A preview source (don't have the link handy) has mentioned that all of the new PHB races would be getting an optional "second stat". Each race has one stat bonus that is standard to that race, and there would be a choice of two Attributes for the second stat.
Current speculation suggests that all races will be brought in line with this change via DnD Essentials.
While at first, it may seem a poor practice for wizard to introduce this as the new standard via the phb3 and not immediately update our old favorites, (which they may via a DnD Outsider web post, anyway) I personally do not see this as a huge issue.
Likely, the characters you are playing now were made with the current system in mind. They work just fine. Granted, if your half-elf would have received a bonus to dex instead of con, he would have made a more optimal rogue, you are already playing him as a Bard, and having a blast.
The new races having stat options hurts your game no more than the Half-Orc proving to be an attribute apt Brutal Scoundrel did when the phb2 splashed down.
Also, I do believe that if this change is accurate and does materialize, that Wizards will likely publish the new options for old favorites immediately on the web for all to see.
Opening up racial stats lets races branch more into different classes, as well as to be more 'optimal' at archetypes that make sense for them.
I'd say its a good thing, though perhaps hurts the versitility of the human a tad.
Even if they do not update the old races right away, it gives the new races a temporary edge to counter all the feats and support for the older races.
As for retrofitting, I do agree that many feats and such where made with the current stat's in mind. Giving a dwarf a Str/Con option would be bad, however there are some that could be updated without issue. Fortunatly WoTC has to do the work of figuring out which is balanced.
All That said I do have one mild complaint. Personally I don't care for only being able to choose A+B or A+C and would prefer to have the option to pick B+C as well. Not really a problem though, as I don't play RPGA or any other official rules only format, and I can always house rule it for my own games.
I've been planning on implementing this for a long time, especially after seeing Mul and realising it doesn't -really- matter if the the versatile ability score bonus is in the same defence category or not (though this messes a bit with the defence bonuses granted to certain races to make up for the problem). I'm currently implementing a tempory fix for all races until we get the official word on what the actual versatile scores for them are.
I predict
Dragonborn-keep str, choose between cha/wis(keeps that balanced there)
Dwarf-keep wis choose between str/con(again balanced racial bump)
Eladrin-hmm uhh keep int get cha? can't really find anything, maybe wis
Elf-keep dex gain uhh con? again a hard one
Halfling-dex stays choose wis(or maybe int)
Tielflnig-easy keep int choose cha or con
Changeling – Charisma, Dex or Int
Deva – Wisdom, Int or Cha
Dragonborn – Strength, Con or Cha
Drow – Charisma, Dex or Str
Dwarf – Constitution, Int or Wis
Eladrin – Intelligence, Dex or Str
Elf – Wisdom, Dex or Str
Genasi – Strength, Int or Cha
Githzerai – Wisdom, Dex or Int
Gnoll – Dexterity, Str or Con
Gnome – Intelligence, Dex or Cha
Goliath – Constitution, Str or Wis
Half-elf – Charisma, Str or Con
Half-orc – Strength, Con or Dex
Halfling – Dexterity, Con or Cha
Human – Any (may be slightly modified to maintain versatility advantage)
Kalashtar – Wisdom, Dex or Cha
Minotaur – Strength, Con or Wis
Mul – Constitution, Str or Wis
Revenant – Constitution, Dex or Wis
Shadar-kai – Dexterity, Con or Int
Shardmind – Intelligence, Wis or Cha
Shifter – Wisdom, Str or Dex
Thri-kreen – Dexterity, Str or Wis
Tiefling – Intelligence, Con or Cha
Warforged – Constitution, Str or Int
Wilden – Wisdom, Con or Dex
Dragonborn: Str, Wis or Cha
Dwarf: Con, Wis or Int
Eladrin: Int, Dex or Cha
Elf: Dex, Wis or Str
Half Elf: Cha, Con or Dex
Halfling: Dex, Cha or Int
Teifling: Int, Cha or Con
Deva: Wis, Int or Dex
Gnome: Cha, Int or Con
Goliath: Con, Str or Dex
Half Orc: Str, Dex or Cha
Longtooth: Wis, Str or Con
Razorclaw: Wis, Dex or Int
Drow: Cha, Dex or Int
Genasi: Int, Str or Con
Kalastar: Cha, Wis or Int
Revenant: Con, Dex or Int
Shadar-Kai: Dex, Int or Str
Warforged: Con, Str or Int
Edit: Ninja'd, but we have a number of interesting similarities and disagreements there...
As for the specific races and the applicable stat-bumps, I like the unifying theme of the Eladrin and Elf both having Dex as a main stat (and would prefer that Drow also adhere to the convention). Otherwise, I hope that WotC considers the various classes and tailors the races so that they may fulfill organic and iconic roles (like Tieflings gaining Con so they can excel as Infernal Warlocks and Eladrin gaining Cha so they can excel as Fey Warlocks).
I don't like how this devalues the human in comparison with the other races. A fix I would like to see would need to be along the lines of this:
Cross-training
Prerequisite: Human
Benefit: Chose a heroic tier racial feat for a race other than your own. You can take the feat as if you were a member of the required race, however you do not get any racial powers that might be needed to use the feat.
Special: when you reach paragon tier you can retrain into a paragon tier racial feats, when you reach epic tier you can retrain into an epic tier racial feat.
I don't think they could just give humans a second stat to choose, that would be in line of adding power, instead of adding options. Some better feats would probably be the best way to bring humans to a better standing, and this one is a good start.
As for the specific races and the applicable stat-bumps, I like the unifying theme of the Eladrin and Elf both having Dex as a main stat (and would prefer that Drow also adhere to the convention).
Agreed. The easiest thing to do would be to make each elfish race have +2 Dex, Mental 1 or Mental 2. So an Elf might be Dex + Wis/Int, Eladrin Dex + Int/Cha, and Drow Dex + Cha/Wis. That would make eladrin great feylocks, drow good priests, and elves exceptional shadowy rogues, and keep the triad together.
I don't care for it, for a few reasons.
First, if they go through and apply it retroactively to all other races, it smacks of "half-revision" to me. Yes, the game still uses all of the same rules. However, the way that races work has changed, and in a fairly significant way (even if just during creation).
Second, it's increasing racial power, again, already. The piling on of benefits seems... unecessary.
Third, many of the races don't have a third ability score supported by their fluff and descriptions. While it will be hard to say what WotC is going to do (if they do anything), the forums seem to be embracing a "Give the races a bonus that makes them better at an iconic class" approach, rather than a "Give the races a bonus that makes sense" approach. Though on one level I understand that (because in some cases we will have to avoid giving a race too much power).
