PDA

View Full Version : Abilities for 4e Humans?



Dhavaer
2008-02-03, 03:14 AM
What do think (and/or hope) they'll be?

I'm actually kind of hoping they'll stay unmodified. The general fantasy trope seems to be that everyone else is noticeably superior to humans in some way (elves are fast, dwarves are tough, etc) but humans make up for this in a less noticeable fashion. I could see this being represented by extra action points, a 'second wind' mechanic, something similar to the 'slippery mind' ability, and other abilities with something of an 'up against the wall' flavour.

VanBuren
2008-02-03, 03:22 AM
At least where NWN was concerned, the majority of the builds used human as a race. Generally, the extra feat/skillpoints was seen as a major advantage.

Morty
2008-02-03, 06:17 AM
Well, in 3rd edition humans were defined by not having any racial stat bonuses and penalties. Since racial stat penalties are out of the window in 4ed, humans should either get some stat bonuses -probably for Int and Cha- or more powerful racial abilites. I wonder how they'll work it out.

Nebo_
2008-02-03, 06:47 AM
They are described as being tough, so I think they will have a Constitution boost.

Spiryt
2008-02-03, 06:53 AM
They are described as being tough, so I think they will have a Constitution boost.

But why? :smalleek:

Sure, it seems fair for human to be more hardy than elf, but it would be much more logical to give elf a penalty.

From the very broad point of view it's of course the same - there is anyway difference of 2 (or whatever) beneath them.
But it's generally accepted that human is something "average" in most fantasy systems.

Charity
2008-02-03, 08:11 AM
They explicitly said they were not going to be assigning racial penalties, only bonuses, so I guess if they want elves to be fragile everyone else needs to be hardy.

loopy
2008-02-03, 08:51 AM
They explicitly said they were not going to be assigning racial penalties, only bonuses, so I guess if they want elves to be fragile everyone else needs to be hardy.

But where does it end? I mean, showing that humans are hardier than elves would mean a +2 bonus. However, Gnomes are supposedly hardier than humans, meaning that they would need a +4. This means the average Gnomish peasant would have 14 con and would be a remarkably healthy person.

I'm not sold on this "no penalties" thing at all.

Nebo_
2008-02-03, 09:32 AM
But where does it end? I mean, showing that humans are hardier than elves would mean a +2 bonus. However, Gnomes are supposedly hardier than humans, meaning that they would need a +4. This means the average Gnomish peasant would have 14 con and would be a remarkably healthy person.

I'm not sold on this "no penalties" thing at all.

But we don't have the fluff for 4e gnomes, yet. Who says that they're supposed to be tougher than normal?

triforcel
2008-02-03, 09:43 AM
Aren't the 4e gnomes monsters anyways?

Ryuuk
2008-02-03, 09:51 AM
Hmm, whats to stop humans from getting a +2 to a stat of choice? If you also through throw in 4ed versions of their 3.5 bonus feat and skill points, that should be enough. They're supposed to be adaptable, but a human would most likely chose a career in which he excels as.

Spiryt
2008-02-03, 09:56 AM
But where does it end? I mean, showing that humans are hardier than elves would mean a +2 bonus. However, Gnomes are supposedly hardier than humans, meaning that they would need a +4. This means the average Gnomish peasant would have 14 con and would be a remarkably healthy person.

I'm not sold on this "no penalties" thing at all.

Exactly.


But we don't have the fluff for 4e gnomes, yet. Who says that they're supposed to be tougher than normal?

They say that gnomes anyway are out. But dwarves? Dwarves will certainly be hardier than humans, that's what dwarves do.

Of course it all can be build that way : Elves + 0 Con, everything else +2, Dwarfves + 4. But what's the point?
Elves - 2 leaves more free paper, let alone other things.

metalbear
2008-02-03, 11:39 AM
I have to agree with Ryuuk, by giving the humans an option as to what their stat bonus is fits the concept of humans being adaptable and varied.

Theli
2008-02-03, 11:42 AM
Races and Classes has this to say about the "mechanical benefits for humans":

Humans are our most resilient race. Though they don't have more hit points or higher defenses, they recover from damage and conditions more quickly than other races can. Humans are all about dramatic action and dramatic recovery. Many of these benefits come from racial feats.

It then goes on to say how its "never stupid to play a human of any class" due to this capability, even though they "have more potential for some classes".

sikyon
2008-02-03, 11:47 AM
Races and Classes has this to say about the "mechanical benefits for humans":


It then goes on to say how its "never stupid to play a human of any class" due to this capability, even though they "have more potential for some classes".

Ahhh... maybe they recover HP quicker when resting, regain ability scores faster when damaged, get bonuses on fort saves vs disease and poison and weather and whatnot.

Tren
2008-02-03, 12:09 PM
Races and Classes has this to say about the "mechanical benefits for humans":


It then goes on to say how its "never stupid to play a human of any class" due to this capability, even though they "have more potential for some classes".

It could be something like Will of the Forsaken from WoW, where they can shrug off one negative effect, maybe once per day or once per encounter.

*grabs a martini and waits for the 4E=WOWOMGWTF*

ShadowSiege
2008-02-03, 01:23 PM
Ahhh... maybe they recover HP quicker when resting, regain ability scores faster when damaged, get bonuses on fort saves vs disease and poison and weather and whatnot.

Yeah, I read it as humans recover from wounds faster. Not necessarily more resistant to disease, poison or weather, but better able to wake up after the battle and march once more unto the breach.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-03, 02:10 PM
Perhaps they just figured that the bonus Feats and Skill Points (or their analogue in the new system) were enough on their own. They are pretty good, after all.

