PDA

View Full Version : LA and Point-Buy



kpenguin
2008-08-22, 03:41 AM
So, with a new school year starting, I hope to convince my friends into a new campaign. Our old one fell into nothing during the summer and I suspect everyone has lost their character sheets.

As I prepare for another round of DMing (I'm the only one who's willing to do it), I thought over an idea to expand choice in race. What about reducing the point buy for certain races and increasing it for certain races? My thoughts:

LA +1 = 25 point buy
LA +0 = 28 point buy
Certain races (Half-elves, Half-orcs, kobolds, etc.) = 32 point buy

How balanced is this?

Tempest Fennac
2008-08-22, 03:53 AM
I tend to just alter the normal stats for races so that they are more inline with the LA 0 races. For instnace, my LA 0 Lizardfolk has +2 Con, -2 Int, +2 Natural Armour, a +2 bonus to all balance, jump and swim checks and they can hold their breath for 4 times as long as other races (they get Common and Draconic as known languages, and they don't have any extra HDs). Did you want me to help you with balancing other races? Changing PB is an interresting idea, but it could complicate things (eg: some LA+1 races may not get as many stat bonuses as others; Assimars have an advantage over Tieflings due to not having a stat penalty).

kpenguin
2008-08-22, 04:04 AM
Actually, for races with Racial HD, I tend to keep the HD and make small adjustments to lower the LA.

I feel that the Racial HD justifies having some special abilities like holding your breath for a long time or being especially smelly.

Tempest Fennac
2008-08-22, 04:07 AM
Okay (I tend to see the levels as more of a hindrance, so I tend to just nerf the race while dropping those). I suppose another way of balancing races with LA is to make sure they end up with a +2 stat bonus altogether (eg: as they are, Tieflings and Gnolls both get a +1, but Assimars would need to lose either the +2 Wis or Cha bonus or get a +2 penalty to a stat). Incidentally, would you say my LA 0 Lizardfolk is balanced?

Dhavaer
2008-08-22, 04:20 AM
Incidentally, would you say my LA 0 Lizardfolk is balanced?

+2 natural armour looks a bit high for LA 0. Kobolds only get +1, and they have awful stat penalties too.

kpenguin
2008-08-22, 04:27 AM
I'd say its balanced, although I might want to give them a bite natural attack.


+2 natural armour looks a bit high for LA 0. Kobolds only get +1, and they have awful stat penalties too.

Kobolds are horribly balanced. The fact that they can get all the add-ons from the Races of Dragon web enhancement and barely be suitable for a PC makes them a dubious standard for balance.

Tempest Fennac
2008-08-22, 06:27 AM
I know what you mean. My Kobold variant has +2 Dex and Cha, -2 Str and Con, Darkvision 60', movement 30'/round and +2 to all Trapmaking, Search and Mining checks. How powerful would you make the bite attack?

Tormsskull
2008-08-22, 06:29 AM
Balance is subjective. IMO a good content designer will try to balance by the baseline, i.e. Core 3 Books. If you try to balance a new race against a race from a splatbook you are dealing with the inherent power creep.

Tempest Fennac
2008-08-22, 06:39 AM
Apart from Dwarves, which LA 0 races would you class as unbalanced?

RagnaroksChosen
2008-08-22, 07:06 AM
wisper gnomes

Tempest Fennac
2008-08-22, 07:11 AM
How are they broken? I'll try and find some information about them.

EDIT: I know what you mean about some of their abilities being a bit too powerful. (Page 21 of http://www.crystalkeep.com/d20/rules/DnD3.5Index-Races.pdf .)

LordOkubo
2008-08-22, 09:02 AM
Balance is subjective. IMO a good content designer will try to balance by the baseline, i.e. Core 3 Books. If you try to balance a new race against a race from a splatbook you are dealing with the inherent power creep.

How about, a good designer balances against a base line, which can be anything they want depending on what the want played.

If you balance everything against core but still allow other races, then everyone plays Whispergnomes and Lesser Tieflings anyway.

