everything, they realized that the mechanic was crowding out regular class abilities. So they added 10 levels.

I don't quite follow this logic.

And I'm concerned that 4.0 has the potential to become very unwieldy, very quickly. In 3.5, there are over 50 different races and 175 base classes. That's over 8750 race/class combinations to theoretically create racial powers for. Obviously, that's not going to happen. So the end result is that if you want to play a Dwarf Knight or a Goliath Beguiler or whatnot, you may be screwed out of racial powers.

Or they simply won't add races, or won't add classes. I doubt that will happen, as it limits their ability to add new content (and thus sell more books).

I really hope they think this through before they do anything crazy.

Subotei
2007-08-17, 05:00 PM
I've not kept up with the 4th ed development - not played much DnD recently as it happens, but this racial progression idea strikes me as just wrong. I can rationalise that a fighter, as he improves in ability, becomes a better fighter - that makes sense. But that a Dwarf should become more Dwarf-ish? Where the hell does that come from?

Seems to me this will just increase stereotyping of the races as racial progression will play to each race's strengths - Elves more magical, Halflings more inclined to roguishness etc etc. If any game need less stereotyping, its DnD.

But then I'm an old cynic.

Starsinger
2007-08-17, 05:05 PM
As I see it, there's one of two ways these racial levels can work. Either they're mostly universal abilities that everyone likes... like Elves becoming more resistant to enchantment spells, and more dodgey. Or they go towards "favorite class" niches. So let's say dwarves become more fightery as they progress in dwarf.

So does that mean that a dwarven fighter is a better fighter than an elf? Maybe. But a dwarven wizard would be a more suitable gish than an elven wizard. Infact, this might help promote multiclassing since parts of your racial trait package help out.

puppyavenger
2007-08-17, 05:10 PM
Also it makes homebrewing races so much harder

DraPrime
2007-08-17, 05:18 PM
Hmm... On one hand, it makes choosing reincarnation over Revification important. I think... Making a Dwarf Fighter 10 who suddenly becomes a gnome fighter 10 makes me wonder if you will keep your Dwarven abilities. I think i will abstain, though it has a neat base of ideas.

Remaking all your characters because of reincarnation is going to cause soooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo many headaches.

Behold_the_Void
2007-08-17, 05:26 PM
This applies to my view of the 30-level system too, but basically there's just not enough information for me to make an informed decision on how I feel about it right now. I can see it being executed well though.

Stephen_E
2007-08-17, 05:27 PM
As mentioned, the devil is in the detail.

I'm hopeful about the concept, and like the idea of racial difference meaning a bit more than it does currently.

If the racial abilities give you more of an edge in some classes over othewrs, that's fine with me (they already do that).

If the racial abilities constrain you to the extent that certain classes become very weak for certain races, I'd be very unhappy.

As to why racial abilities/difference develop over time/levels. The abilities are alwasy their, but as you gain experiance you learn to use them more.
i.e. All Elves have a natural evasive talent, but as they gain experiance they learn to refine and develop this natural ability.

Edit - Reincarnation - Yes, this may cause them to have to do some work on the spell. But then we don't know if such a spell even exists in 4e.

Stephen

Matthew
2007-08-17, 05:31 PM
All that's been said so far is something like 'Dwarves advance Constitution at Level X', if I recall correctly, which has raised some hackles as it sounds like straight jacketing, but it depends what other aspects there are.

DraPrime
2007-08-17, 05:37 PM
One major drawback I see is that you may be forced to play a certain class depending on your race. There may just be no way for an effective dwarf wizard to exist. And think of what will happen to templates! It's going to be VERY easy for WotC to screw this up.

ShneekeyTheLost
2007-08-17, 05:54 PM
Here's the problem I see with it...

Some races were just more powerful than others, hence the Level Adjustment. If you spread all their abilities out over several levels, but keep those abilities identical, then all you do is delay the point at which one race is considerabally more powerful than another. This will only bring about two possible conclusions... mudflation so that all races are equally powerful, or character optimization for dummies wherin some races are never used and others are used almost exclusively. Neither of which are optimal solutions.

The Gilded Duke
2007-08-17, 05:59 PM
Not quite sure how it will effect the other races, but this idea would be perfect for shifters. I'm looking forward to it. Also could work well for warforged, perhaps different modifications as you level up? Also, allowing people to play drow or ogres at first level without it breaking the system sounds great.

cody.burton
2007-08-17, 06:02 PM
Here's the problem I see with it...

Some races were just more powerful than others, hence the Level Adjustment. If you spread all their abilities out over several levels, but keep those abilities identical, then all you do is delay the point at which one race is considerabally more powerful than another. This will only bring about two possible conclusions... mudflation so that all races are equally powerful, or character optimization for dummies wherin some races are never used and others are used almost exclusively. Neither of which are optimal solutions.

It seems more likely that they will make racial "feats". So a drow with three racial feats will be as powerful as a normal elf with three racial feats.

Orzel
2007-08-17, 06:08 PM
I see this as one of two things

1) Each race gets a few features that increase in powers. Like Elves get a few enchantment SLAs, a few enchantment immunities, and bow feats. Where as humans get a bonus feat every 4 levels and 1 at first. Half-elves gets a feat every five levels and a few SLAs.

Like Half Elves could be:

Medium/30ft/Language: Common and Elven/ Low-Light Vision
Immunity to magic sleep effects at level 1, Immunity to fascination at level 10, Immunity to magic charm effects at level 15, Immunity to magic compulsion effects at level 20.
Bonus Feats: Skill Focus feat at 1st level and 1 extra feat every 5 levels
Spell-Like Abilities: Half Elves can use the following spell-like abilities once per day: detect thoughts, flare. Caster level equals the half elf's class levels.
Primary racial bonus on Diplomacy and Gather Information checks (2 + 1/3 character levels)
Secondary racial bonus on Listen, Search, and Spot checks (1+1/4 character levels)
Primary racial save bonus on saving throws against enchantment spells or effects (2 + 1/3 character levels).
2) Each race gets a few features that reflect their abilities. Small races get increasing bonuses to AB and AB. Big races get increasing bonuses to damage and DR. Humans, and Half humans get more skills. Mystical races get spell save bonues.