Finally, I think it removes useful design space by applying the concept of variable stat choices across the board. Doing so just removes the ability to use that as a defining feature of a race (like the Changeling) for which it fits. Though at this point, if they go back, maybe the Changeling will get +2 Cha/ +2 Int, Dex, or [3rd stat that isn't really supported by the fluff].
Anyways, that's my first impression of it.
Humans will still have more versatility than anyone else, if only slighty.
I like the idea of Dragonborne getting con, as it rounds out their Breathweapon nicely.
I think Golaiths should be a Strength first race.
I like the idea of elves getting str ala wood elf. Also makes them a great versitle ranger.
I would say give the Drow Intelligence, though wisdom would not be out of place considering how Religion driven their society is.
I wouldn't be surprised to see shifters left alone, though con would be good for longfangs, and make them wisdom first.
I could see half-elves getting dex added in.
Intelligence is an obvious choice for Tieflings.
I like the Cross-training idea, but I really don't think humans need the boost to compete. It doesn't matter how many extra stat options you give another race, it doesn't change that a human gets +2 where ever, plus a feat, (plus extra skill, at will, ect)
Humans will still have more versatility than anyone else, if only slighty.
I like the idea of Dragonborne getting con, as it rounds out their Breathweapon nicely.
I think Golaiths should be a Strength first race.
I like the idea of elves getting str ala wood elf. Also makes them a great versitle ranger.
I would say give the Drow Intelligence, though wisdom would not be out of place considering how Religion driven their society is.
I wouldn't be surprised to see shifters left alone, though con would be good for longfangs, and make them wisdom first.
I could see half-elves getting dex added in.
Intelligence is an obvious choice for Tieflings.
I gave Goliaths Constitution first because their racial fluff lines up quite nicely with the Battlemind fluff – they are competitive in all things (big ego). I'm a bit hesitant with it though, because it's the same set up as a similar race (Mul). Yes, they're different (Half-Dwarf and Half-Giant), but they remain somewhat similar, and I don't want too much mechanical, and thus fluff overlap.
I gave All elf-like races their "mental" score as well as Dex and Str. While Dex is a unifying theme, I think the various takes on the mental is very important to the Elven Races, and they should retain that. Having them all have Dex or Str as secondaries maintains a background theme, while making Elves better as Wardens, making Eladrin better as Swordmages, and making Drow better as Paladins, fitting those themes well too.
It also allows all three to be really good at the Warlord, and to a lesser extent, good at the Fighter and Barbarian. I always felt that Eladrin should be some of the best Assault Swordmages and Tactical Warlords (and Skirmishing Warlords and Resourceful Warlords), especially with their Longsword focus. The Strength is an added benefit for Eladrin who want to do Two-Blade Ranger as well. Elves thus now are good as Wild Wardens (and Life Wardens) and Skirmishing Warlords (and Insightful Warlords), and Drow would now be excellent as Avenging Paladins (and Protecting Paladins) and Inspiring Warlords (and Bravura Warlords, Resourceful Warlords, and Insightful Warlords).
My choice for Half-Elves was a natural one too: give them Warlord and Paladin optimalisation, and work from there. Another much-needed Str/Cha race, and gives them Thaneborn Barbarian and Cosmic Sorcerer (and Dragon Sorcerer) as well. I think it's a good fit.
I gave Dwarves Intelligence as an alternate to Wisdom, making them great Artificers. Still doesn't make them optimal Runepriests though, but…
I like the Cross-training idea, but I really don't think humans need the boost to compete. It doesn't matter how many extra stat options you give another race, it doesn't change that a human gets +2 where ever, plus a feat, (plus extra skill, at will, ect)Humans will still have more versatility than anyone else, if only slighty.
And this "slightly" seems no longer worth losing a racial power of it. And many of the non-human racials are essentially 2 feats in one (e.g. the weapon training feats). So the non-humans have for many builds effectively the same number of feats, plus two ability bumps plus an racial powers (and if one of them becomes a "chose one of two options" they suddenly cover 50% of all ability scores)
I like the Cross-training idea, but I really don't think humans need the boost to compete. It doesn't matter how many extra stat options you give another race, it doesn't change that a human gets +2 where ever, plus a feat, (plus extra skill, at will, ect)Humans will still have more versatility than anyone else, if only slighty.
And this "slightly" seems no longer worth losing a racial power of it. And many of the non-human racials are essentially 2 feats in one (e.g. the weapon training feats). So the non-humans have for many builds effectively the same number of feats, plus two ability bumps plus an racial powers (and if one of them becomes a "chose one of two options" they suddenly cover 50% of all ability scores)
Humans never lost their racial power. They've always had a racial power – it's their extra at-will. Much like a racial, it scales.
I like the Cross-training idea, but I really don't think humans need the boost to compete. It doesn't matter how many extra stat options you give another race, it doesn't change that a human gets +2 where ever, plus a feat, (plus extra skill, at will, ect)
Humans will still have more versatility than anyone else, if only slighty.
I like the idea of Dragonborne getting con, as it rounds out their Breathweapon nicely.
I think Golaiths should be a Strength first race.
I like the idea of elves getting str ala wood elf. Also makes them a great versitle ranger.
I would say give the Drow Intelligence, though wisdom would not be out of place considering how Religion driven their society is.
I wouldn't be surprised to see shifters left alone, though con would be good for longfangs, and make them wisdom first.
I could see half-elves getting dex added in.
Intelligence is an obvious choice for Tieflings.
I gave Goliaths Constitution first because their racial fluff lines up quite nicely with the Battlemind fluff – they are competitive in all things (big ego). I'm a bit hesitant with it though, because it's the same set up as a similar race (Mul). Yes, they're different (Half-Dwarf and Half-Giant), but they remain somewhat similar, and I don't want too much mechanical, and thus fluff overlap.
I gave All elf-like races their "mental" score as well as Dex and Str. While Dex is a unifying theme, I think the various takes on the mental is very important to the Elven Races, and they should retain that. Having them all have Dex or Str as secondaries maintains a background theme, while making Elves better as Wardens, making Eladrin better as Swordmages, and making Drow better as Paladins, fitting those themes well too.