Tempest Fennac
2008-08-22, 09:06 AM
What are Lesser Tieflings like? I tend to play as half-animal races like Lupins or Phanatons as well as an LA 0 Gnoll (+2 Str and Con, -2 Int and Cha, Darkvision 60', 1d6 Bite Attack, +1 NA and Spot and Listen always as class skills).

Dhavaer
2008-08-22, 09:08 AM
What are Lesser Tieflings like?

As I understand it, they're exactly like Tieflings except they're LA +0 and aren't Outsiders.

Tormsskull
2008-08-22, 09:13 AM
If you balance everything against core but still allow other races, then everyone plays Whispergnomes and Lesser Tieflings anyway.

True, that's why I don't allow those other races in my campaigns. If it isn't balanced with the core races, I don't let it in.



LA 0 Gnoll (+2 Str and Con, -2 Int and Cha, Darkvision 60', 1d6 Bite Attack, +1 NA and Spot and Listen always as class skills).


That seems quite unbalanced IMO, unless the DM is balancing it with cultural disadvantages based on the fact that this character is a gnoll.

Without taking any of the setting into consideration, if you have the option of a 1/2 Orc or this LA 0 Gnoll, why would you ever pick the 1/2 orc?

Tempest Fennac
2008-08-22, 09:17 AM
I cant thind that Tiefling now (I saw it somewhere). How is my Gnoll variant that unbalanced? (Some people have told me that it's fine while others have said it was slightly overpowered.) To be fair, Half-Orcs are really underpowered as they are.

Dhavaer
2008-08-22, 09:22 AM
I cant thind that Tiefling now (I saw it somewhere).

I think it's in the Player's Guide to Faerun, but I'm not sure.

Tempest Fennac
2008-08-22, 09:25 AM
There is one version on http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sp/20040213a which keeps the Native Outsider type. I'll try to find the other one which is a Humanoid.

Tormsskull
2008-08-22, 09:26 AM
I cant thind that Tiefling now (I saw it somewhere). How is my Gnoll variant that unbalanced? (Some people have told me that it's fine while others have said it was slightly overpowered.) To be fair, Half-Orcs are really underpowered as they are.

I guess it depends on your playstyle. But it is clear from the core books that a bonus to Strength is considered quite powerful, which is why they offset that with a negative to Intelligence AND Charisma.

Your gnoll not only ignores this rule, but coupled with the + Constitution really becomes a no-brainer choice for most melee characters. Not to mention the +1 Natural Armor which stacks with regular armor. Clearly unbalanced when compared to core.

If you are comparing your gnoll to non-core races, then it might truly be balanced (or even underpowered, I know the races have gotten stronger through more books).

What might be a good idea to use to compare your gnoll is Pathfinder's core races, as they pumped them up to try and compete with all of the splat races.

Dhavaer
2008-08-22, 09:27 AM
There is one version on http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sp/20040213a which keeps the Native Outsider type. I'll try to find the other one which is a Humanoid.

That might be it, I've never seen it myself.

Frownbear
2008-08-22, 09:28 AM
I guess it depends on your playstyle. But it is clear from the core books that a bonus to Strength is considered quite powerful, which is why they offset that with a negative to Intelligence AND Charisma.

And half-orcs are terrible as a result! They messed up there.

Tempest Fennac
2008-08-22, 09:32 AM
Thanks for telling me. I tend to see the stats as being equal due to how important they are depending on the character's class (eg: Cha is pretty useless for a lot of of classes, but it's essential for Paladins, Bards and Sorcerers, and Cleric builds which use Turning for other things). I tend to see +1 NA as weaker then the +1 bonus which Halflings get to all of their saving throws to be honest. I'll download the Pathfinder thing once I've found out whether I'm getting a new laptop or not (a couple of other people have mentioned it to me as well). That is a different Tiefling variant (the one I'm thinking of was ona forum).

Tormsskull
2008-08-22, 09:36 AM
And half-orcs are terrible as a result! They messed up there.

Terrible compared to what? For a 2-handed weapon fighter the difference between a 16 strength and an 18 strength is huge. Having a +2 Strength makes it easier (rolling method) or even simple (PB method).