SO I think races will be less powergamed. Gnome fighters would defensive warriors and use their size to their advantage with their high HP and AC. Half-Orcs spellcasters would better warriors when buffed or polymorphed. Something like bloodlines or gesalt minus the loss levels and coxplex rules.

Indon
2007-08-17, 06:49 PM
And I'm concerned that 4.0 has the potential to become very unwieldy, very quickly. In 3.5, there are over 50 different races and 175 base classes. That's over 8750 race/class combinations to theoretically create racial powers for. Obviously, that's not going to happen. So the end result is that if you want to play a Dwarf Knight or a Goliath Beguiler or whatnot, you may be screwed out of racial powers.


I envision something similar to the Gestalt mechanic, with two progressions that you simply combine somehow.

Hopefully it'll be simpler than Gestalt, though.

Machete
2007-08-17, 08:25 PM
I'd love to be able to play the Half-Ogre or a Catfolk without LA muss that I could never figure out.

bosssmiley
2007-08-18, 08:40 AM
The whole idea of racial level bennies puts me in mind of the Half-Celestial/-Fiend SLA advancements in the MM, or of the bloodlines or racial paragons options from UA. It could be interesting and really flavourful if done well, but there's the potential for epic fail if it's implemented badly. :smallconfused:

It'll be interesting to see what WOTC come up with, from a game resign standpoint if nothing else.

AtomicKitKat
2007-08-18, 09:17 AM
The whole idea of racial level bennies puts me in mind of the Half-Celestial/-Fiend SLA advancements in the MM, or of the bloodlines or racial paragons options from UA. It could be interesting and really flavourful if done well, but there's the potential for epic fail if it's implemented badly. :smallconfused:

I believe that's how they'll do it. It's essentially a Gestalt game where your other side is your race.

IvoryRaven
2007-08-18, 09:48 AM
I'm a bit leery of this- I really didn't like the way race-as-class was implemented in Savage Species and I'm worried that this will be more of the same. Granted, since these will be core books and not a supplement, there will hopefully be more playtesting and more logic-testing going on this time around, but it's still a bit of a concern for me. Additionally, as people have been mentioning above, this has the potential for a lot of really ugly minmaxing where certain race/class combinations become unfeasible if you want to be remotely effective and able to handle challenges of CR appropriate to your level. I like the flavor of having characters of different races be more differentiated, but I could see it going horribly wrong.

To use a video game metaphor:
Too much customization after character creation and you wind up with something like FF8, where the individual characters don't matter, just what they've got equipped. I've had characters in FF8 (and 7) who the storyline seemed to want to be caster-mage types as my frontline fighters. It's boring and encourages micromanagement and minmaxing-via-equipment.
Too little customization and you've got FF9, where each character is defined by their initial role. The black mage can't ever be useful for anything but black magic, the knight is good for dealing and soaking damage but not much else, and there's no real choice in how your characters advance. Additionally, some choices are just plain BETTER than others- there are two White Mage characters, but one is so much better than the other that there's no point in ever using the other one. The lack of options is boring and it encourages minmaxing-via-character-choice.
Something in the middle, like FF10, is what I'd consider the "sweet spot", the ideal for customization. Every character has a specialization and they'll always be the best at that role, but there's enough flexibility to move into other roles that you don't feel constrained by it and you're never punished too much for making the "wrong" character choice. The starting point matters in how the character develops, but there's enough choices along the way so that it's not the ONLY thing that matters.

The more I think about it, the more it feels like having a pool of racial bonus abilities/feats to choose from, as Brian C proposes above, may be D&D's customization "sweet spot". It has the potential to make race matter more while still allowing enough choices so that it's not encouraging all characters of a given race or a given class to be exactly the same.

I still don't trust WotC enough with this to be optimistic about it, but there's enough potential for it to turn out well that I can trust them enough to hope about it.

Morty
2007-08-18, 09:49 AM
I'm suspicious about it. Not only dwarf becoming more dwarfish over time makes little sense, but it's likely to bind races to certain party roles- dwarf abilities focused on frontline fighting, halfling abilities on sneaking etc. So if someone wants for example play dwarf wizard s/he'd have lots of racial abilities s/he wouldn't use, because s/he's staying behind casting spells, not fighting on front line.
And I wonder if they're going to give such progression to orcs, goblinoids and other "monster races". Most likely they won't, but I can always hope and homebrew them myself.

The Prince of Cats
2007-08-18, 11:01 AM
Seeing as how we know so little, I think we are taking too much for granted.

The way I read it was more like D&D Online's 4 or 5 bonuses a level; you get a choice and both class and race affect what your options are. If that is how it is done, it is less about dwarf getting more dwarfish as dwarves tending toward certain traits.

Alternatively, it could be to balance the fact that your stat-modifiers (like the +2 dex, -2 con for an elf) get less relevant as you progress. Some things (like armour proficiencies) don't need to scale, others (like attack-bonus) do.

AtomicKitKat
2007-08-18, 11:04 AM
I'm thinking it will be sort of like the Half-Fey, where you get like:

1st: Light 3/day OR Faerie Fire 1/day
etc.

That would give just enough customisation, I think.

Fhaolan
2007-08-18, 11:17 AM
Seeing as how we know so little, I think we are taking too much for granted.

The way I read it was more like D&D Online's 4 or 5 bonuses a level; you get a choice and both class and race affect what your options are. If that is how it is done, it is less about dwarf getting more dwarfish as dwarves tending toward certain traits.

Alternatively, it could be to balance the fact that your stat-modifiers (like the +2 dex, -2 con for an elf) get less relevant as you progress. Some things (like armour proficiencies) don't need to scale, others (like attack-bonus) do.