It also allows all three to be really good at the Warlord, and to a lesser extent, good at the Fighter and Barbarian. I always felt that Eladrin should be some of the best Assault Swordmages and Tactical Warlords (and Skirmishing Warlords and Resourceful Warlords), especially with their Longsword focus. The Strength is an added benefit for Eladrin who want to do Two-Blade Ranger as well. Elves thus now are good as Wild Wardens (and Life Wardens) and Skirmishing Warlords (and Insightful Warlords), and Drow would now be excellent as Avenging Paladins (and Protecting Paladins) and Inspiring Warlords (and Bravura Warlords, Resourceful Warlords, and Insightful Warlords).
My choice for Half-Elves was a natural one too: give them Warlord and Paladin optimalisation, and work from there. Another much-needed Str/Cha race, and gives them Thaneborn Barbarian and Cosmic Sorcerer (and Dragon Sorcerer) as well. I think it's a good fit.
I gave Dwarves Intelligence as an alternate to Wisdom, making them great Artificers. Still doesn't make them optimal Runepriests though, but…
I agree with the elves keeping their mental scores. Each of the mental scores is very icnonic to the race. I would love to see them get the choice between Str/Dex. I think this will open a interesting new path for how races are handled. I don't love it, I don't hate it, but it does smack of a .5 edition like change(which annoys me).
First, allowing you to choose between bonuses doesn't really make a race more powerful. It may make certain builds more powerful, but the race as a whole doesn't gain any net power. That's why they couldn't give humans an extra +2 to any attribute--that would be a net gain in power.
Second, I think this will be done as an alternative race feature, just as the Power books offer alternative class features. You give something up and gain something instead. For example, a dwarf can give up Wis to gain Str or Int or whatever. (I personally like giving up Con for Str, as Str/Wis is underrepresented at the moment--there's just the shifter and the minotaur). So it's possible humans will get an alternative race feature as well, but they'll have to give something up, such as their extra at-will.
The other alternative would be to do it as a background, which has its advantages.
I think this will open a interesting new path for how races are handled. I don't love it, I don't hate it, but it does smack of a .5 edition like change(which annoys me).
I understand where you are coming from, but I do not feel that it is as much of an issue as 3.5 actually was, which revamped bards, and made Rangers worth while again.
Aside from some erratta, the changes 4 seems to get are add ons. Sure, your at-will Killy-stab might make the old, Poke power obsolete, but I think that's okay.
A Prime(zing) example is how Prime Shot...which kinda stinks for Rangers, I think, can now be replaced with the Runny Skirmishy power presented in MP2. No retcon, just a new option.
I think for the most part, DnD has a fairly solid foundation, that all the new rules can build onto nicely.
Also, I like the concept of allowing a background choice to have an impact on what your "secondary attribute" is.
A dwarf who spent all day at the forge instead of all day at the mine is likely going to be stronger than wiser.
An Elf who was chosen as his sects ambasador to the humans may be more charismatic than wise.
Yeah I know its not really and "edition" changer kind of thing, its just seems more intensive then the new builds/options classes get. I see races as more "static" and classes more "dynamic". These are people's who have been around for centuries and this is the way they are. I can see classes changing because people are innovative in how they fight/learn new magic/granted new power. Its odd I should be extactic about this idea, I would love to see things like the Eladrin get Str or dwarves for that matter, but for some reason it upsets me.
I agree. There was something nice about being able to know the attributes for the races, and know that the race is basically static. It gave room for design (human and changeling), and was a nice reference point. I also think this feels a lot like a major change to the system as a whole, even if it is just opening up more options. Introducing new people into D&D and expect them to be able to match a race to his class if he goes that route. I don't know... it just doesn't feel right.
This is another manifestation of that design paradigm. The Human and the Changeling have shown that versatility is helpful but not game breaking. By incorporating that into the other races I think that we can get deeper characters while also allowing for the more iconic race/class combinations that have not been terribly effective (the Infernal Warlock Tiefling is the most telling example).
With as integrated with an online experience as D&D is now, I cannot see how adding more options to the existing races or classes is a bad thing. If a player is offline - he's not doing it wrong, he just doesn't have access to the same things that online players do.
Personally, I think we could trade humans +1 to each NAD for a second attibute bump, and it would equal out about power-wise. Alternatively, give humans a +2 to two stats, but they must apply to the same defense.
This would at least open up a little space for feat qualification that humans get screwed on.
I personally like it that some races are just not any good at somethings and good at others.
If we make everyone too much like everyone else, we might as well just pass on identifying the race at all.
This accomplishes the following:
1. Humans retain the exact same NAD bonuses as before.
2. Builds that were single NAD based, which some considered disadvantaged, get the benefit of choosing human as an ideal race for extra defense, feat, and at will. This is not a slight to the old single defense races as they have the option of diversifying to accomodate different builds and keeping their bonus defense.
I think the best solution for human is to give them +2 Stats in both stats of a single defense pair, they could have STRCON, DEXINT, or WISCHA.
This accomplishes the following:
1. Humans retain the exact same NAD bonuses as before.
2. Builds that were single NAD based, which some considered disadvantaged, get the benefit of choosing human as an ideal race for extra defense, feat, and at will. This is not a slight to the old single defense races as they have the option of diversifying to accomodate different builds and keeping their bonus defense.
What that succeeds at doing, though, is force humans the -opposite- direction they're doing with other classes. The versatile ability score bonus is supposed to make races like more build options.
By saying, you get Str/Con, Dex/Int, or Wis/Cha, you're saying you only want humans to be in a class build that uses one of those three combinations.
Str/Con has Barbarian, Fighter, Warden.
Dex/Int has Rogue, Wizard.
Wis/Cha has Ardent, Bard, Cleric, Paladin.
Notably, there are also classes to use one of those as a tertiary ability, so they would like it as well, but still, it's extremely limited in terms of both classes and builds, and would say that, "no, humans aren't as versatile as we all thought they were."
Based on thosse three stat combinations alone, that would be exactly the same number of optimal class builds as a +2 Wisdom and +2 Dexterity or +2 Charisma race would get.
Not only would that say that Humans are experts at certain classes (which is against the standard human fluff of being good at everything, but not the best at anything), but by corollary it would say that "if you play a human, you should play one of these class builds rather than another class build." That's not the point of humans.
Key word 'option', it's not like it is mandatory.
I personally like it that some races are just not any good at somethings and good at others.
If we make everyone too much like everyone else, we might as well just pass on identifying the race at all.
Well yes, but some races are still bad at some things. I don't see warforged getting Int bonus anytime soon, so they are still gonna be less then ideal wizards/psions/articifer what have you. ANd with out Cha bards/sorcerers/Ardent aren't good options got them.