In exchange, how many fighters care about Charisma? Or Intelligence for that matter. If you're going for a tactical type fighter (Combat Expertise and the like), then sure, -2 Int hits you right in the gut. But for a pure-damage type fighter, it is virtually meaningless.

Again, sure, compare the 1/2 orc to non-core races and he is probably abyssmal. But compared to core races I think he is balanced. I know in my groups everytime someone plays a barbarian they always pick 1/2 orc.

Tempest Fennac
2008-08-22, 09:41 AM
I tend to see sill points as important, so I'd class the -2 Int as a huge problem even if I was playing as a 2-handed weapon specialist. Also, apart from a Str bonus and DV, Half-Orcs get practically no bonuses at all compared with Elves and Dwarves (admittedly, there are only a few classes where the Elf weapon proficiencies are really useful).

Fostire
2008-08-22, 09:41 AM
The lesser tiefling have the humanoid type (not outsider) with the planetouched subtype. They are affected by spells and effects that specifically target both humanoids or outsiders. The lesser races variant is from players guide to faerun page 190.

LordOkubo
2008-08-22, 09:42 AM
True, that's why I don't allow those other races in my campaigns. If it isn't balanced with the core races, I don't let it in.

Yes, and my point is that Core races are just one point of balance, and no more or less valid then good races.

Not to mention, Core races aren't balanced, Dwarf, Human, Halfing are awesome, Half Orc, Half Elf, crap. Other's in between.

That's just like saying all classes need to be balanced against Core classes. Balanced against what? Wizard/Druid/Cleric awesome Fighter/Bard/Ranger/Monk/Paladin crap. Rogue/Barb, in between.

LordOkubo
2008-08-22, 09:45 AM
Terrible compared to what? For a 2-handed weapon fighter the difference between a 16 strength and an 18 strength is huge. Having a +2 Strength makes it easier (rolling method) or even simple (PB method).

In exchange, how many fighters care about Charisma? Or Intelligence for that matter. If you're going for a tactical type fighter (Combat Expertise and the like), then sure, -2 Int hits you right in the gut. But for a pure-damage type fighter, it is virtually meaningless.

Again, sure, compare the 1/2 orc to non-core races and he is probably abyssmal. But compared to core races I think he is balanced. I know in my groups everytime someone plays a barbarian they always pick 1/2 orc.

See, your real problem is that people choose races good for their class. +2 Int is ****, unless you are a Wizard.

Look at the races with +2 Cha: Star Elf/Hellbred/Spellscale, all have a -2 Con penalty.

This isn't making them balanced against anything, this is just slapping a "Sorcerers only" tag on them.

Frownbear
2008-08-22, 09:58 AM
Terrible compared to what? For a 2-handed weapon fighter the difference between a 16 strength and an 18 strength is huge. Having a +2 Strength makes it easier (rolling method) or even simple (PB method).
Having a bonus to your primary stat is ALWAYS good.


In exchange, how many fighters care about Charisma? Or Intelligence for that matter. If you're going for a tactical type fighter (Combat Expertise and the like), then sure, -2 Int hits you right in the gut. But for a pure-damage type fighter, it is virtually meaningless.
Each class has stats that are meaningless. The half-orc gets penalties to two stats rather than one for no reason.


Again, sure, compare the 1/2 orc to non-core races and he is probably abyssmal. But compared to core races I think he is balanced. I know in my groups everytime someone plays a barbarian they always pick 1/2 orc.
Whisper gnomes or not, Dwarves are one of the most overpowered races, and they're core. Want to compare half-orcs to dwarves?

STR is not special. +1 AB and +1 or 2 damage? As a Rogue I'd rather have +2 DEX.

Each class uses a certain stat or stats. Why pretend Strength is more important? Sure, you see some of half-orc barbarians (I'd still rather play a human or dwarven one), but you see a lot of halfling rogues, grey elf wizards, dwarven fighters, etc.

Tormsskull
2008-08-22, 10:09 AM
Yes, and my point is that Core races are just one point of balance, and no more or less valid then good races.