From the quote in the article it sounds like they've discarded at least three different variants of the idea, and are still refining the one they've currently using. I think the description they've given is vague enough for that one to be easily misinterpreted, and is sending this speculation down too many different trains of thought.

Basically, I can see several different ways this might be screwed up majorly, but those are really, really obvious, so I'd be surprised to find out that those weren't the ones they've discarded already.

The quote for two guys discussing fighters, the racial abilities by level, and other things all seem to point towards very elaborate and comprehensive feat trees as one of the core chargen mechanics (although they may not be called feats, of course). At this point I think that's what they're doing here, there will be one or more 'elf' feat-trees, for instance, full of elfy-kind of things. Feats might appear on multiple trees, but all on the approximately same 'level'. It's not that the character get's more 'elfy' as such, just that certain abilities are easier for him to access because he's an elf.

But that's pretty far-out speculation based on what I've read so far. I've got nothing concrete to go off of until I see more.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-08-18, 11:20 PM
I like it;
In the current system, races become largely irrelevant at a certain point.
Casters benefit greatly from an Int/Cha boost, but it makes the race a one-trick pony.

It can lead to straightjacketing, but keep in mind we haven't seen the classes yet. From what I read about fighters, it seems like it's more geared toward having every class use every Ability Score; which I think is definitely a better idea.

TheOOB
2007-08-18, 11:30 PM
So long as the races don't overshadow classes, and that they are designed so that each race can't only perform one role, I like the idea. Race should be important, it's likely the first aspect of your character any outside observer would notice, and it's probably the most defining factor in how your character thinks and acts. I'm tired of how some class/race combinations being considered rare, despite the fact that the race isn't bad, or actually is quite good at them. If I play a dwarven wizard, it should be something different, I should have to adapt my play style for wizard because I'm playing a race more geared for fighting and so on.

Cybren
2007-08-18, 11:32 PM
Dwarves shouldn't make inept wizards, though. Their idea is precariously close to the racial class limitations of earlier editions.

Machete
2007-08-18, 11:42 PM
If they've playtested it as much as they claim, they would realize to put in the more trademark stuff at lower levels such as darksight, stonecuning, ect. and leave other stuff like stat boiost and damage reduction for higher levels.

I think they would also realize that by giving races abilities that benefit most any character they wouldn't condemn a race to be stuck in one or a few roles(classes). I suppose some classes chosen for a race will be "better" but other classes will make for better versatility.

PinkysBrain
2007-08-18, 11:43 PM
I'm torn. On one hand, I'd like to be able to play a 1st level Drow or Ogre or whatnot, without having to screw around with LA or racial hit dice.
Notice that they presented no credible alternative to LA in the entire text, for all we know they could just as well introduce dropped levels as part of the racial progression ... which in the end would mean you would still be saddled with LA if you took them.

TheOOB
2007-08-19, 01:00 AM
Notice that they presented no credible alternative to LA in the entire text, for all we know they could just as well introduce dropped levels as part of the racial progression ... which in the end would mean you would still be saddled with LA if you took them.

But with scaled racial abilities, it would not be difficult to create a drow, for example, that is just as powerful as a normal elf at level 1 and all future levels, but instead gains different abilities then the elf, and just say most drow are a couple levels higher then elves, as drow are always a little more powerful.

For powerful creatures with abilities more powerful then others they could just use HD, so essentially your racial features are replacing x levels of class features, though you still have BAB, HP, and such appropriate to your character level.

LA is a mess, and the racial power progression provides many ways they could eliminate it all together.

brian c
2007-08-19, 01:08 AM
From what I read about fighters, it seems like it's more geared toward having every class use every Ability Score; which I think is definitely a better idea.

If every class uses every ability score, that means that they got rid of Charisma :smalltongue:

PinkysBrain
2007-08-19, 01:20 AM
But with scaled racial abilities, it would not be difficult to create a drow, for example, that is just as powerful as a normal elf at level 1 and all future levels, but instead gains different abilities then the elf
Racial abilities for the core races would have to be pretty freaking powerful then ... SR is uber.

Cybren
2007-08-19, 01:25 AM
From what i understand it's pretty easy to bypass SR (assay resistance, the beguilers feint thing, or just a spell that doesn't allow SR). It's useful but probably over-valued I think.

TheOOB
2007-08-19, 01:29 AM
Racial abilities for the core races would have to be pretty freaking powerful then ... SR is uber.

Not if the spell resistance is gained at a slow rate, at the expense of other abilities. Besides, we don't yet know how magic works yet in 4e, and how powerful a drow's ability to defend against it will be. SR is uber in 3.x because magic is almighty and apart from saving throws, which not all spells allow and a large portion that do only have reduced effects, SR was pretty much the only efficient spell defense. Being the only person able to a shadows chance in hell of fighting off a mage has it's perks. But if in 4e magic is more balanced and/or spell defense is easier, their abilities won't be so powerful.

Gamgee
2007-08-19, 01:51 AM
The stronger you are the more of a race you are.... thats kinda dumb.... It sounds neat but I think about it and it really doesn't from a logical point. I know this is DnD but it went to far for my tastes. I mean so.... in real life if I am stronger than you I am more of a human than you? How is someone else more of a human than another person. It just does not make any sense.... or even the older you are the more human you are so what does that make younger people than you even by a year? A sub human? Like I said from a logical point it sounds stupid....

Attilargh
2007-08-19, 02:07 AM
When you think about it, dragons become more dragon-y as they age. At least now stuff will be consistent. :smallcool: I think it as not becoming more of an elf, but more of, say, an elf ranger. I'm still not sure how much sense that makes, but I'm happy with it.

(Consistency, schmonsistency... Wonder how they're going to deal with any monsters players might take up as races.)