Meanwhile if the Kalashter get an optional Int bonus Psion becomes an option. This is a strong thematic option for the race. An optional con bonus for tieflings makes them Infernal warlock a strong mechincal choice, witch makes sense as opposed to being better fey or such.
It will open up some good thematic options for some race though.
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...(PEACH
That post goes into further detail on each individual choice, but here was a quick breakdown of how I split the races:
Dragonborn - Str + Int/Cha
Goliath - Str + Con/Dex
Minotaur - Str + Con/Wis
Half-Orc - Str + Dex/Wis
Dwarf - Con + Int/Wis
Gnoll - Con + Str/Dex
Revenant - Con + Dex/Wis
Warforged - Con + Str/Int
Eladrin - Dex + Int/Cha
Elf - Dex + Str/Wis
Halfling - Dex + Wis/Cha
Bladeling - Dex + Con/Wis
Githzerai - Dex + Int/Wis
Shadar-kai - Dex + Con/Int
Gnome - Int + Dex/Cha
Genasi - Int + Str/Con
Shardmind - Int + Wis/Cha
Deva - Wis + Int/Cha
Longtooth - Wis + Str/Con
Razorclaw - Wis + Dex/Cha
Wilden - Wis + Con/Dex
Half-Elf - Cha + Str/Con
Tiefling - Cha + Con/Int
Drow - Cha + Str/Dex
Changeling - Cha + Dex/Int
Kalashtar - Cha + Int/Wis
Now if they change it, they change it that's up the Wizards to decide but my vote is to stick with what they already got instead of going back and changing what's already there.
A few of the under-chosen races could use it, tieflings being top of the list. Really, all tieflings need is for Hellfire Blood to scale and they'll be fine.
However, if they ever come out with an Int/Con race, I'd like to see several of them come out at once, so that once race isn't hugely overrepresented.
Humans: +2 to one attribute of your choice, or +1 to two attributes of your choice.
Probably not a good idea. If you intentionally give yourself two odd scores, you get two mechanical bonuses.
Humans: +2 to one attribute of your choice, or +1 to two attributes of your choice.
I don't know why everybody is suggesting odd ability score adjustments for the Human. It's been mechanically shown many times in the past not to be a good idea.
Honestly, if they're going to go with this, then I don't see why not just go ahead and let Humans exchange their Human Defense Bonuses feature for a second +2 bonus. Their reasoning for not doing this too begin with was because it would make Humans too versatile compared to the other races, but at this point, I don't think that's a problem anymore.
As for the general idea of giving every race flexible ability scores, I don't think that it was really necessary, but I also don't think it's a horrible idea. It gets me curious as to how they're going to pull it off, but it could be a good thing. The only thing I'm worried about is when and how they're going to update the existing races. If it takes too long or is done in an online article that people need to pay for, then way too many people would be stuck in limbo for a long time, a serious gap in a significant design change. I would think that one of the developers woudl have said "maybe we should go ahead and include a page in the PHB3 that goes ahead and updates the existing races so there is no weird gap", but apparently, that didn't happen.
In my opinion -- and I've practiced the following as a house rule, to great effect -- each race should have two stat bonuses assigned to it, as they traditionally have, but with the following difference: a character of that race only has to use one of the two choices, and the other bonus can be to any other stat. (Humans simply get two floating bonuses, in this case.)
For example, the dwarven people are both hardy (Constitution) and wise (Wisdom). However, an individual dwarf need only reflect one of those traits; he or she can have either +Wis & +Any, +Con & +Any, and including +Con & +Wis. This way, dwarven characters all retain a continuity with their race, but still have the stats to excel in at least one build of any class.
(You may say, "Why should Dwarves make good Wizards or Psions or Seekers, when their culture has no tradition of practicing these disciplines?" to which I say, "99% of this conversation is only functionally relevant to player characters anyway, and given that PCs generally represent highly anomalous characters anyway, why shouldn't a Dwarf be able to excel at wizardry if his player wants him to?")
...I could be convinced to go the final step further and say that all racial stat bonuses should be floating (eg: available to place anywhere), because even under my houserule above, some natural combinations remain impossible. For example, even with my houserule, Genasi still don't make good Chaos Sorcerers, despite that the flavour of that combination fits hand-in-glove.
If you have a mix of divine and primal with a spattering of the other sources, the culture is well defined in this mixture of religion and primal reverence, with other occupations also common (Dwarf, I'm looking at you!).
For example, the dwarven people are both hardy (Constitution) and wise (Wisdom). However, an individual dwarf need only reflect one of those traits; he or she can have either +Wis & +Any, +Con & +Any, and including +Con & +Wis. This way, dwarven characters all retain a continuity with their race, but still have the stats to excel in at least one build of any class.
I must say that I think that would be going a bit too far, however, I can't deny that I have considered similar courses of action (such as every PC getting 2 stats, one based on race and the other by class).
Versatility is all well and good, and there is some merit to making all characters able to excel at any class regardless of race, but I think that if taken too far it dilutes certain basic fantasy archetypes. Maybe it's just a sacred cow, but I personally think that each race having classes that it is poor at is important both thematically (setting the foundation for what kind of characters are likely to exist) and even from a meta perspective (by allowing players to intentional choose 'bad' combinations either as a personal challenge or just to stand out). Races need to remain distinct and meaningful or else the choice becomes little more than window dressing. Also, if it becomse too easy to play against type than the exceptions stat to become less exceptional.
The only thing I'm worried about is when and how they're going to update the existing races. If it takes too long or is done in an online article that people need to pay for, then way too many people would be stuck in limbo for a long time, a serious gap in a significant design change. I would think that one of the developers woudl have said "maybe we should go ahead and include a page in the PHB3 that goes ahead and updates the existing races so there is no weird gap", but apparently, that didn't happen.
Well, we do know that we're getting a new update document in March according to last month's update. It could be that the update to the races will be there.
Well, we do know that we're getting a new update document in March according to last month's update. It could be that the update to the races will be there.
At worst that would be a horrific, and at best that would be good enough but still not that great.
Here are my pickings:
PH:
Dragonborn - +2 Strength, +2 Charisma/Intelligence
Dwarf - +2 Constitution, +2 Strength/Wisdom
Eladrin - +2 Dexterity, +2 Intelligence/Charisma
Elf - +2 Dexterity, +2 Wisdom/Charisma
Halfling - +2 Dexterity, +2 Intelligence/Wisdom
Half-Elf - +2 Charisma, +2 Constitution/Intelligence
Human - No change needed. They still get some great versatility.