What is a good race? One that is more mechanically powerful than the core races? If so, I think the reason we are not seeing eye-to-eye is that you are caught up in the "more powerful = better" mindset.

If you were to remove the core races as choices, or increase their powerlevel, and then say "this is the new baseline" ala Pathfinder, then sure, a lot of these splat races would be more balanced.

But if you leave the core races in as is and also offer splat races, balance becomes a problem.



Not to mention, Core races aren't balanced, Dwarf, Human, Halfing are awesome, Half Orc, Half Elf, crap. Other's in between.


I don't think the 1/2 orc is crap at all. I'd agree that the 1/2 elf is subpar.



That's just like saying all classes need to be balanced against Core classes. Balanced against what? Wizard/Druid/Cleric awesome Fighter/Bard/Ranger/Monk/Paladin crap. Rogue/Barb, in between.

Against a similiar class, obviously. If you make a new class that is going to be a melee fighter, wear heavy armor, and use shields, it probably should be balanced against fighters. If you make a class that is going to have a lot of skill points it probably should be balanced against a rogue. And if you make a spellcaster, it probably should be balanced against a similiar spellcaster.



See, your real problem is that people choose races good for their class. +2 Int is ****, unless you are a Wizard.


I didn't realize I had a problem. And no, +2 Int isn't crap unless you are a wizard. I personally am a big fan of having lots of skills, so I would tend to look favorably upon a + Int race. Tempest Fennac said much the same.



Look at the races with +2 Cha: Star Elf/Hellbred/Spellscale, all have a -2 Con penalty.

This isn't making them balanced against anything, this is just slapping a "Sorcerers only" tag on them.


So you only ever select a race that has a bonus to the primary stat of your class?

Tempest Fennac
2008-08-22, 10:19 AM
I tend to see fluff as being important regarding what a good race is (eg: the race I posted on here (http://forum.mydndgame.com/index.php/topic,136.0.html) is my ideal race, but a lot of people would hate playing as them, and they aren't that great if you want a melee warrior due to their Str penalty).

Getting back OT, do you guys think Kpenguin's idea would work? I'm guessing that some classes would still need some modifications to be balanced with this system. Also, would races with racial HDs keep them, nd if they do, would they need to earn them as levels?

CASTLEMIKE
2008-08-22, 11:04 AM
So, with a new school year starting, I hope to convince my friends into a new campaign. Our old one fell into nothing during the summer and I suspect everyone has lost their character sheets.

As I prepare for another round of DMing (I'm the only one who's willing to do it), I thought over an idea to expand choice in race. What about reducing the point buy for certain races and increasing it for certain races? My thoughts:

LA +1 = 25 point buy
LA +0 = 28 point buy
Certain races (Half-elves, Half-orcs, kobolds, etc.) = 32 point buy

How balanced is this?

IMO it seems pretty balanced mechanically. But say I take a +0LA race as a PC I will normally choose something that has a strong class ability modifier (acknowledge there are exceptions). So most PCs will use a +0 LA race with a high base ability. Aasimar Cleric -1 with a base 16 Wisdom that +2 to Wisdom is equal to +6 in point buy increasing the ability score to 18 (Possibly higher) plus he still ges a +2 to Charisma, Darkvision and a few other bennies so in most cases better than going Core race with 32 point buy.

I'd probably give a 32 point PC a bonus Feat without a Flaw to compensate to balance it out in a No Flaw game and allow him to take the same amount of Flaws as other PCs if that variant is in use.

LordOkubo
2008-08-22, 11:32 AM
What is a good race? One that is more mechanically powerful than the core races? If so, I think the reason we are not seeing eye-to-eye is that you are caught up in the "more powerful = better" mindset.

No, a good race isn't a race that is "more powerful then core." A good race is one that synergies with your character. That means both mechanically and fluff wise. If you want to be a Half Orc, just use the stats for Human or Orc and claim you are a Half Orc. Because either of those represents Half Orcs, and Half Orc characters, better then the crappy Half Orc race nerf.