RTGoodman
2008-02-03, 02:33 PM
I could see this being represented by ... a 'second wind' mechanic

I can remember the source, but I'm pretty sure that somewhere it was mentioned that everyone was gonna get a "second wind" ability that works like the same mechanic from SW Saga Edition.

It seems to me from the Elf Stats preview that races are gonna get two +2 stats (Elves get +2 Dex, +2 Wis (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dramp/20071221)). I'm sort of thinking that humans will either get no bonuses but other stuff that makes up for that, or that they'll get "+2 to any two ability scores" or something like that.

Lord Tataraus
2008-02-03, 02:37 PM
But where does it end? I mean, showing that humans are hardier than elves would mean a +2 bonus. However, Gnomes are supposedly hardier than humans, meaning that they would need a +4. This means the average Gnomish peasant would have 14 con and would be a remarkably healthy person.

I'm not sold on this "no penalties" thing at all.

I hear you, I don't like this no penalties thing either. It makes me wonder if humans will get +2 in everything? It seems they are basiaclly just adding 2 to all the stats to make sure there are no "penalties". I like penalties, it shows "I suck at this" where as a no bonus is "I'm average", an elf is not supposed to have "average" health.

mikeejimbo
2008-02-03, 02:41 PM
A Wisdom bonus? That's outrageous and crazy.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-03, 02:43 PM
I hear you, I don't like this no penalties thing either. It makes me wonder if humans will get +2 in everything? It seems they are basiaclly just adding 2 to all the stats to make sure there are no "penalties". I like penalties, it shows "I suck at this" where as a no bonus is "I'm average", an elf is not supposed to have "average" health.

There's two problems with penalties. Firstly, they make some classes prohibitively underpowered for some races, often for no reason. Secondly, they don't really get you anything. An elf with -2 Con can still have a Con score of 12, which is better than the average human.

Theli
2008-02-03, 02:45 PM
an elf is not supposed to have "average" health.

Which begs the question...if their health is so poor, then why do they live so long?

Hmm...

mikeejimbo
2008-02-03, 02:46 PM
There's two problems with penalties. Firstly, they make some classes prohibitively underpowered for some races, often for no reason. Secondly, they don't really get you anything. An elf with -2 Con can still have a Con score of 12, which is better than the average human.

But then, if you play a race that DOESN'T have a bonus to stats that are necessary for a class, you'll still be underpowered compared to the ones that do.

Morty
2008-02-03, 02:48 PM
There's two problems with penalties. Firstly, they make some classes prohibitively underpowered for some races, often for no reason.

No reason? "Elves don't make good front-line heavy armored fighters because they're fragile" or "Half-orcs don't make good wizards because they're dim-witted" seem like preety good reasons.
Besides, some races will still be underpowered in certain roles, because they won't get bonuses to help them in those roles.


Secondly, they don't really get you anything. An elf with -2 Con can still have a Con score of 12, which is better than the average human.

And vastly better that your average elf. So the difference is still in here.

freetobeuandme
2008-02-03, 02:48 PM
humans should stay as they are. They are a basis for all the other classes. Elves get a -2 consitution, you get that -2 from comparing them to humans. Same with their dex bonus...it wouldn't work if humans got an all new set of abilities

Rutee
2008-02-03, 02:49 PM
But then, if you play a race that DOESN'T have a bonus to stats that are necessary for a class, you'll still be underpowered compared to the ones that do.

That depends on the nature of abilities. IMO, Abilities have much more potential then 2 points in a stat (I say potential because we haven't SEEN them yet.)

Personally, I'd rather Human Adaptability get a nod, with a human getting a +1 or +2 bonus to the stat of their choice

Azerian Kelimon
2008-02-03, 02:53 PM
Agree on that. Humans MUST have jack of all trades bonuses. However, this bonuses must not follow the classic master of none principle jacks follow, but rather be powerful for any choice. Way I see it, if humans end getting faster recovery instead of skillpoints, pluses to stats of your choice, or feats, I'm homebrewing something more powerful for them. After all, that's how humans have always been: at one thing, they might be bested by a certain race, but overall, they are the mmost powerful.

Ryuuk
2008-02-03, 02:56 PM
I hear you, I don't like this no penalties thing either. It makes me wonder if humans will get +2 in everything? It seems they are basiaclly just adding 2 to all the stats to make sure there are no "penalties". I like penalties, it shows "I suck at this" where as a no bonus is "I'm average", an elf is not supposed to have "average" health.

Elves have not had "average" health throughout 3-3.5 (I have no personal experience with anything before this, so I'd rather not make a claim I'm not sure of), but has anything pointed to them still being frail in 4ed? The preview article even notes them as being athletic. This is a new system after all, things are bound to change.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-03, 02:59 PM
No reason? "Elves don't make good front-line heavy armored fighters because they're fragile" or "Half-orcs don't make good wizards because they're dim-witted" seem like preety good reasons.

Except it doesn't work like that. An individual half-orc is precisely as bright or as dim-witted as his Intelligence score indicates, but for a half-orcish wizard to get a high enough Int to be a good Wizard, he has to spend more points than a human. He's no more powerful, so it's just an arbitrary penalty.


Besides, some races will still be underpowered in certain roles, because they won't get bonuses to help them in those roles.

Not getting a bonus isn't the same as getting a penalty.


And vastly better that your average elf. So the difference is still in here.

But that's sort of the point, if you're positing these vast physiological differences which make elves so much frailer than humans, a Con 12 Elf makes no sense however you cut it. If those differences don't exist, the penalties make no sense.

A *far* better way to deal with racial penalties would be to set a cap on their stats.