Tiefling - +2 Intelligence, +2 Constitution/Charisma
PH2:
Deva - +2 Wisdom, +2 Intelligence/Charisma
Gnome - +2 Constitution, +2 Intelligence/Charisma
Goliath - +2 Strength, +2 Constitution/Wisdom
Half-Orc - +2 Strength, +2 Constitution/Dexterity
Shifter - They don't need one, the way I see it. There are already two sides to the Shifter.
Campaign Guides:
Changeling - +2 Wisdom/Charisma, +2 Dexterity/Intelligence
Drow - +2 Dexterity, +2 Intelligence/Charisma
Genasi - +2 Intelligence, +2 Strength/Constitution
Kalashtar - +2 Wisdom, +2 Intelligence/Charisma
Warforged - +2 Constitution, +2 Strength/Dexterity
DDi:
Gnoll - +2 Dexterity, +2 Strength/Constitution
Revenant - +2 Constitution, +2 Dexterity/Wisdom
Shadar-Kai - +2 Intelligence, +2 Dexterity/Wisdom
Humans: +2 to one attribute of your choice, or +1 to two attributes of your choice.
Probably not a good idea. If you intentionally give yourself two odd scores, you get two mechanical bonuses.
?
I don't get what's wrong with that.
Anyway, my answer to the thread would be "don't care," so don't spend too much time explaining it to me.
You know, I can already tell that seeing these speculation lists seven times a day before they finally get around to updating the existing races is going to get old fast... And then we're going to have to go through a period where there are fifty threads of everybody's bitching that their specific speculations weren't 100% correct. -_-
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing pretty much right after talk of retroactive changes to old races was mentioned.
Personally, I'm not horrified or deeply moved by the announcement, even if it had no retroactive changes. It would make new races more greatly favored over our classics, but I don't think it would greatly effect any of the games I am running at the moment. I think the issue is, in the end, a relatively minor one - if the other races fell out of popularity for not being versatile, I would prefer to see it addressed, but it wouldn't slay me.
You know, I can already tell that seeing these speculation lists seven times a day before they finally get around to updating the existing races is going to get old fast... And then we're going to have to go through a period where there are fifty threads of everybody's bitching that their specific speculations weren't 100% correct. -_-
Well, yup. It's fun to do this sort of speculation. And most people won't have a problem with the changes -- it's just that they probably won't make topics about how content they are with the changes. Those who wanna talk about what makes 'em mad will talk about it.
And I won't complain, personally, if I'm wrong. I'm bound to be, since I didn't really study the fluff to determine what I thought was best. But I would be somewhat puzzled by Elves, Drow, and Eladrin getting Strength (such as Marandhir predicts). I don't get that. Maybe Wild Elves, but I don't see how Drow and Eladrin fit into that. Ehn, I guess Drow maybe, since it's rough to survive in the Underdark and you probably have to learn to push a lot of stone and wrestle a lot of strong creatures to survive (if you can't talk your way out). Eladrin is where I'd draw the line.
(such as every PC getting 2 stats, one based on race and the other by class).
I'm not really a fan of this whole optional stats thing, but I actually think that would be the best way to do it. You'd get +2 to your class' primary stat, and +2 to whichever of your racial stats isn't your class primary.
So, a dwarf fighter would get +2 Str and +2 (Con or Wis), a tiefling wizard would get +2 Int and +2 Cha, and a genasi bard would get +2 Cha and +2 (Str or Int). For V classes, you'd pick your class primary bonus, so an eladrin ranger would get +2 (Str or Dex) and +2 (Int or Dex). Obviously, you can't pick the same stat for your class and race bonuses, so the eladrin ranger can't get +4 Dex, for example. The same would apply for hybrids, so a drow fighter|rogue would get +2 (Str or Dex) and +2 (Dex or Cha).
As I stated before, I like Con, because it boosts the breath damage, and it just makes them tougher like the big scaly beasts they are. Con also sets them up nicely for Battlemind, which seems to be a great mindset for them. (arrogant warriors of great skill)
Sorcery is their perfect outlet into the Arcane, allowing their heratige to shine through and empower them, and If I'm remembering correctly, they start with a +2 to history to give them a skill edge in that regard.
I'm honestly curious to see why folks think DB's should get the Int boost, (which they very well may)
I also would like these new stats to ad at least two races that have the option of being int con. Gensai and Tieflings would probably be the best for this off the top of my head (although fluff wise Tieflings may be betterserved with cha and int/con).
Warforged were built for war. They should lean towards any stat that grants them success in a war-like endevour(sp).
Wisdom would make some degree of sense, as it backs up with fighter nicely, and now helps out warlords, and to a degree, artificers.
Int to me would also make sense for Tactical(logical) warlord and helping with artificer so they could "reproduce".
I'm more interested in why people think warforged should get a new int bonus. In 3.5 they had a stat penalty to Int and Cha if I recall correctly.
Wisdom & Charisma, not Int
I'm more interested in why people think warforged should get a new int bonus. In 3.5 they had a stat penalty to Int and Cha if I recall correctly.
Wisdom & Charisma, not Int
So I was misremembering, a friend is borrowing my 3.5 eberron book to read up on fluff while I keep my newer stuff to work on campaigns.
Int still seems weird to me on warforged, although i'd be ok with it sense that would mean optimale swordmages in fashion or another.
Also if it was Con, Str/Int like I suspect it would be, a lot of good option become avaiable. Artificer being a major flavor boon. (Also infernalock warforged makes for a great character in ebberon imo).
As for offering optional stats to already published races ... it depends on the race. Some could use a new option, but the majority should stay locked into their current stat bonuses. Especially races with really good racial powers; Elves, Dwarves and Half-Elves should be left as is. Devas and Warforged I'd also leave. Humans are fine as well. The Elven type races should stay as is. While it may be tempting to offer optional stats to Dragonborn and Genasi ... they have a lot of flexibility in their racial power attack stat, allowing them to change their stat bumps may give them too much power/flexibility.
So, which races would I rewrite to give optional stat bonuses to? Shifters, Kalashtar, Revenants and Tieflings. Shifters should actually get a complete rewrite, they should be consolidated as one race with +2 WIS and +2 STR or DEX, with a choice of either shifter power plus a few more. Kalashtar would get +2 CHA and +2 INT or WIS, Revenants would be able to pick between DEX or INT. Now, Tieflings, however, I'd actually not give them a CON/INT option, since Infernal Wrath is built off of CHA, I'd give them +2 CHA and +2 CON or INT. A Tiefling Warlock feat might offer an improved Infernal wrath that kicks off of CON.