Some good races are Dwarves, Humans, Halflings, Whispergnomes, and certain varieties of Elf, but not the core one. Mostly halflings and dwarves are in their because they have good features, plenty of options to choose from as far as changes in the races, and several good substitution levels. Same for Elves, but a lot of the elf variants suck more then the Dwarf/Halfling ones.


If you were to remove the core races as choices, or increase their powerlevel, and then say "this is the new baseline" ala Pathfinder, then sure, a lot of these splat races would be more balanced.

No. This is the point, you can leave the core races the same, and balance new races against humans/halflings/dwarves/whispergnomes/lesser tieflings. As those are all about as good, and just accept that no one is every going to waste their time on a Gnome/Kobold/Half Orc/Half Elf/Core Elf.


But if you leave the core races in as is and also offer splat races, balance becomes a problem.

No it doesn't. You can play with some options being just plain better then others, as evidenced by Core PHB classes, where full casters and Rogue are just plain better then Fighters/Paladins/Rangers/Bards/Monks.

If having good and bad races is a problem somehow, then the core races already have problems, because they already have good and bad races.


I don't think the 1/2 orc is crap at all. I'd agree that the 1/2 elf is subpar.

You only don't think that because you for some reason think that +2 Str is super awesome, and worth more then any other three stats. That is wrong.


Against a similiar class, obviously. If you make a new class that is going to be a melee fighter, wear heavy armor, and use shields, it probably should be balanced against fighters. If you make a class that is going to have a lot of skill points it probably should be balanced against a rogue. And if you make a spellcaster, it probably should be balanced against a similiar spellcaster.

See, just no. If I'm going to make a new fighter class, I'm going to balance it against Wizards. Why? Because you can guarandamntee that a Wizard and a Fighter like character are going to be in the same party quiet often, whereas a Fighter and your new class are not likely to compete as much.

So faced with the option of having either:

A) One really strong class and one really weak class in the same party.
B) Two really strong classes in the same party.

You choose a).

The point is that you should pick the highest class you will allow in your game, and then rebalance every other class to that level if you want balance, or you should at least, if you aren't going to put the work in to change every other class, just set that as the balance point for any new classes.

Same thing with races. If you allow Humans and Dwarves and Halflings in your campaign, then if you are going to change Gnolls to be a +0 LA race, you had better balance then against the good races, not the crappy half orc that no one wants to play.

I find it especially funny that all the weak races and classes go together in your mind, like you have no problem with a party made up of a Halfling Rogue, Human Druid/Cleric, Grey Elf Wizard, and Duddy McDuddud the Half Orc Fighter.


I didn't realize I had a problem. And no, +2 Int isn't crap unless you are a wizard. I personally am a big fan of having lots of skills, so I would tend to look favorably upon a + Int race. Tempest Fennac said much the same.

No, +2 Int isn't crap, but if you choice is between a race that has +2 Int and -2 Str and Con or a race that has +2 Str and -2 Int and Cha, or Human, practically every single class chooses human, an occasional barbarian or Fighter might choose Half Orc, and an occasional Wizard might choose Grey Elf without dex bonus.


So you only ever select a race that has a bonus to the primary stat of your class?

No, but having a penalty to a stat very important to everyone and a bonus that only helps Charisma based casters limits the available choices for the races to pretty much Sorcerer or Bard in core.

Not that the compensating benefits: You are an outsider, please use alter self cheese, and choose between an extra 2d6 damage on one spell today or the silent spell metamagic feat aren't also partially to blame for the pigeonholing.

Chronos
2008-08-22, 01:04 PM
The thing to remember is that most of the effective character builds are specialists. You don't want to look at how good a race is in general; you want to look at how good it is for the specialties it's best suited for. So, for instance, a Whisper Gnome would make a terrible marshal, but that doesn't make up for the fact that they make excellent rogues.

That re-balanced lizardfolk gets a bonus to the two stats that matter most for a melee warrior and a penalty to two of the stats that matter least. It also gets natural armor, and a natural weapon that it can use as a free secondary attack, with no penalty to its primary attacks. All of those are very good things, for a character of the appropriate type. Is it better at being a warrior than a whisper gnome is at being a rogue? Maybe not... If whisper gnome is the standard of balance you're looking for, it's probably OK. But if you're using most of the core races as your standard, it's overpowered.