Lord Tataraus
2008-02-03, 03:00 PM
Elves have not had "average" health throughout 3-3.5 (I have no personal experience with anything before this, so I'd rather not make a claim I'm not sure of), but has anything pointed to them still being frail in 4ed? The preview article even notes them as being athletic. This is a new system after all, things are bound to change.

True, they could change that stereotype, but considering that's how elves have always been in most fantasy I would assume that stereotype to stay. After all, are dwarves going to no longer be grumpy? are halflings no longer physically weak?

Azerian Kelimon
2008-02-03, 03:01 PM
I believe they tried to cap the stats differently in 2ed. It didn't work, and in the end even generated the colossally stupid decision of restricting classes to specific races, so that only humans could be anything.

Morty
2008-02-03, 03:06 PM
Except it doesn't work like that. An individual half-orc is precisely as bright or as dim-witted as his Intelligence score indicates, but for a half-orcish wizard to get a high enough Int to be a good Wizard, he has to spend more points than a human. He's no more powerful, so it's just an arbitrary penalty.

Right, Half-orc needs to put more points into Int to be good wizard. That's because half-orcs are dim-witted and therefore do not make good wizards. That's how it's supposed to work.


Not getting a bonus isn't the same as getting a penalty.

If all you get is a bunch of bonuses, I wouldn't be so sure. But we don't know how those bonuses will look, so this is a moot point.


But that's sort of the point, if you're positing these vast physiological differences which make elves so much frailer than humans, a Con 12 Elf makes no sense however you cut it.

How so? Elf with 12 Con is just an elf who is exceptionally tough for an average elf. Con 12 is above average for a human, and far above average for an elf.


A *far* better way to deal with racial penalties would be to set a cap on their stats.

Possibly. But we haven't seen any indication that it'll be the case in 4ed.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-03, 03:27 PM
Right, Half-orc needs to put more points into Int to be good wizard. That's because half-orcs are dim-witted and therefore do not make good wizards. That's how it's supposed to work.

Intelligent half-orcs make just as good wizards as intelligent humans. A Half-Orc with Int 16 is not dim witted at all, he is in fact very intelligent.

The question is, why do I have to pay more points to make my Half-Orc very intelligent than I would for a human? It doesn't make me more powerful, it doesn't give me any in-game advantage.

This is the exact problem with stat penalties, a Half-Orc is seen as dim-witted regardless of his actual Int score, an elf will be seen as frail regardless of its con score.


How so? Elf with 12 Con is just an elf who is exceptionally tough for an average elf. Con 12 is above average for a human, and far above average for an elf.

The problem is that the justification for a racial stat penalty only makes sense as a justification for an actual negative stat.

Half-Orcs have an Int penalty because they're slow-witted, but a half-orc with Int 16 obviously *isn't* slow witted. Elves have a Con penalty because they're small and of slight build, but any elf with Con 12 can't *be* small and of slight build, or else they wouldn't *have* Con 12. Same for Dwarvish Charisma, same for anything else.

Rutee
2008-02-03, 03:37 PM
If I'm understanding you both correctly..

M0rt: Because the average specimen of Species X is bad at Y, your character has a harder time being good at Y

Dan: It doesn't matter what the average specimen can do, what matters is what you can do.

If I'm not mistaken, Dan, isn't your reasoning also counter to stat bonuses?

Morty
2008-02-03, 03:38 PM
Intelligent half-orcs make just as good wizards as intelligent humans. A Half-Orc with Int 16 is not dim witted at all, he is in fact very intelligent.

But he's even more exceptional that very intelligent human would be.


The question is, why do I have to pay more points to make my Half-Orc very intelligent than I would for a human? It doesn't make me more powerful, it doesn't give me any in-game advantage.

Of course it doesn't give you any in-game advantage. Why should it? It's a racial penalty meant to represent things a race isn't good at.


This is the exact problem with stat penalties, a Half-Orc is seen as dim-witted regardless of his actual Int score, an elf will be seen as frail regardless of its con score.

Not if you give them high con/int scores, in which cases they'll be seen as exceptionally though/intelligent when compared to other members of their race.


The problem is that the justification for a racial stat penalty only makes sense as a justification for an actual negative stat.

Half-Orcs have an Int penalty because they're slow-witted, but a half-orc with Int 16 obviously *isn't* slow witted. Elves have a Con penalty because they're small and of slight build, but any elf with Con 12 can't *be* small and of slight build, or else they wouldn't *have* Con 12. Same for Dwarvish Charisma, same for anything else.

Right, an elf with 12 con won't be frail. But the point is, there are far less elves with above-average Con than there are humans.


M0rt: Because the average specimen of Species X is bad at Y, your character has a harder time being good at Y

Preety much. Of course, PCs are by definition exceptional, but they're still members of their races.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-03, 03:53 PM
If I'm understanding you both correctly..

M0rt: Because the average specimen of Species X is bad at Y, your character has a harder time being good at Y

Dan: It doesn't matter what the average specimen can do, what matters is what you can do.

If I'm not mistaken, Dan, isn't your reasoning also counter to stat bonuses?

In theory, yes. In practice, no.

I'm not a huge fan of stat bonuses, but they lead to fewer problems than stat penalties, because D&D tends towards above-average stats. In either points-buy or random roll, the average Half-Orc will probably wind up with Int 10, while the average Elf, given a chance, will buy off his elvish Con penalty in a heartbeat because Con 8 is suicide for pretty much anybody.

So you have allegedly frail elves, and allegedly dumb Half-Orcs, who are actually no dumber or more fragile than the people they interact with every day but people still treat them as if they are. An Int 10 Orc will be played as much, much dumber than an Int 10 Human. It's counter intuitive.