Personally I like that suboptimal race/class choices get interesting feats to shore them up. I'd rather Wizards concentrate on this avenue rather than optional stat increases to do the same thing. But I fully understand that that's just a personal preference.
Here's a crazy though; what if they doubled up on an attribute for certain races?
Example, Goliath +2str and +2 Con or +2str again.
Here's a crazy though; what if they doubled up on an attribute for certain races?
Example, Goliath +2str and +2 Con or +2str again.
Yea, i think starting with 22 Str is bad.
As for offering optional stats to already published races ... it depends on the race. Some could use a new option, but the majority should stay locked into their current stat bonuses. Especially races with really good racial powers; Elves, Dwarves and Half-Elves should be left as is.
Actually half-elves strike me as the race most in need of added stat flexibility. Like humans their 'racial' power is actually a class power, so it could literally be dependent on any stat. On some levels, I think half-elves should have always had the same choice of any one stat that humans got. Their are certainly a few very impressive 'racial" powers for a half elf-to choose, but only a few of them are even potentially broken and I don't see a bit of increased versatility making those combos all that much more overwhelming, while such a change might actually shore up some of the weaker ones.
I can't, I only play 4 races, so I can't be too choosy.
I think the best solution for human is to give them +2 Stats in both stats of a single defense pair, they could have STRCON, DEXINT, or WISCHA.
What that succeeds at doing, though, is force humans the -opposite- direction they're doing with other classes. The versatile ability score bonus is supposed to make races like more build options.
By saying, you get Str/Con, Dex/Int, or Wis/Cha, you're saying you only want humans to be in a class build that uses one of those three combinations.
Str/Con has Barbarian, Fighter, Warden.
Dex/Int has Rogue, Wizard.
Wis/Cha has Ardent, Bard, Cleric, Paladin.
Notably, there are also classes to use one of those as a tertiary ability, so they would like it as well, but still, it's extremely limited in terms of both classes and builds, and would say that, "no, humans aren't as versatile as we all thought they were."
Based on thosse three stat combinations alone, that would be exactly the same number of optimal class builds as a +2 Wisdom and +2 Dexterity or +2 Charisma race would get.
Not only would that say that Humans are experts at certain classes (which is against the standard human fluff of being good at everything, but not the best at anything), but by corollary it would say that "if you play a human, you should play one of these class builds rather than another class build." That's not the point of humans.
That doesn't follow- currently humans have only one stat yet there benefits make them good picks for most anything and great picks for builds that don't care about secondarys or really use their third at Will- I'm saying they get these stats on top of what makes humans great. Giving them extra stats in a second field that may or may not be relevant to their build doesn't hurt their position in those other builds, but does add a nice bonus to single NAD builds. Most times I can see the stat bump being useful for cases where feats prevent you from dumping the partner to your primary stat. Lots of INT classes need DEX for feats. STR users can always take more HP. WIS and CHA can use more skills.
The desription of humans is "Great at whatever they choose to be"- this "extra greatness" is just the defense, feat, and at will though- their attack and accuracy will be on par with the other fit races.
Optimal and Advantaged classes show what our race is especially good at doing, and thus play into the culture of the race. Once you say that, humans suddenly are leaning to a small number of optimal builds, even if they are still advantaged at everything.
Dragonborn = +2 Charisma, +2 Strength/Constitution
(Seems like a natural choice for DB, since some of their racial powers make use of CON anyway.)
Dwarf = +2 Constitution, +2 Wisdom/Intelligence
(Could be either STR or INT, but INT makes more sense with the artificer and avoids overlap with the Mul.)
Eladrin = +2 Intelligence, +2 Dexterity/Charisma
(DEX + INT/CHA could work too. Having CHA as the alternate score works thematically with the Fey Warlock.)
Elf = +2 Dexterity, +2 Wisdom/Strength
(STR works well with Rangers and Rogues, and allows for a more "Wood Elf" type of elf.)
Half-Elf = +2 Charisma, +2 Constitution/Dexterity
(Dexterity seems like a good call for the alt stat here, since it ties in with the half-elf's elven heritage).
Halfling = +2 Dexterity, +2 Charisma/Wisdom
(Seems more appropriate for the halfling than most other stats.)
Human = +2 to any.
(Might need a bit of a boost to compensate for the change to the other races, but being able to add +2 to two stats seems like a little much.)
Tiefling = +2 Intelligence, +2 Charisma/Constitution
(Seems rather obvious and popular, since tieflings should make for natural Hell Warlocks given the fluff.)
Genasi = +2 Strength, +2 Intelligence/Charisma
(Added Charisma as a alt stat to make Genasi Sorcerers more effective. Innate elemental power seems like it would translate to innate magicial power.)
Drow = +2 Charisma, +2 Dexterity/Wisdom
(Wisdom seems like a natural choice given the drow's traditional fluff as effective clerics. DEX+WIS/CHA is another possibility.)
Deva = +2 Wisdom, +2 Intelligence/Charisma
(Deva are pretty much the archetypical divine characters, so Charisma seems like a no-brainer. It would tie back to the Aasimar of old editions and allow for more effective Deva Clerics and Paladins.)
Gnome = +2 Intelligence, +2 Charisma/Dexterity
(Gnomes are naturally sneaky creatures, so DEX seems like an obvious pick.)
Goliath = +2 Strength, +2 Constitution/Dexterity
(Goliath seem to be based mainly on athletics and might, so adding DEX as the alt stat would help out Rangers and Monks.)
Half-Orc = +2 Strength, +2 Dexterity/Wisdom
(Would be useful for half-orc primal characters, such as those featured in Eberron 3.5 Edition)
Longtooth Shifter = +2 Wisdom, +2 Strength/Constitution
Razorclaw Shifter = +2 Dexterity, +2 Wisdom/Constitution
(Allows the incorporation of additional shifter types within the borders of the two existing ones. CON was added as an alt stat to the Razorclaw to add in another Assassin race since DEX/CON is a rare set-up.)
Warforged = +2 Constitution, +2 Strength/Intelligence
(INT seems like the best fit here, making use of psi-forged fluff and Artificers)
Kalashtar = +2 Charisma, +2 Wisdom/Intelligence
(The Kalashtar seems like the iconic psionic race, so a bonus that helps Psions would make sense.)
Changeling = +2 Charisma, +2 Dexterity/Intelligence
(Already in place.)
Not sure what to add to the DDI races like the Revenant or Shadar-Kai, since I'm not as familiar with those.