Tempest Fennac
2008-08-22, 01:08 PM
(I think you got my Gnoll confused with my Lizardfolk variant, Chronos.:smalltongue:) If you're comparing it to a Dwarf, is it overpowered?

Tormsskull
2008-08-22, 01:51 PM
No, a good race isn't a race that is "more powerful then core." A good race is one that synergies with your character. That means both mechanically and fluff wise.


Ok, up to this point I understand you. You have a character concept in mind, so you look at the available races and find one where both the mechanics and the fluff of the race are suitable to you, or make sense to you to bring that character concept to life. Sounds pretty good to me.



If you want to be a Half Orc, just use the stats for Human or Orc and claim you are a Half Orc. Because either of those represents Half Orcs, and Half Orc characters, better then the crappy Half Orc race nerf.


Woah nelly. What you are essentially saying here is that fluff and mechanics are completely separate. Select 1 piece fluff, add in 1 piece mechanics, and you have your character.

To me, the mechanics are the game representation of the fluff. You cannot simply divorce them like you are trying to do.



You only don't think that because you for some reason think that +2 Str is super awesome, and worth more then any other three stats. That is wrong.


"for some reason" = because that's what it says in the actual books. Thats what the people who created the game thought was balanced. Its not like I'm pulling this out of thin air.




So faced with the option of having either:

A) One really strong class and one really weak class in the same party.
B) Two really strong classes in the same party.

You choose a).


This argument has gone on over a million times in the past, and I highly doubt anyone is going to change their mind at this point.

I say that classes aren't fighting against one another, and that each bring something different to the party dynamic to the table.

You respond that Batman wizards and clerics and druids are super powerful and make it where the other classes aren't needed.

I remind you that a capable DM isn't going to let that happen in their campaign by applying common sense.

You respond that if it takes a DM to make the game balanced, it is proof that the game is not balanced.

I respond that the entire premise of the game is built upon the fact that the DM is right there and running the show.

and so on, and so on.



I find it especially funny that all the weak races and classes go together in your mind, like you have no problem with a party made up of a Halfling Rogue, Human Druid/Cleric, Grey Elf Wizard, and Duddy McDuddud the Half Orc Fighter.


We don't use Grey Elves as they aren't core, but other than that, yes, I have definitely seen a group made up of a halfling rogue, human cleric, and half orc (barbarian).



No, +2 Int isn't crap, but if you choice is between a race that has +2 Int and -2 Str and Con or a race that has +2 Str and -2 Int and Cha, or Human, practically every single class chooses human, an occasional barbarian or Fighter might choose Half Orc, and an occasional Wizard might choose Grey Elf without dex bonus.


I would disagree. I would say for the barbarian example, its more like 75% 1/2 orc, 25% human, where as for the wizard it would probably be 99% Grey Elf. +2 Int for a Wizard is huge, especially at higher levels. And considering that as we have seen on these boards that only stupid wizards ever allow themselves to be hit, a -con is not a big deal.



No, but having a penalty to a stat very important to everyone and a bonus that only helps Charisma based casters limits the available choices for the races to pretty much Sorcerer or Bard in core.


Only if you are trying to maximize your character's mechanical power. Not everyone is out to do that. Truth be told, people actually play elf rangers, gnome illusionists, 1/2 orc fighters, etc.

Chronos
2008-08-22, 02:15 PM
(I think you got my Gnoll confused with my Lizardfolk variant, Chronos.) If you're comparing it to a Dwarf, is it overpowered?Ah, yes, I did. The lizardfolk isn't all that bad.