Stat bonuses don't have the same problem, because people usually augment them rather than minimising them. Nobody is ever going to play a weak half-orc, because there's no benefit to it, so the racial trend makes sense.

Corlis
2008-02-03, 03:58 PM
I think that WotC assumed that the stats for each race would be based partly on the nature of the race, and partly on a limited bit of randomness; the racial modifiers represent their nature, and the 3D6 represents the randomness. As such, there is some variation, but stats cannot go beyond certain boundaries. This matches people in the real world as well, as everyone could bend a paperclip, some people can bend a 1" thick steel bar, and nobody can bend a 6" bar; there are certain limits for humans in terms of strength. Now if we take an elephant, which has a heck of a Strength modifier, we'd find that they too have limits to their strength, but those limits are in different places than they are with humans. For instance, all of them could bend a 1" steel bar, some could bend a 6" steel bar, and none could bend a three foot steel bar. Likewise with Orcs and intelligence, they have their limits just as humans do, but their limits are in slightly different places.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-03, 04:08 PM
But he's even more exceptional that very intelligent human would be.

This makes absolute sense if you assume totally random character creation, where you roll your stats, apply your race modifiers, and then decide what kind of character to play. There the "probability" argument makes absolute sense: a Half-Orc is literally less likely to get a good enough Int score to be a decent Wizard. If you *do* manage to roll a high enough Int, though, that isn't going to affect your other stats, so the Half-Orc wizard is a workable concept.

In points-buy, though, a half-orc actually winds up with worse overall stats than a human wizard. Assuming he wants to get a decent Int, he's going to have to sell down something else. This could, ironically, mean that the Half-Orc actually winds up with a lower Strength score than the human, because he has to be totally puny in order to pay for his Intelligence. He gets nothing in return for this.


Of course it doesn't give you any in-game advantage. Why should it? It's a racial penalty meant to represent things a race isn't good at.

You misunderstand me. I mean that the extra points you spend on Intelligence don't give you any in-game advantage. Since Int 16 is Int 16 whether you're a Half-Orc or a Human, why should it cost more *points* for a Half-Orc?

To put it another way, why should a Half-Orc Wizard have lower Dex or Wis scores than a human wizard?


Not if you give them high con/int scores, in which cases they'll be seen as exceptionally though/intelligent when compared to other members of their race.

When was the last time you saw an Elf who was described as burly, heavily built, or thick set? When was the last time you saw an Elf who was descried as lacking the physical characteristics which give 90% of his race a negative Con modifier?

Since buying off a racial penalty is trivial, and since anybody who *wants* his elf to have a low Con can still take one, why bother with the penalties in the first place?


Right, an elf with 12 con won't be frail. But the point is, there are far less elves with above-average Con than there are humans.

But most PC elves will buy off their Con penalty anyway, and so all the "-2" really does is force them to shuffle their stats around a bit. Since the penalty doesn't *actually* cause elves to be more physically frail than non-elves, what's the point in keeping it?

ShadowSiege
2008-02-03, 04:08 PM
I believe they tried to cap the stats differently in 2ed. It didn't work, and in the end even generated the colossally stupid decision of restricting classes to specific races, so that only humans could be anything.

1e certainly had hard stat caps of 18, I don't think it was possible to have higher, even with racial modifiers. Anything above 18 was a result of Wish and started you on the path to divinity.

The class/race limitations were a holdover in 1e from basic D&D and an example of Gygax's blind spots in game design. He laid the foundation, and should get credit for that, but we certainly shouldn't be holding him as an example of where D&D should go.

I never played 2e, so I'm unable to comment on how it's stats/classes/races worked.

Artanis
2008-02-03, 04:12 PM
Guys, you DO realize that in 4e, there will be ways other than stat bonuses to make somebody tougher (even if they go unused for some reason), right? To make Humans tougher than Elves doesn't require +2 CON like some of you seem to think, it can simply be, as stated before, that they recover faster. Voila, Elves are more flimsy than Humans, even if neither has a CON bonus.

On top of that, there could be bonuses to Fort defenses, immunity to enemy abilities that require them to be bloodied (showing them not actually being more vulnerable even after a lot of punishment), increased stamina and/or resistance to fatigue, bonuses to CON-based skills, an extra racial "second wind" to go with the one their class grants, racial feats that DO improve CON anyways (but at the cost of a feat, rather than being free and automatic) and no doubt plenty more.

Even with what tiny little bit of crunch we actually know, I could probably think of a dozen or more ways to make Dwarves a hell of a lot tougher than Elves without giving them a free, racial CON boost that amounts to a mere one hit point per level. With that being the case, if you give Dwarves a ton of stuff like that on top of a +2 - or even +4 - CON bonus, you wind up with a race that makes Elves look like Urkel, even if Elves don't have a single point in stat penalties.



As an illustration:

Say Elves get +0 CON, and racial feats that resemble the following:
-Better ranger-y stuff
-Better archery stuff
-Better sneaky stuff
-Better being-an-arrogant-prick-hippy stuff
-Better knowledge stuff from living so d*** long

While Dwarves get +2 CON and racial feats that resemble the following:
-Harder to kill
-Better Fort defenses
-Even harder to kill than that
-Never get tired even after walking a zillion miles at maximum encumberance
-Yet another batch that makes them harder to kill than even after the previous two batches


I'd say that Elves look a HELL of a lot wimpier, even with a mere 2 points of CON differential and no actual penalty.