PinkysBrain
2007-08-19, 02:17 AM
Not if the spell resistance is gained at a slow rate, at the expense of other abilities.
Meh Drow MR was uber too, their ability to shrug off magic is part of what makes them Drow ... compensating powerful abilities with racial HD is possible, but IMO you need more than just that to do stuff like Drow or the existing templates well in a level based system. Maybe at some levels in the racial progression drop HD and their associated HP/skills/feats/saves as a penalty, but still give class abilities. Sort of like semi LA.

lordmarcoos
2007-08-19, 02:40 AM
Dragons do become more dragony as they age, but that's partly due to the fact that as a dragon ages, it goes from a tiny baby into a GIANT MONSTER. A adult dragon and a great wyrm are substantially more different than an adult elf and a really old elf.

Beyond that, my main problem with racial power progression is the same problem I have with how the new weapon system sounds; both want to make you look more at crunch than i think players should (maybe that's just me). If someone wants to be a spear wielding gnome, or an axe swinging dwarf, I think that should work just fine. In 3.5, you could be either of those, and still pick whether you wanted to be a tank, a battlefield controller, or a damage machine. But with the strengthening of racial and weapon differences, you might find that the character you imagine being is simply unplayable. That seems like a huge flaw to me.

Feats, Skills, and class choice have essentially no bearing on fluff right now, because a player can decide exactly what he imagines his character to be, and then find feats, skills, and classes that let him be that. But weapon choice and race are very much fluff decisions, and should stay that way. That's my 2 cents.

heroe_de_leyenda
2007-08-19, 02:41 AM
I agree with Skywalker; some races are predisposed to be better at certain things, and though that doesn help optimization it also is "realistic", in a sense. However, I got the impression that you were given options for your racial abilities; for example, the quote says "a dwarf fighter with the friend of earth power", which to me implies that not every dwarf fighter has the friend of earth power. Perhaps it's something like a racial bonus feat every 5 levels, with a decent variety to choose from. Most dwarven bonus feats, or Ogre bonus feats, are going to be melee-oriented, and more gnome feats will be magical, but not all. At least, that's how I hope it will be.

I would seem that you guys don't read the whole thing: The first post (wich contains the article) says:

"In the final version of 4th Edition, most of your racial traits come into play right out of the gate at 1st level—dwarven resilience, elven evasion, a half-elf’s inspiring presence, and so on. As you go up levels, you can take racial feats to make those abilities even more exciting and gain new capabilities tied to your race. You can also take race-specific powers built into your class, which accomplish a lot of what racial substitution levels used to do: a dwarf fighter with the friend of earth power can do something that other 10th-level fighters just can’t do."

It is not that you "got the impression..." it is a fact: You may choose them if you want.

illathid
2007-08-19, 02:46 AM
I could see them tying this to all monsters and using it as a unified means of advancement.

For example, a purple worm would not be just a static CR 12 monster. The MM would give you a racial Power progression for the monster and say that their favored class is the Warrior. A lvl 1 Warrior purple worm would only be recently hatched, while a fully grown purple worm would maybe be lvl 12. A truly ancient purple worm would have 20 some levels, and a dire purple worm would have fighter levels instead of warrior.

Wow... I really like that idea. If they don't end up doing that, I may have to homebrew it myself.

p.s. for those that say that they don't like the idea of becoming more dwarf-ish, try thinking about it another way. The racial abilities represent your race's potential. Not every one lives up to this potential, only those that challenge themselves and push their boundaries (IE gain experience) will be able to do so.

Gnorosch
2007-08-19, 02:48 AM
Well, I can see some sense here and do not feel to worried about forcing races stronger into classes then it is the case right now.

1) Becoming "more elfish" or "more dwarvish" as you level can simply be explained that those races simply have to master some of their innate abilities. They do not just get born and control them perfectly but have actually learn to use the correctly, like all of us had to learn walking. It could also describe a higher interest for tradition: all dwarves like epic songs, but your 10th level dwarf just remember more of them as the common dwarf and thus knows more about ancient dwarven history. He also has seen more of the places described in the songs and thus can grasp them more easily.

2) Most races have stereotypes that go beyond "fit for one class". Sure, dwarves are tough guys and thus make good fighters. But something like "Friend of the Earth" can be understood in several ways. A dwarven spellcaster (be it druid, wizard, sorcerer or cleric) who is a "Friend of the Earth" could well have advanced power over "Earth", granting him access to an "Earth domain" or "Earth school specialisation". A bard might learn the language of Earths and gain the ability to speak to it at will. A fighter might get "tough as stone", gaining stoneskin as ability.

So, I think that this mechanic can be used to make races more unique without forcing them into specific classes. Gnomes might fight different than dwarves and elves, but they fight too.

Greenfaun
2007-08-19, 03:42 AM
Not quite sure how it will effect the other races, but this idea would be perfect for shifters.

QFT! Woo shifters! :)

Although, like others, I must say we don't really know what form this idea will take. Personally, I think it's going to fall somewhere between the extremes of "racially-restricted feat trees" and "race as one 'class' of a gestalt character," probably closer to the former. It's clear from the post linked from the OP that everything's going to be optional, not on rails, but a lot is still up in the air, and that means it's hard to comment.

As someone who's a fan of playing weird/monster races, though, I think the Level Adjust/ racial HD system has got to go. It's a reasonable attempt, but so wonky in the details that it often becomes detrimental to suspension of disbelief for me. Personally, I'd like something that says "An ECL 1 centaur has these features and stat adjustments, and an ECL 15 centaur has these instead." I wouldn't mind losing the optional racial feats for on-rails progression if it would mean being able to play weird races from low levels.

Was that clear? For example, in this hypothetical system a dwarf paladin would be able to pick and choose the optional racial feats/powers right from the start, whereas a centaur paladin would be locked into taking the centaur racial abilities and stat adjustments until they reach ECL 12 (or whatever it would be) and only then would they have the ability to choose between optional feats in later levels.

new1965
2007-08-19, 07:22 AM
I would seem that you guys don't read the whole thing: The first post (wich contains the article) says:

"In the final version of 4th Edition, most of your racial traits come into play right out of the gate at 1st level—dwarven resilience, elven evasion, a half-elf’s inspiring presence, and so on. As you go up levels, you can take racial feats to make those abilities even more exciting and gain new capabilities tied to your race. You can also take race-specific powers built into your class, which accomplish a lot of what racial substitution levels used to do: a dwarf fighter with the friend of earth power can do something that other 10th-level fighters just can’t do."