Comparing with a dwarf, though: The primary advantage of the dwarf is that he gets a bonus to a "good" score, and a penalty to a "bad" score (where "good" and "bad" are relative to the classes a dwarf would be best at). As a side bonus, they also get Darkvision. Your gnoll also gets +2 Con, -2 Cha, and Darkvision, but then additionally gets +2 Str, -2 Int, which is good for warrior types, natural armor, which is good for everyone but especially warrior-types, and also a natural weapon, which is also good for warrior types. All of the dwarf's additional advantages (bonuses vs. giants and goblinoids, stonecunning) are too minor and situational to make up for this. So if you want to make a warrior-type, mechanically, there's no reason to choose dwarf over LA 0 gnoll.

LordOkubo
2008-08-22, 03:01 PM
Woah nelly. What you are essentially saying here is that fluff and mechanics are completely separate. Select 1 piece fluff, add in 1 piece mechanics, and you have your character.

To me, the mechanics are the game representation of the fluff. You cannot simply divorce them like you are trying to do.

Mechanics are a game representation of fluff. But the difference between +2 Str and +4 Str is not discernible in game 90% of the time. So being actually worth your time by having slightly more Str is a perfectly fine representation of fluff.


"for some reason" = because that's what it says in the actual books. Thats what the people who created the game thought was balanced. Its not like I'm pulling this out of thin air.

No it doesn't say that Str is worth three stats, it says it is worth two stats. The point is that every race in core (except human) gets +2 _2 and some other benefits, Half Orcs don't have any other benefits aside from Darkvision, (which isn't, since half the races have that plus something else).

It also isn't true. I don't care if the people who made the game think that +2 Str is worth two other stats, I also don't care if they think that a feat every other level is worth as much as spells. They are wrong, and I'm not going to value things incorrectly just because someone tells me to.


This argument has gone on over a million times in the past, and I highly doubt anyone is going to change their mind at this point.

I say that classes aren't fighting against one another, and that each bring something different to the party dynamic to the table.

You respond that Batman wizards and clerics and druids are super powerful and make it where the other classes aren't needed.

I remind you that a capable DM isn't going to let that happen in their campaign by applying common sense.

You respond that if it takes a DM to make the game balanced, it is proof that the game is not balanced.

I respond that the entire premise of the game is built upon the fact that the DM is right there and running the show.

and so on, and so on.

No, I'm not going to do that. You say, "I say that classes aren't fighting against one another, and that each bring something different to the party dynamic to the table."

I respond, that's great, but if you are designing new classes you should make them good interesting classes instead of crappy ones, so that everyone can be have fun and be useful with less DM work.

To which you reply, "No way man, if you are going through all the work of designing new classes or races, you should purposefully make them all really crappy for no reason just because it's possible to have fun that way, even if it's harder."


We don't use Grey Elves as they aren't core, but other than that, yes, I have definitely seen a group made up of a halfling rogue, human cleric, and half orc (barbarian).

Grey Elves are core, try again. But if you only play Core at least the are smart enough to play Barbarians instead of Fighters, even if they aren't smart enough to play Orcs.


I would disagree. I would say for the barbarian example, its more like 75% 1/2 orc, 25% human, where as for the wizard it would probably be 99% Grey Elf. +2 Int for a Wizard is huge, especially at higher levels. And considering that as we have seen on these boards that only stupid wizards ever allow themselves to be hit, a -con is not a big deal.

Depends on the allowed feats, racial subs, level, ect. But yes, taking the Int with any non-Wizard is highly unlikely. Taking the Str with any non-Fighter/Barb is also not likely. Though I think your experience is highly questionable, in that it requires someone who is already consciously aware of that they will be a weak character (playing a Fighter/Barb) or is so unaware of the way D&D works that they are making choices based on superficial and stereotypical motivations instead of actual mechanics.


Only if you are trying to maximize your character's mechanical power. Not everyone is out to do that. Truth be told, people actually play elf rangers, gnome illusionists, 1/2 orc fighters, etc.

Yes, but I have this crazy belief that if someone wants to play a Gnoll Dragoon that a Gnoll +0 LA race, and a Dragoon class when made to accommodate them, should be made so that they can be as useful as a Wizard or Cleric.

kpenguin
2008-08-22, 03:03 PM
Um... I know that there's no thread ownership on these boards, but could we please get back to the OP... please? I only have two opinions so far...