The moral of the story being, "we have no damn clue IF Elves will be described as more flimsy than other races, much less how they intend to carry it out. The 3rd edition way of doing so is NOT the only way to make one race tougher than another, so let's wait and see what the actual crunch is before we complain about how said unseeable, unknowable crunch is ruining the game."

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-03, 04:16 PM
I'd say that Elves look a HELL of a lot wimpier, even with a mere 2 points of CON differential and no actual penalty.

And it has the added advantage that an Elf can't just pump a couple of extra points into CON and make the differences completely vanish.

Neek
2008-02-03, 04:46 PM
A race with an Intelligence bonus will be better Wizards than one without an Int bonus. As it stands in 3.5, a race with an Intelligence bonus will be better than one with no bonus or penalty, who're better than a race that has a penalty.

Or, with core, take Strength: A half-orc makes a better damage-based fighter than a human, who is still a better fighter than a Halfling. Which sounds about right.

Or, a Dwarf and a Gnome are sturdier than Humans, Halflings, and Half-Elves, who are sturdier than Elves. Which sounds about right.

Suddenly, if you take away those penalties and only give them bonuses, you reduce a level: There is no "Great", "Mediocre," and "Poor" ranges. You're either mediocre or great on average in those stats. I like that 3.5 does the former, the problem, however, is that each stat doesn't have an equal weight in the game.

A bonus in Strength or Con is definitely worth the penalty to Cha, because not having high Charisma is of no one's concern when you're dungeon delving. Most groups never Diplomomancy their way through encounters left and right (at least, in my DMing experience, I never had a party use Diplomacy for that effect).

We can argue either way. I do prefer the bonus/penalties, because it balances and evens out races. I do like the idea of bonuses only, but it can cause balance problems if the abilities aren't balanced right--however, it means you never have a "poor" choice (i.e., playing a Half-Orc Wizard with a 12 Int or a Halfling Fighter with 12 Str--those stats'll stay 14). This gives people more options, however will grease up min-maxing machine (since you're mostly going to be maxing).

Let's see how the game takes and uses this concept before we pass judgment. It might be fun. It might be lame. We won't know until June.

Talya
2008-02-03, 06:02 PM
Except it doesn't work like that. An individual half-orc is precisely as bright or as dim-witted as his Intelligence score indicates, but for a half-orcish wizard to get a high enough Int to be a good Wizard, he has to spend more points than a human. He's no more powerful, so it's just an arbitrary penalty.



You're joking, right? You're saying a -2 penalty on Int doesn't make the average half-orc dumber than the average human? Even at their peak of genius, 16 int makes them an inferior wizard to a human or elf with the same distribution of points. Not to mention that many people roll their stats. It's suboptimal to play a half orc wizard because their more dimwitted than other races. This is a good thing.

Note that that hasn't changed any in 4e. A race that gets no bonus to an ability will be inferior to a race that gets an ability to it...so if Eladrin get +2 to intelligence, they'll be superior wizards to the less intelligent humans.

ShadowSiege
2008-02-03, 06:10 PM
Note that that hasn't changed any in 4e. A race that gets no bonus to an ability will be inferior to a race that gets an ability to it...so if Eladrin get +2 to intelligence, they'll be superior wizards to the less intelligent humans.

Mr. President! We cannot allow an ability point gap!

Farmer42
2008-02-03, 06:11 PM
The point, however, isn't that they will no longer be inferior, it will be that they are no longer PENALIZED. That's the problem people have. There is a difference between no being optimized and being gimped. Now, they won't be optimized, but they also won't be gimped.

Talya
2008-02-03, 06:14 PM
The point, however, isn't that they will no longer be inferior, it will be that they are no longer PENALIZED. That's the problem people have. There is a difference between no being optimized and being gimped. Now, they won't be optimized, but they also won't be gimped.

It's the same thing. Everything is relative. Someone else getting a bonus is the same thing as you getting a penalty. You are "gimped" compared to someone that has a bonus if you do not have the same bonus. A Half Orc could still be a viable wizard. He's just not as good at it.

If you put it into a sports analogy, if, instead of penalizing teams by making them remove a player from the ice for 2 minutes, they allowed the other team to put an extra player on the ice for 2 minutes, it would still be a penalty.

Farmer42
2008-02-03, 06:22 PM
No, they are different. You are actively, and willingly confusing optimization and par for the course. You are assuming that, based on how a system is set up, everyone should have to play into their archetypes, or not be effective. That is false, and ignorant. Optimization =/= only choice. With stat penalties there was actually mechanical prohibitions against going with a non-optimized build. While there are still advantages to building optimized characters, you aren't completely incompetent if you choose a non-optimized build, IE, you aren't gimped, you just aren't as powerful.

Talya
2008-02-03, 06:26 PM
No, they are different. You are actively, and willingly confusing optimization and par for the course. You are assuming that, based on how a system is set up, everyone should have to play into their archetypes, or not be effective. That is false, and ignorant. Optimization =/= only choice. With stat penalties there was actually mechanical prohibitions against going with a non-optimized build. While there are still advantages to building optimized characters, you aren't completely incompetent if you choose a non-optimized build, IE, you aren't gimped, you just aren't as powerful.

I've not said optimization is your only choice. In fact, that's far from what I've said. I've said it still gimps you if I give someone else a bonus. If humans get no bonus to INT, and eladrin get a bonus to INT, then humans are just as suboptimal wizards compared to eladrin, as half-orcs are to humans in 3.5. You're still getting gimped. Half-orcs in 3.5 are still a viable wizard build. They're just inferior to non-halforc wizards. The same situation will exist in 4e among various race-class combos. All are possible, all are viable. Not all are equal. There is no difference between a penalty and a bonus, when comparing the suitability of a particular race for any given class.