It is not that you "got the impression..." it is a fact: You may choose them if you want.

Based on that bit it just sounds like they are playing up that all of the races will have access to feats like Battle Hardened
for Dwarfs [RoS] and have the substitution levels for that race
like the Half-Orc Barbarian [RoD].

If that is true , It doesnt keep another race from playing that class of even defines their roll(ie tank, etc...) . It DOES roll all those race specific variants and stuff into the Core books

The Mormegil
2007-08-19, 09:40 AM
I dunno...

If it's not gamebreaking and it's an option (not a rule), I'd say "Why not?".

If it is gamebreaking I won't like it.

But anyway, the wise man knows that character optimization will last as long as DnD does.

Enjoy your game!
>The Mormegil

TheOOB
2007-08-19, 11:12 AM
I hope they equalize the CR system so that all creatures of x character level are of roughly equivalent power level. I hate these creatures who have tons of HD but a low CR, and few HD but an insane DR, it makes planning encounters really difficult.

Jack Mann
2007-08-19, 01:17 PM
Humans can outmarch damned near any other land animal on the planet. We can march horses into the ground. Wolves would give up long before a human would have to stop. Indian tribes evaded the US army for so long because they could march any cavalry in the world into the ground. Our ancestors, living on open plains, would simply walk after their prey at times, letting it tire itself out before killing it. Yet your average schlub on the couch would get winded after a few miles.

This is a human trait in real life, the ability to keep up a brisk walk for hours on end (for days on end), that requires training to bring to the fore. You aren't born able to do it. But you have that potential (barring physical irregularities), and if you were to be put into a situation where you had to learn to do it, you could.

This, I think, is a good real life example of a racial trait (using race as broadly as possible, of course) that comes to the fore with a certain amount of training and experience. The more experienced you are with this sort of hardship, the more able you are to deal with it. The more "human" you become, at least in this aspect.

brian c
2007-08-19, 01:24 PM
Humans can outmarch damned near any other land animal on the planet. We can march horses into the ground. Wolves would give up long before a human would have to stop. Indian tribes evaded the US army for so long because they could march any cavalry in the world into the ground. Our ancestors, living on open plains, would simply walk after their prey at times, letting it tire itself out before killing it. Yet your average schlub on the couch would get winded after a few miles.

This is a human trait in real life, the ability to keep up a brisk walk for hours on end (for days on end), that requires training to bring to the fore. You aren't born able to do it. But you have that potential (barring physical irregularities), and if you were to be put into a situation where you had to learn to do it, you could.

This, I think, is a good real life example of a racial trait (using race as broadly as possible, of course) that comes to the fore with a certain amount of training and experience. The more experienced you are with this sort of hardship, the more able you are to deal with it. The more "human" you become, at least in this aspect.

Heh... reminds me of the Man vs. Wild eposide in Copper Canyon, Mexico. He talks a lot about the natives in that area, and mentions that they hunt by just running after deer until the deer collapse from exhaustion. Humans can do a lot of amazing things if they're pushed by necessity.

Squatting_Monk
2007-08-19, 03:41 PM
I could see them tying this to all monsters and using it as a unified means of advancement.

I hope they do this, too. It would give DMs the ability to easily customize and advance monsters (if, say, goblinoids have their own racial feat tree, etc., then the DM could design several different advanced goblins by choosing different racial abilities for them). It would also mean that players could just grab a monster right out of the Monster Manual and use it as their race.

There's also a greater potential for easier home-brewing. Rather than rewriting a whole race to make it fit your idea of how it should be, just change up the feat trees. Want to create a new race? You don't have to make an entirely new feat tree; instead, borrow racial feats from other classes that fit your concept.

This has the makings of a modular system where you can just plug in things you want and discard the ones you don't want. Why the fuss?


p.s. for those that say that they don't like the idea of becoming more dwarf-ish, try thinking about it another way. The racial abilities represent your race's potential. Not every one lives up to this potential, only those that challenge themselves and push their boundaries (IE gain experience) will be able to do so.

Agreed. You start with most of your base abilities, as the article said, but you can improve them (or use them to build on your class features) as you go along. This is sort of like the Racial Paragon rules: sure, you have dwarven abilities, but they can be improved. It makes you no more of a dwarf, but just accentuates the dwarven characteristics more.

To look at it another way, why do classes improve abilities over time? Is a 19th level rogue more of a rogue than the 1st level rogue since he gets +10d6 Sneak Attack damage while the 1st level only gets +1d6? Certainly not! He's just is better at using something he already knew. Then you add a rogue ability like, say, Crippling Strike. Does the ability to do STR damage on a sneak attack make him more of a rogue? No, but it does make him better at using his ability to his advantage.

Really this improving of racial abilities is only an extension of something that was already there. Why are people complaining about this when they don't complain about the presence of class abilities?

Personally, I like the idea, and I think it will add more customization and flavor in the game. If you don't like the flavor, do some homebrewing! The idea is to give you options, not to force you into a particular role.

Zeful
2007-08-19, 03:51 PM
From what I understand it'll be like the racial substitution levels (as has already been said) but you guys are thinking about it the wrong way, your not becoming more dwarfy or elfy etc. You are taking time away from learning the way of the sword (or spell) to develop your racial potential to get closer to your ancestors. And like it or not as a game all the racial abilities will push you toward a specific class, because each class has certain abilities that are suitible for one class more than others.
An example is the elves, they (may) get an Elven Evasion ability, this could be as simple as a +1 to reflex saves, or as complex as Uncannny Dodge (can't be flanked) or Evasion. But that's going to push you more toward a Rogue or Wizard, than a Fighter.
But it sounds like that there'll be enough support, in the form of feats and such that it'll make an Elven fighter just as formidible as a Dwarven or Half-Orc fighter, just in a different way.