IMO it seems pretty balanced mechanically. But say I take a +0LA race as a PC I will normally choose something that has a strong class ability modifier (acknowledge there are exceptions). So most PCs will use a +0 LA race with a high base ability. Aasimar Cleric -1 with a base 16 Wisdom that +2 to Wisdom is equal to +6 in point buy increasing the ability score to 18 (Possibly higher) plus he still ges a +2 to Charisma, Darkvision and a few other bennies so in most cases better than going Core race with 32 point buy.

I'd probably give a 32 point PC a bonus Feat without a Flaw to compensate to balance it out in a No Flaw game and allow him to take the same amount of Flaws as other PCs if that variant is in use.

The bonus feat idea is interesting. I will consider using it. I'm afraid that it might steer people away from playing Humans, however, since the free bonus feat is really what makes people gravitate towards that race.

Chronos
2008-08-22, 03:44 PM
Ah, yes, the OP. It looks to me like it's a little more complicated than that, since one of the main things which contributes to LA is having good stat modifiers. If you just attach different amounts of point buy to the different LAs, then no matter what values you use, someone, somewhere is going to find a case where it's absolutely better to use the higher LA creature and there's no reason whatsoever to use the lower LA, or vice-versa. Which is counterproductive, if your purpose was to make a larger number of races viable options.

CASTLEMIKE
2008-08-22, 06:30 PM
The bonus feat idea is interesting. I will consider using it. I'm afraid that it might steer people away from playing Humans, however, since the free bonus feat is really what makes people gravitate towards that race.

Maybe but a Human PC will get 2 bonus feats not 1 before using the Flaw Variant which is plenty of incentive particularly for PRCs that are feat intensive. A Human PC has the potential to rock in a game with the Flaw Variant.

Tempest Fennac
2008-08-23, 01:01 AM
Could adding new racial features to weak 32 PB races be another way of balancing them? (Eg: Half-Elves are supposed to be friendly, so one option would be to let them Take 10 on all Diplomacy and Gather Information checks).

Regarding Dwarves, I know what you mean about a lot of their abilities being situational, but isn;t the +2 to saves vs. magic really powerful, and how is my Gnoll variant for non-warriors?

CASTLEMIKE
2008-08-23, 01:46 AM
Could adding new racial features to weak 32 PB races be another way of balancing them? (Eg: Half-Elves are supposed to be friendly, so one option would be to let them Take 10 on all Diplomacy and Gather Information checks).



Sure but it is usually a special of a class like the Changeling Rogue.

Tempest Fennac
2008-08-23, 01:56 AM
That's where I got the idea from (I studied the racial variant classses on Crystal Keep, and I couldn't think of any descent bonus features that went with Half-Elves).

CASTLEMIKE
2008-08-23, 02:20 AM
That's where I got the idea from (I studied the racial variant classses on Crystal Keep, and I couldn't think of any descent bonus features that went with Half-Elves).

I like Crystal Keep. The taking 10 on social checks can be strong or weak depending on the game. Giving a half-elf an extra skill point at each level based on their human heritage is respectable particularly for the 2 SPs a level classes.

Tempest Fennac
2008-08-23, 02:24 AM
Would letting them qualify as a Human regarding feats along with the extra skill point work well for balancing them?

CASTLEMIKE
2008-08-23, 11:00 AM
Would letting them qualify as a Human regarding feats along with the extra skill point work well for balancing them?

Probably should make it an either or choice for the PC because of feats like Adaptive learning the PC can have the bonus skill point at each level to reflect his ancestry or the divided ancestry special from the half-elf paragon class or a Flaw.

Something like the Flaw Quarter Elf could be interesting:
http://realmshelps.dandello.net/cgi-bin/feats.pl?Quarter_Elf,all

Type: Flaw
Source: Dragon #328

Elven blood is not particularly strong in your veins and its features are barely noticeable.

Prerequisite: Half-elf.
Benefit: You are not immune to sleep spells and do not gain a racial bonus on saving throws against enchantment spells or effects. You are not considered to have elven blood.

Since the PC is not considered to have elf blood should he be allowed to take human racial feats?