Neek
2008-02-03, 06:28 PM
You're joking, right? You're saying a -2 penalty on Int doesn't make the average half-orc dumber than the average human? Even at their peak of genius, 16 int makes them an inferior wizard to a human or elf with the same distribution of points. Not to mention that many people roll their stats. It's suboptimal to play a half orc wizard because their more dimwitted than other races. This is a good thing.

The distinction is made between average and unique; developers in 3e used random distribution found in 3d6, and generated the PC stats by making characters stronger in one point, and weaker in others til it was balanced. The developers of 4e decided it would be better if all PCs made were unique, rather than the product of averages: You're not playing an average member of your race, you're playing with a PC. They seem very keen on this distinction.

Your average half-orc is too dumb be a wizard, and half-orcs on average don't take up the vocation as a wizard. This isn't the same case as your PC. Or that's what I gather from all the fluff they've been feeding us.

Talya
2008-02-03, 06:29 PM
The distinction is made between average and unique; developers in 3e used random distribution found in 3d6, and generated the PC stats by making characters stronger in one point, and weaker in others til it was balanced. The developers of 4e decided it would be better if all PCs made were unique, rather than the product of averages: You're not playing an average member of your race, you're playing with a PC. They seem very keen on this distinction.

Your average half-orc is too dumb be a wizard, and half-orcs on average don't take up the vocation as a wizard. This isn't the same case as your PC. Or that's what I gather from all the fluff they've been feeding us.


And again, in practice, this is no different than 3.5.

Neek
2008-02-03, 06:58 PM
And again, in practice, this is no different than 3.5.

You're right. But note my words carefully: The distribution of classes and races are based on averages (there're fewer half-orc wizards in PCs and NPCs than there if you check the averages). 3e gives races optimal options and suboptimal options (or perhaps just mediocre choices).

4e doesn't seem to care much for this, if I gathered their fluff right. It seems there are optional options and mediocre options, but no sub-optimal options (when compared to 3e, at least. 4e's options will look optimal--those that gain benefits for taking this route, versus those that don't gain a benefit). Even though this distinction is lost, most players, especially new ones, will see suboptimal options as those given no bonuses.

Talya
2008-02-03, 07:06 PM
You're right. But note my words carefully: The distribution of classes and races are based on averages (there're fewer half-orc wizards in PCs and NPCs than there if you check the averages). 3e gives races optimal options and suboptimal options (or perhaps just mediocre choices).

4e doesn't seem to care much for this, if I gathered their fluff right. It seems there are optional options and mediocre options, but no sub-optimal options (when compared to 3e, at least. 4e's options will look optimal--those that gain benefits for taking this route, versus those that don't gain a benefit). Even though this distinction is lost, most players, especially new ones, will see suboptimal options as those given no bonuses.


And they will be right.

The discrepancy is less, but it's the same thing. An 18 is 20% less effective than a 20. (+4 instead of +5). A 16 is 25% less effective than an 18. (+3 instead of +4.) So the bonus for someone else is slightly less of a negative for you than the penalty would have been in 3.5, but you're still less effective. If you had three categories --Sub-optimal, medium, and optimal-- then remove the suboptimal category, you move the baseline, and medium becomes the new suboptimal.

Neek
2008-02-03, 07:13 PM
And they will be right.

The discrepancy is less, but it's the same thing. An 18 is 20% less effective than a 20. (+4 instead of +5). A 16 is 25% less effective than an 18. (+3 instead of +4.) So the bonus for someone else is slightly less of a negative for you than the penalty would have been in 3.5, but you're still less effective. If you had three categories --Sub-optimal, medium, and optimal-- then remove the suboptimal category, you move the baseline, and medium becomes the new suboptimal.

Exactly, the distinction becomes transparent outside of comparison; I doubt the designers see it that way, however.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-02-03, 07:14 PM
Note that that hasn't changed any in 4e. A race that gets no bonus to an ability will be inferior to a race that gets an ability to it...so if Eladrin get +2 to intelligence, they'll be superior wizards to the less intelligent humans.

Right now, in 3.5, I'd pick the human bonus feat over +2 INT to make a superior wizard.

That feat arguably made humans not just jacks-of-all-trades, but actually better at what they put their hands to - the exceptions were normally to fulfill prereqs, or to get something nifty like immortality (warforged), or large size (half-ogre).

Talya
2008-02-03, 07:20 PM
Right now, in 3.5, I'd pick the human bonus feat over +2 INT to make a superior wizard.


Well, yes. That's because humans have additional bonuses that are actually more useful to wizarding than the +2 int that other races might get. However, if you were comparing a +2 int bonus, to, for instance, a +2 dex bonus, with all other things being equal... let's not confuse the issue. We're just talking about the (non)differences between racial ability bonuses and racial ability penalties.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-02-03, 07:22 PM
Well, yes. That's because humans have additional bonuses that are actually more useful to wizarding than the +2 int that other races might get. However, if you were comparing a +2 int bonus, to, for instance, a +2 dex bonus, with all other things being equal... let's not confuse the issue. We're just talking about the (non)differences between racial ability bonuses and racial ability penalties.

Yeah, but the human might have, as has been said above, non-ability abilities.

Wait ...

horseboy
2008-02-03, 08:31 PM
The first time I can remember elves taking a hit in Con was in Dark Sun. Given that they're more often called "willowy" rather than "frail" I never understood them having a penalty. After all they live longer, live exposed to more things since they don't have "houses" (in the human sense), and they don't require as much rest. None of that says "I'm sickly," like a con penalty does.