Of course we should hold our judgement untill, oh I don't know the game comes out.

I must say that it sounds promising though.

Belteshazzar
2007-08-19, 03:51 PM
If done right this could improve my homebrewing options for customized high level npcs.

If done wrong it could pingionhole and steriotype races even more.

What I really hope this means is that I will be able to include more monstrous (non-humanoids especially) races as viable options. Anything that lets me play a Beholder and still meaningfully interact with the party is a good thing.

Kurald Galain
2007-08-20, 10:31 AM
In 3.5, there are over 50 different races and 175 base classes.

Er, HOW many base classes? :smalltongue:

brian c
2007-08-20, 11:09 AM
Er, HOW many base classes? :smalltongue:

A lot. Of course, that's counting every splatbook, setting specific book, etcetera. The only game I can imagine where all of those classes are allowed is something like Sigil Prep, where every different setting exists. Most DMs allow a small subset of those classes, based on the power level, their familiarity with different systems (for example, I don't allow Incarnum just because I don't know it, although I'm pretty sure it's balanced) and the specifics of the setting.

In 4th edition, I think they need to be mostly concerned with just balancing the Core books. With 3e/3.5 a plurality of people use only Core material (or SRD, which is almost all Core) and it's likely to be the same in 4e. Also, it's easier for a DM to ban something in a splatbook than to ban something in the core books.

Person_Man
2007-08-20, 03:38 PM
Er, HOW many base classes? :smalltongue:

As I wrote, there are 175 base classes. There's even a list of them (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/lists/class) on the WotC website. Many of them are variants (for example, there are five different versions of the Barbarian) or NPC classes. But even if you only count distinct, non-variant, non-racial variant, non-Epic, non-specialist Wizards, and non-NPC classes, we are left with:


Archivist
Ardent
Artificer
Barbarian
Bard
Beguiler
Binder
Cleric
Crusader
Divine Mind
Dragonfire Adept
Dragon Shaman
Druid
Dread Necromancer
Duskblade
Factotum
Favored Soul
Fighter
Healer
Hexblade
Incarnate
Knight
Lurk
Marshal
Monk
Mystic
Ninja
Paladin
Psion
Psionic Artificer
Psychic Warrior
Ranger
Rogue
Samurai
Scout
Shadowcaster
Shaman
Shugenja
Sohei
Sorcerer
Soulborn
Soulknife
Spellthief
Spirit Shaman
Swashbuckler
Swordsage
Totemist
Truenamer
Warblade
Warlock
Warmage
Wilder
Wizard
Wu Jen


I purposefully left off the spoiler tags to prove a point, even though I know its rude not to hide long lists/posts on the forum. If 4th ed uses something similar to racial substitution levels as core rules integral to gameplay, it will quickly become impossible to manage. Either they'll have to limit the number of races, or they have to limit the number of classes, or when they have expansions the expansion classes can be silent on expansion races (or vice verses).

Oh, and there are also 782 prestige classes (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/lists/prc).

So, as I stated before, I'm assuming they'll simply have racial abilities that are scaled to your levels but not directly tied to class. At least I'm hoping so.

Zeful
2007-08-20, 05:03 PM
So, as I stated before, I'm assuming they'll simply have racial abilities that are scaled to your levels but not directly tied to class. At least I'm hoping so.

The designers have said that the plan is something similar to (and more of a mix of) a racial paragon class, racial substitution level and racial feats, so you can choose what racial abilities your character cultivates and some static ones. In the end will have to wait till the box game comes out.

horseboy
2007-08-20, 06:00 PM
An example is the elves, they (may) get an Elven Evasion ability, this could be as simple as a +1 to reflex saves, or as complex as Uncannny Dodge (can't be flanked) or Evasion. But that's going to push you more toward a Rogue or Wizard, than a Fighter.


Okay, you've lost me, how is a fighter getting evasion a bad thing? Especially since it's a race with a good Dex bonus?

Jasdoif
2007-08-20, 06:13 PM
Okay, you've lost me, how is a fighter getting evasion a bad thing? Especially since it's a race with a good Dex bonus?Depends on if it's the same evasion we all know.

Having an ability based on making a Reflex save, and that doesn't work in medium or heavy armor, is of little use to a class that has a poor Reflex save and has the proficiency to wear medium and heavy armor. And if having it is considered the norm for determining encounters, it penalizes classes and characters that can't make good use of it.

horseboy
2007-08-20, 06:24 PM
Depends on if it's the same evasion we all know.

Having an ability based on making a Reflex save, and that doesn't work in medium or heavy armor, is of little use to a class that has a poor Reflex save and has the proficiency to wear medium and heavy armor. And if having it is considered the norm for determining encounters, it penalizes classes and characters that can't make good use of it.

Well, isn't that the reason they make elven chain mail and not elven plate mail? (Baring the fact of course, that there is no such thing as plate mail) That elves have a preference for lighter, less hindering armour than, thick, solid, hard to move in, rigid armours?

Zeful
2007-08-20, 07:03 PM
Okay, you've lost me, how is a fighter getting evasion a bad thing? Especially since it's a race with a good Dex bonus?

Well because a Fighter has a lot of hit points they don't really need evasion to survive some of the powerful evocation spells, however Wizards with such a low amount of hit points can die from a fireball from a caster a few levels lower on average. I'm not saying a Fighter with evasion is a bad thing, just that it's more helpful for the lower Hit Dice classes.

Though this gives me a cool image of the party meatshield getting nailed by a fireball point blank and walking through the resultant flames, unharmed.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-08-20, 07:52 PM
Well because a Fighter has a lot of hit points they don't really need evasion to survive some of the powerful evocation spells...Unless you're a flimsy little elven Fighter.