It makes it look like folks have gone from "Hooray, no one has penalties - now every race is viable for every class!" to "Boo, races don't have enough bonuses - they need more bonuses so that they can be viable in more classes!"... in about a year (or two).
At this point, I think I'm just going to start hoping that "optional stat" races are just another shtick - that it won't be officially expanded beyond the races they've already chosen for it. I've not seen the printed fluff, but the impressions I've gotten from the previewed races make me feel that "optional stats" might be appropriate as a feature for the PH3 races (and the Mul, and the Changeling, obviously) - that they fit the actual fluff of the races, and make particular sense for them and them alone.
Except the Minotaur. That's the one race that sticks out, to me, as a "Whuh?" Then again, as I've said, I've not seen their actual fluff and mechanics.
So, in closing: *shrug*
At this point, I'm not even sure if it's the actual "optional stat" races that bother me, or just the reaction that people have had to them. Folks seem to be taking them as a sign from above that it's even more important that a character has +2 to his primary stat - in some places, in order to be "good" at X.
It makes it look like folks have gone from "Hooray, no one has penalties - now every race is viable for every class!" to "Boo, races don't have enough bonuses - they need more bonuses so that they can be viable in more classes!"... in about a year (or two).
At this point, I think I'm just going to start hoping that "optional stat" races are just another shtick - that it won't be officially expanded beyond the races they've already chosen for it. I've not seen the printed fluff, but the impressions I've gotten from the previewed races make me feel that "optional stats" might be appropriate as a feature for the PH3 races (and the Mul, and the Changeling, obviously) - that they fit the actual fluff of the races, and make particular sense for them and them alone.
Except the Minotaur. That's the one race that sticks out, to me, as a "Whuh?" Then again, as I've said, I've not seen their actual fluff and mechanics.
So, in closing: *shrug*
While I'd love for Eladrin and Tieflings to get the optional stats, I'm beginning to agree with you.
Minotaurs are an easy explanation though - there are two major types in the MM, and mentioned in the Dragon article. One is more savage and barabric and more likely to follow Baphomet, while the others are more civilized and disciplined. It's kind of weak justification, but I can see that being used to explain teh split scores if this were something being kept to the PHB3 races.
Minotaurs are an easy explanation though - there are two major types in the MM, and mentioned in the Dragon article. One is more savage and barabric and more likely to follow Baphomet, while the others are more civilized and disciplined. It's kind of weak justification, but I can see that being used to explain teh split scores if this were something being kept to the PHB3 races.
Wow! I suppose congratulations, or something, are in order. You just managed to successfully make me doubt weather adding alternate stats is a good thing. Why? Sub-races, something wizards promised wouldn't happen in 4e. In some ways this could be seen to reek of the same kind of stench that was elves in 3e (who came in every flavor of the rainbow, just so they could be the perfect race for any conceivable class).
While that realization is something of a downer, I'm overall still excited for the change.
I'm for the additional bonuses, but only if it opens up iconic classes that should have been avaiable from the begining. Infernalock for Tieflings, Sword Mages for Eladrin, or Psion for Kalashtar. A Tiefling ranger should still get support through feats, but it bothers me that Tieflings make better fey locks then infernalocks like their fluff says it should.
Huh? Eladrin already make great Swordmages. They don't need a Str or Con bonus. They have the Int bonus, and some of the best Swordmage feats.
I mean sure, I don't want it to be like "I have the chassis of a teifling with the engine of a minotaur" or whatever... I still like the against the grain race class combos like Deva Fighters or something, but it's would be nice to have Races fit into thier Iconic classes, like the Infernalock Teifling, Artificer Dwarves or Psion Kalashtars to take a few examples.
Really, as long as the optional takes make the game more interesting, I'm all for them.
I totally side with the idea that the class and races can be all flavor and fluff.
Dwarves are rarely wizards as NPC's, but the PC is remarkable and engaging because he IS a Dwarf wizard cast out of his community because he summons the very elemental forces that once enslaved them.
So I kind of wish the fluff writes up just went ahead and painted the story of the race and stop saying things like, Dragonborn make great Thaneborn barbarians. I'm not so braindead that I can't put the stat bonuses together in my own head. So don't write a whole thing about the sophisticated martial and religious culture built on ancient history and then spring something out of the blue about Barbaric Dragonborn. Just stick to your fluff, don't do a whole section on Primal Dragonborn in your Races book, choose a Paragon Path for the iconic Dragonborn classes, Fighter, Paladin, and Sorcerer and move on.
The +2's and classes have created all this crazy jury rigging of classes, like how sorcerers need a +2 strength just so Dragonborn could be perfect for them, which is fine except when they wanted a new build they suddenly came up with Burly Cosmic Sorcerers. (Why Storm sorcerers who channel a storms rage didn't get the str, while Cosmic sorcerers who come across as more scholarly didn't get dex I'll never understand)
The +2's and classes have created all this crazy jury rigging of classes, like how sorcerers need a +2 strength just so Dragonborn could be perfect for them, which is fine except when they wanted a new build they suddenly came up with Burly Cosmic Sorcerers. (Why Storm sorcerers who channel a storms rage didn't get the str, while Cosmic sorcerers who come across as more scholarly didn't get dex I'll never understand)
Hell, I never understood why Sorcerers had STR as a secondary stat to begin with when CON makes so much more sense, and I knew from the beginning that it was just so that Dragonborn would be awesome at them. The same goes for the Bard and its CON build made just for the Half-Elf instead of having a DEX build. This is really beginning to get annoying. I don't mind people getting their awesome crunch, I really don't, but don't let it interfere with my fluff, damn it!
It doesn't sound like sub-races anymore than race only bloodlines (I'm looking at you Dwarf!), the feats from FR and other things that could feasibly smack of sub-races. In fact, I like sub-races; sure it got really out of hand in 3.5; but having a built in option of tweaking your race is pretty interesting.
Feats are an entirely different matter, even if they are flavored as a sub-race. Even if they are flavored as 'sub-races' (dusk elves; forgeborn dwarves) the mechanics are more or less the same as any other racial feat. The problem with versatile stats is that even if the flavor doesn't distinguish between a STR/CON minotaur and one with STR/WIS, the mechanics are very much akin to how sub-races existed in 3e. Now we're still a far cry from the mess that was 3e's elven sub-races and as I said before I'm still in overall approval for the change, only now I have concern over the possibility of how this could possibly spiral out of control. I don't expect it to be a problem, but I can't ignore the potential either now that I'm aware of it.