Talya
2008-02-03, 08:36 PM
The first time I can remember elves taking a hit in Con was in Dark Sun. Given that they're more often called "willowy" rather than "frail" I never understood them having a penalty. After all they live longer, live exposed to more things since they don't have "houses" (in the human sense), and they don't require as much rest. None of that says "I'm sickly," like a con penalty does.

It should always have been a strength penalty.

It'd be interesting to try to model the traditional races after an external story narrative, rather than balancing.

Tolkien elves would be, what... +4 dex, +4 con, +2 int, +2 wis, +4 cha?

horseboy
2008-02-03, 08:56 PM
It should always have been a strength penalty.

It'd be interesting to try to model the traditional races after an external story narrative, rather than balancing.

Tolkien elves would be, what... +4 dex, +4 con, +2 int, +2 wis, +4 cha?
It would depend on the subrace, naturally. (Noldar, Sindar, Sylvan)

Aquillion
2008-02-03, 09:19 PM
True, they could change that stereotype, but considering that's how elves have always been in most fantasy I would assume that stereotype to stay. After all, are dwarves going to no longer be grumpy? are halflings no longer physically weak?What makes you say that that's the way elves have always been in most fantasy? I think it's really just been a D&D thing (and any system that copies D&D, including most videogames). In Tolkien, say, Elves were superhumanly tough and slow to tire, capable of surviving wounds that would easily have killed a human.

As far as I can tell, it was basically just invented for D&D when they needed to think up penalties for all the non-human races, and someone said "Elves look like girls, hurr hurr hurr."

Jothki
2008-02-04, 02:27 AM
Yeah, it really doesn't make any sense for the new "elves" to be frail. Eladrin, maybe, though.

Hzurr
2008-02-04, 03:36 AM
Mr. President! We cannot allow an ability point gap!

And then they'll steal our precious bodily fluids!


Man...I love that movie.

Grynning
2008-02-04, 04:56 AM
as fascinating as the mechanics discussion about bonuses v. penalties has been (that's not sarcasm, I enjoyed it :smallsmile: ), I think the primary reason Wizards is getting rid of minuses is fairly simple - it's to make all the races more appealing to new gamers and also to get rid of "negative" stereotypes surrounding the core races. They're trying to put a "positive" spin on everything in 4th, so that kids looking through books won't go "elves suck because they're weak" when they see that -2 con, or "half-orcs are all stupid." It is supposed to be a more noob-friendly edition after all.
Plus they're probably trying to steer away from the thinly veiled allegories of real-life racial stereotypes that the core races represent...not to fuel any flames or anything, but it is there.

pasko77
2008-02-04, 05:24 AM
It should always have been a strength penalty.

It'd be interesting to try to model the traditional races after an external story narrative, rather than balancing.

Tolkien elves would be, what... +4 dex, +4 con, +2 int, +2 wis, +4 cha?

Something like this. Maybe only +2 con, but plus a bonus feat :)

Blue_C.
2008-02-04, 09:04 AM
True, they could change that stereotype, but considering that's how elves have always been in most fantasy I would assume that stereotype to stay. After all, are dwarves going to no longer be grumpy? are halflings no longer physically weak?

Really? I've read different variations of Elves. The frailty isn't always there that I've noticed. They've always been thinner and usually slightly smaller than humans, but that didn't always translate to weak health. I've not read Tolkien, because dry recitation is not my cup of tea (I have ADHD; my eyes wander after a paragraph or two of exposition), so I'll not go into his works, but the only stories I've read that Elves were frail were based at least somewhat on DnD. IN fact, I recall now a line of description saying that an elf could take a hammer blow to her pretty face and it wouldn't even stop her from smiling, let alone ripping your guts out (they weren't nice elves in that story).

Sebastian
2008-02-04, 09:45 AM
The point, however, isn't that they will no longer be inferior, it will be that they are no longer PENALIZED. That's the problem people have. There is a difference between no being optimized and being gimped. Now, they won't be optimized, but they also won't be gimped.

Let's try Reductio ad absurdum, if all races get +10 to int, except humans, aren't human penalized if they want to play wizards?

Rutee
2008-02-04, 09:52 AM
Let's try Reductio ad absurdum, if all races get +10 to int, except humans, aren't human penalized if they want to play wizards?

Correct, if EVERYONE receives the same bonus with the exception of one group, then that one group has an effective penalty.

Now, at what point did everyone start sharing stat bonuses?

MorkaisChosen
2008-02-04, 01:20 PM
The point is, now anyone can make a reasonable Sorcerer, for example- maybe not as good with a Dwarf sorcerer than a Drow sorcerer, but not rubbish, whereas in the past, Dwarf sorcerers (or, my personal favourite, half-orc Paladins) weren't very good. The difference between Cha14 and Cha16 is, in a way, bigger than the difference between Cha16 and Cha18.

What I'm trying to say is that any race will be OK in any class- maybe not the best you can do, but reasonable.

Morty
2008-02-04, 02:19 PM
In points-buy, though, a half-orc actually winds up with worse overall stats than a human wizard. Assuming he wants to get a decent Int, he's going to have to sell down something else. This could, ironically, mean that the Half-Orc actually winds up with a lower Strength score than the human, because he has to be totally puny in order to pay for his Intelligence. He gets nothing in return for this.

That's because he needed to work harder to be a wizard because he's a half-orc, not predisposed to be one. Point-buy is preety abstract and arbitrary anyway, so I don't see how it's a problem.


You misunderstand me. I mean that the extra points you spend on Intelligence don't give you any in-game advantage. Since Int 16 is Int 16 whether you're a Half-Orc or a Human, why should it cost more *points* for a Half-Orc?