Seriously. Con penalties bite.

Vincentrose91
2007-08-20, 09:07 PM
I am looking forward to it actually. Maybe they had in mind that Races have that internal instinct to gravitate to the career the suited them the best before others, that aren't as easily learned for said race. As in, more dwarfs are fighter because they are naturally strong, tough, resilient, blah blah blah. and a gnome is more likely to be a spellcaster because it comes easier.
So, more racial abilities towards what that race is instinctively drawn to.
Thus every race is better at what it is naturally geared towards, Kinda like Darwin's theory of Fitness.
i really don't know all the details, so i am gonna say that it has the potential to be very cool, convenient and realistic, but it also could be pretty lame.

Traveling_Angel
2007-08-20, 10:58 PM
This is interesting.

A lot of you seem to see Dwarf fighter-style benefits as straitjacketing. Actually, it lets dwarfs be different things, but always a wee bit better at cracking orc skull together then their human counterparts.

A good example is the Dwarf Rogue vs Halfling Rogue. The halfling has abilities that boost his already large potential for the class. However, the dwarf has a few side abilities that catch you when you really need it. For example, the rogue and fighter are flanking the BBEG. The BBEG takes a swing at the rogue with a sword dripping with Deathblade(poison). If the rogue is a halfling, he gets taken out by the poison (or at least weakened). If he's a dwarf, then he shrugs it off and makes a shish-kabob of the BBEG.

The halfling is the min-max, the dwarf the more generalist. If the system is built right, that should be equal.

Zeful
2007-08-21, 12:02 AM
Unless you're a flimsy little elven Fighter.

Seriously. Con penalties bite.

Yes but most people put at least a 14 into con, giving the flimsy elven fighter a positive con mod after racial penalties so at level 20 it grants a 134.5 hp on anverage (5.5*19+10+20) more than enough to reisist most high level damage effects.
An elven wizard with the same con has 69.5 average hp (2.5*19+4+20) it would take one maximised fire ball (60 dmg for a 5th level spell) to trip the death by masive damage rule, which the wizard has good chance of making has to roll below 9, but it reduced to 13% of his average hit points, but the same attack would have reduced the fighter to 55% of his aberage hit points. If the wizard had evasion he would have had to rolled at least a 15 to avoid damage (approx a 25% chance) and most likely has to roll a 13 (16 dex) the wizard has about a 40% chance of doing so.

So statistically a elven wizard get more benefits from evasion than a elven fighter by about 43%... I think.

If these stats are wrong please tell me the correct process.

horseboy
2007-08-21, 12:13 AM
So statistically a elven wizard get more benefits from evasion than a elven fighter by about 43%... I think.

If these stats are wrong please tell me the correct process.
And by how much does it benefit an elven fighter over, say a human fighter without evasion?

AtomicKitKat
2007-08-21, 12:29 AM
The way I see it, it will look a lot like this:

Elf
1: +1 Dex OR Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat(yes, I know they're revamping, this is what we have to work with right now).
5: +1 Reflex OR +1 to attack with bows(generic Weapon Focus with all bows)
10: +1 Dex OR Combat Reflexes

And so on. It may be as powerful as a Bonus Feat/Ability boost, or it could just be a small bonus. Maybe with Gnomes one of them will be +1 to illusion spells OR 1/day low level Illusion SLA.

Jarlax
2007-08-21, 01:55 AM
i like the racial power progression because by the way that they are discussing it, class-race combos will basically define your race's Favored class(es).

that means they will probably go the way of spycraft and scrap multiclass XP penalties. and it means that a race can have several favored classes that are determined in the class details rather than the race details. which works better as they move into new books along the way

a recent ask wizards question touched on this, asking why a gnome who is favored class (wizard(illusionist)) doesn't have beguiler as a favored class, the answer was the beguiler class didn't exist back when they wrote the PHB so it wasn't possible.

but now that classes have race specific features every new class can add to a race's list of favored classes. by the sounds of it at a example would be that at level 10 you can take the standard wizard class feature, lets say its a improved familiar, or if you are a gnome you can take a special gnome only wizard feature that improves your illusion spells instead.

so when they reprint the beguiler class they can say, "okay this is really a gnome kind of class, lets add a gnome only class option in at level 10 and 25" whereas in 3.5 they would have had to say "okay we need to add beguiler to the favored class list of the gnome".

Starsinger
2007-08-21, 02:06 AM
so when they reprint the beguiler class they can say, "okay this is really a gnome kind of class, lets add a gnome only class option in at level 10 and 25" whereas in 3.5 they would have had to say "okay we need to add beguiler to the favored class list of the gnome".

That's what Racial Substitution levels are. Like a 1st level elven wizard can choose to give up specializing in a school of magic, and instead learn an extra spell per level. These exist now.

AtomicKitKat
2007-08-21, 05:24 AM
Maybe I was unclear above. The way I see it, a race would be "strongly encouraged" to pick certain classes(physiologically, psychologically, etc.), to reflect a racial predilection for taking said classes. So the "Racial Level Up Features" would give say, Elves a free Extend Spell on Enchantment/Charm Spells and Effects(sort of a "Not only are they good at resisting charms, but they can charm you back for longer too!"), maybe Gnomish Illusions get an Extend, or are harder to disbelieve, etc. But instead of forcing you to take those, maybe it's done Racial Substitution Level style, where it builds upon previous levels, or if say, you wanted a Gish instead of pure Fighter Elf or Wizard Elf, you can pick a little of one, and some of the other. I wouldn't support too much "Feat Treeing" for racial powers though, as that has potential to jack the balance too much into pigeon-holing(ie, no more than maybe 2-3 "Feats" in the "tree". Nothing on the same level as say, Divine Metamagic, or Shock Trooper. More like Skill Focus, or the +2/+2 to 2 skills Feats.).

Zeful
2007-08-21, 01:26 PM
Only if they really mess up with the racial powers and feats. If they do it right you would end up with 8-10 classless features that can be used with any class in any combination. And every level in your race you get more options (to make it easier for new players) If they do it right it might be a more like this
Lv2: +1 Ref bonus or Weapon Focus (Longsword or Rapier)
Lv4: Evasion or +1 Damage (Longsword or Rapier) or +1 dex
Lv7: Uncanny Dodge (can't be flanked) or Spell Immunity: Charm Person or +2 saves versus Enchantmen/Charm spells or Cast Pass without trace 1/day
Etc.
I think it'll have a series of options that certain classes find more useful than others, an Elven fighter might grab Weapon Focus (Rapier) and the +1dex and grab Weapon Finesse and then Spell Immunity: Charm Person. If attempts to charm aren't as frequent but low level tactial mooks are (similar to Tucker's Kobalds), the elf would grab Uncanny dodge instead to combat the amount of flanking there is. Each situation may create different paths the characters take down the racial tree.

Of course AtomicKitKat I could be so very very wrong it's not funny, and you could be right, we'll find out in a year.

Also it looks like WoTC is considering Changlings as a core race.

Jarlax
2007-08-21, 06:08 PM
That's what Racial Substitution levels are. Like a 1st level elven wizard can choose to give up specializing in a school of magic, and instead learn an extra spell per level. These exist now.

yes i know, wizards have stated a lot of what will be new to 4th edition is stuff that they tested within 3.5 first.

but racial substitution levels in 3.5 only exist in the "Races of the X" books at the moment, and only for the core classes and only for the races presented in those books.

what wizards appears to be proposing is making the idea Core and applying it to all PC classes with the ability to include them for all future PC classes, which means every class released in 4th edition will have these racial options and those classes can include options for any PC race presented in 4th edition, for example the Eberron players guide will probably present the Eberron race list and a list of new setting specific classes which would likely have racial options for those new races.

Zeful
2007-08-21, 06:37 PM
Actually AtomicKitKat, according to the article about races, it will be a combination of Racial Paragon levels, Racial Substitution Levels, and Racial Feats as stated here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070816a)


We had tried out mechanics like the racial paragons in Unearthed Arcana and the racial substitution levels in the Races of . . . series of books, and we liked the results.

and

Well, over the next few years, things changed, as things are wont to do. We blew the game out to thirty levels, but put your most significant racial choices in the first ten. Above that, other choices started to crowd out room for special abilities coming from your race.

So in the end your not going to be pidgenholed into a specific race/class combination.

Tough_Tonka
2007-08-21, 07:27 PM
Why do the race features have to be beneficial for only one class, couldn't they give races multiple options that benefit different types of classes to choose from when the character levels up?

These option might not work for every kind of build: gnome features may no make you a great a greatsword hacker and slasher, but they could make exellent dex fighters or multi-class mage/warriors or the like.

AtomicKitKat
2007-08-21, 08:03 PM
Just for the record, there are other "substitution levels" out there, not just racial. I've only seen them in Champions of Valor though.:smalltongue:

Zeful
2007-08-21, 08:42 PM
Why do the race features have to be beneficial for only one class, couldn't they give races multiple options that benefit different types of classes to choose from when the character levels up?

These option might not work for every kind of build: gnome features may no make you a great a greatsword hacker and slasher, but they could make exellent dex fighters or multi-class mage/warriors or the like.

It's not that certain racial features are usefull for only one class, it's that it's more useful for certain classes, Str is useful for Melee oriented Characters Dex is useful for ranged focused characers, rogues and mages, Con is good for everybody, Int is good for skill-monkies and wizards (or int based casters)
Wis is good for Trackers and Wis casters, Cha is good for diplomancers and Cha based casters. If your part of a group, you want to raise stats that are good for your group.

Zombie Food
2007-08-21, 11:35 PM
The one thing that we seem to be forgetting is that the way the races are set up in 3.5 pushes them into their set roles. Like Dwarfs get a bonus to con and using heavy armor so they make good fighters. That doesn't mean that you can't have a dwarf wizard it just means that they make better fighters. Not to mention it's their favorite class.

I think the new way is with racial feats that you take a certain levels is better because you could have abilities that make your dwarf more wizard like then fighter like.

Also with 3.5 it doesn't matter what base race you are if you are a 20th level fighter. by level 20 all the races that don't have a level adjustment don't make much of a difference. but with the new system a 20th level dwarf fighter could have abilities that a 20th level Elf fighter never had the option to take.

I am worried how this system is going to affect playing monster races. I could see how there just wouldn't be any system for customizing your centaur character to their class. Or maybe there will be a list of race feats for all giants or all fey and you would have to pick from the list.

Now that I think about it, the whole thing sounds like what 2nd edition turned into. Where there was the point buy system for racial traits and you could play a dwarf who had darkvision but no ability to recognize stone work. That system was great for min maxing but everyone just ended up taking the same abilities and ignoring all of the other ones.

Zeful
2007-08-22, 01:07 AM
Okay I feel I have to point something out. According to the wording the Races article used, you 'advance' in a ten 'level' race in which you pick abilities from a series of options presented. These abilities are assumed to be classless as it's too early for a definitive answer, and will be something like...


Lv2: +1 Ref bonus or Weapon Focus (Longsword or Rapier)
Lv4: Evasion or +1 Damage (Longsword or Rapier) or +1 dex
Lv7: Uncanny Dodge (can't be flanked) or Spell Immunity: Charm Person or +2 saves versus Enchantmen/Charm spells or Cast Pass without trace 1/day
Etc.

Racial feats will be included that further enhance your racial abilities on in addition to the abilities granted by your racial 'levels'.

Now I'm pretty sure this sounds condicending and I apologise, but I've been responding to the same arguments for the last page and it seems that I'm being ignored as there has been a grand total of 3 people responding to my arguments as to why it could be something else (and they were more statistical arguments). It's been... frustrating:smallfurious:
Again I apologise if anyone take offense to this post.