Because half-orcs are naturally quite dim, so it takes a lot of work for them to get educated.




See above. Point buy is abstract no matter how you apply penalties and bonuses.

[quote]When was the last time you saw an Elf who was described as burly, heavily built, or thick set? When was the last time you saw an Elf who was descried as lacking the physical characteristics which give 90% of his race a negative Con modifier?

I don't care one whit about stereotypes, cliches and describing all members of one race as if they were made in the same factory. If I see an elf with 16 Con, I'm going to describe him/her as unusually heavily build for an elf.


Since buying off a racial penalty is trivial, and since anybody who *wants* his elf to have a low Con can still take one, why bother with the penalties in the first place?

Because they give races flavor, create variety, and make sure that choosing a race is more than just choosing the cool numbers you get for it.


But most PC elves will buy off their Con penalty anyway, and so all the "-2" really does is force them to shuffle their stats around a bit. Since the penalty doesn't *actually* cause elves to be more physically frail than non-elves, what's the point in keeping it?

How doesn't it cause elves to be more physically frail? If an elf needs to "shuflle stats a bit" to have decent Con, it means exactly that your typical elf is frail.


The point, however, isn't that they will no longer be inferior, it will be that they are no longer PENALIZED. That's the problem people have. There is a difference between no being optimized and being gimped. Now, they won't be optimized, but they also won't be gimped.

Right, because we, poor players, can't stand having to play less than perfect character once in a while even if it's perfectly belivable, reasonable and expected for this class/race combination to be 100% effective.

CockroachTeaParty
2008-02-04, 06:31 PM
Mr. President! We cannot allow an ability point gap!

I've uncovered the greatest Wizards of the Coast conspiracy to contaminate our precious bodily fluids!

Qwijibo
2008-02-04, 07:30 PM
1e certainly had hard stat caps of 18, I don't think it was possible to have higher, even with racial modifiers. Anything above 18 was a result of Wish and started you on the path to divinity.

The class/race limitations were a holdover in 1e from basic D&D and an example of Gygax's blind spots in game design. He laid the foundation, and should get credit for that, but we certainly shouldn't be holding him as an example of where D&D should go.

I never played 2e, so I'm unable to comment on how it's stats/classes/races worked.

Dwarves, Elves and Halflings could all get a "19" stat, Con for Dwarves, Dex for Halflings and Elves. Given the only official way to generate stats back then was "straight 3d6" - no moving stats to where you want them, and I think buying off things was for every 2 points you take from one stat, you can move one point into another - you didn't see a lot of characters with 19s so it really didn't matter.

The best part of the system was "percentile strenght" - rolling an 18 STR wasn't enough - you had to roll the percentile dice - with results going from (I think) +1/hit +2/damage for 0-25, all the way up to +3/hit +6/damage for 18/00.

As a side note I'd like to say I honestly rolled 18/00 STR once. ONCE. With 9 Dex and 11 Con (no penalty or bonus for either back then) and I believe 14 Int. The first 3 levels my party played through were just "keep Kreiger alive (Shaddap. I was 13. It was a cool name when I was 13.) and watch him kill goblins/skeletons/whatever" - when everything we fought had less than 6 hit points if I it something (and I was likely to) it died.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-05, 01:50 PM
That's because he needed to work harder to be a wizard because he's a half-orc, not predisposed to be one. Point-buy is preety abstract and arbitrary anyway, so I don't see how it's a problem.

But why does "he needed to work harder" suddenly translate to "he should be less game mechanically effective?


Because half-orcs are naturally quite dim, so it takes a lot of work for them to get educated.

Whether a character is "dim" or not is a function of their intelligence score, and that's sort of exactly my point.

Suggesting that a highly intelligent Orc should still have difficulty learning to be a wizard is ludicrous. It's like suggesting that a Halfling will have difficulty reaching objects on high shelves, no matter how tall he actually is.


See above. Point buy is abstract no matter how you apply penalties and bonuses.

Of course it's abstract, that's the point, but you didn't answer my question. If the Human gets to be smarter because his race are smarter on average, why does he get to be stronger as well? Shouldn't he have to "work harder" than the Half-Orc to get that level of strength?


I don't care one whit about stereotypes, cliches and describing all members of one race as if they were made in the same factory. If I see an elf with 16 Con, I'm going to describe him/her as unusually heavily build for an elf.

Which isn't what I said.

The point is that an Elf with a Con of 16 should have an unusually heavy build for *anybody*. So what's justifying the Con penalty in the first place? Elves get a Con penalty because they're frail and have a slim build, but if your elf *doesn't* have a slim build and *isn't* frail, what's giving him that -2 Con?

It's ludicrous it's like assuming that a Human will always be taller than a Dwarf regardless of their relative heights.


Because they give races flavor, create variety, and make sure that choosing a race is more than just choosing the cool numbers you get for it.

Oh I see. So if your race just gets a +2 to one stat, then you're choosing the "cool numbers", but if it gets -2 to another you aren't.

Right.


How doesn't it cause elves to be more physically frail? If an elf needs to "shuflle stats a bit" to have decent Con, it means exactly that your typical elf is frail.

No, it means that your typical Elf has Con 12 and sells down some stat he doesn't need.


Right, because we, poor players, can't stand having to play less than perfect character once in a while even if it's perfectly belivable, reasonable and expected for this class/race combination to be 100% effective.

I don't know about you but I, personally, hate to be penalised for a roleplaying decision. You wouldn't expect your DM to end the session by saying "and everybody else gets 500XP, but you only get 250 because you portrayed your character's grief over the death of his mother."