Hell, I never understood why Sorcerers had STR as a secondary stat to begin with when CON makes so much more sense, and I knew from the beginning that it was just so that Dragonborn would be awesome at them.
I used to think that way too, but I've found a fluff justification that works for me. Dragon Sorcerers have the literal strength of a dragon flowing through their veins, but it is a purely magical strength and they likely don't look even remotely burly. Their high strength score is merely a side effect of being a sorcerer rather than something they train at to become a better sorcerer. As they go up in level their increasing strength score doesn't represent them working our to become stronger, but rather their magical blood becoming more potent.
I can even use that justification to explain away the cosmic sorcerer (in a Glactus and the Power Cosmic kind of way) and I think DEX would have been a terrible fit, though I would have liked to see them as an INT build, as they are flavored as the most scholarly of the sorcerer builds.
Hell, I never understood why Sorcerers had STR as a secondary stat to begin with when CON makes so much more sense, and I knew from the beginning that it was just so that Dragonborn would be awesome at them.
I used to think that way too, but I've found a fluff justification that works for me. Dragon Sorcerers have the literal strength of a dragon flowing through their veins, but it is a purely magical strength and they likely don't look even remotely burly. Their high strength score is merely a side effect of being a sorcerer rather than something they train at to become a better sorcerer. As they go up in level their increasing strength score doesn't represent them working our to become stronger, but rather their magical blood becoming more potent.
This is my approach as well. In fact, in my (Work In Progress) Kineticist homebrew class, I'm including a sidebar to point it out specifically.
[sblock=Kineticists and Ability Scores (Sidebar)]
While ability scores are standardized across the board, with Kineticists they don't always present in the same way. For example, the Breaker isn't a Breaker because he's strong, he's strong because he's a Breaker. While the Fighter with a Strength of 16 might be a big, hulking, bruiser, most Kineticists are not. Many appear "average" (for adventurers, at least). Their Strength isn't a result of muscle and exercise. Instead, it is the result of their mind always (conciously or subconciously) augmenting their physical power. The Breaker may be able to lift as much as the Barbarian, but without the same muscle structure. For the Mover, Dexterity is the same way. While the Rogue is agile and skilled, the Mover may not be. Instead his mind augments his actions, correcting for mistakes and effectively giving him the higher Dexterity score.
Bear in mind, however, that ability scores should always be as "readable" for Kineticists as with any other character. It should be just as easy (or hard) to tell if the Breaker in the party has a high Strength score as it is to tell if the Fighter does.
Dragonborn = +2 Charisma, +2 Strength/Constitution
(Seems like a natural choice for DB, since some of their racial powers make use of CON anyway.)
Good idea!
Dwarf = +2 Constitution, +2 Wisdom/Intelligence
(Could be either STR or INT, but INT makes more sense with the artificer and avoids overlap with the Mul.)
Good arguments, dwarf artificers should be the bomb IMO.
Halfling = +2 Dexterity, +2 Charisma/Wisdom
(Seems more appropriate for the halfling than most other stats.)
Wis is a good choice. I think Con might be a good candidate for "Stout" halflings.
Genasi = +2 Strength, +2 Intelligence/Charisma
(Added Charisma as a alt stat to make Genasi Sorcerers more effective. Innate elemental power seems like it would translate to innate magicial power.)
+2 Int, +2 Str/Con has gained traction with me.
Longtooth Shifter = +2 Wisdom, +2 Strength/Constitution
Razorclaw Shifter = +2 Dexterity, +2 Wisdom/Constitution
(Allows the incorporation of additional shifter types within the borders of the two existing ones. CON was added as an alt stat to the Razorclaw to add in another Assassin race since DEX/CON is a rare set-up.)
In my opinion, shifters are already a V race - they are +2 Wis, +2 Str/Dex, with their racial power connected to whatever stat bonus they take.
Warforged = +2 Constitution, +2 Strength/Intelligence
(INT seems like the best fit here, making use of psi-forged fluff and Artificers)
Good point re: artificers!
Not sure what to add to the DDI races like the Revenant or Shadar-Kai, since I'm not as familiar with those.
I'd make shadar-kai +2 Dex, +Con/Int, so they have a good set of stats for being an assassin. Not sure about revenants thought.
I advocated 'racial ability triads' for a while now. Im glad to see WotC moving in this direction.
Personally, I prefer to let the player choose two-out-of-three abilities for the racial bonuses. But the formula for having one fixed ability plus one choice out of two seems to have the most permutations. In either case, the extra racial ability actually makes each race more distinct from the other races by having a near unique permutation of ability boosts. With this in mind, so far, I suggest the following.
BY ABILITY
Str, Con or Dex: Half-Orc
Str, Con or Int:
Str, Con or Wis: Goliath
Str, Con or Cha: Minotaur
Str, Dex or Int:
Str, Dex or Wis: Bugbear
Str, Dex or Cha:
Str, Int or Wis:
Str, Int or Cha: Genasi
Str, Wis or Cha:
Con, Str or Dex: Revenant
Con, Str or Int: Warforged
Con, Str or Wis: Duergar
Con, Str or Cha: Hobgoblin
Con, Dex or Int: Bullywug
Con, Dex or Wis: Kobold
Con, Dex or Cha: Gnoll
Con, Int or Wis: Dwarf
Con, Int or Cha:
Con, Wis or Cha:
Dex, Str or Con: Orc
Dex, Str or Int
Dex, Str or Wis: Elf
Dex, Str or Cha
Dex, Con or Int: Shadar-Kai
Dex, Con or Wis: Githzerai
Dex, Con or Cha: Halfling
Dex, Int or Wis: Bladeling
Dex, Int or Cha: Eladrin (1)
Dex, Wis or Cha: Kenku
Int, Str or Con:
Int, Str or Dex:
Int, Str or Wis:
Int, Str or Cha:
Int, Con or Dex:
Int, Con or Wis: Githyanki
Int, Con or Cha: Tiefling
Int, Dex or Wis:
Int, Dex or Cha:
Int, Wis or Cha: Deva
Wis, Str or Con: Wilden
Wis, Str or Dex: Shifter
Wis, Str or Int:
Wis, Str or Cha:
Wis, Con or Dex:
Wis, Con or Int:
Wis, Con or Cha:
Wis, Dex or Int:
Wis, Dex or Cha:
Wis, Int or Cha: Kalashtar
Cha, Str or Con: Dragonborn
Cha, Str or Dex:
Cha, Str or Int:
Cha, Str or Wis:
Cha, Con or Dex:
Cha, Con or Int: Gnome
Cha, Con or Wis: Half Elf
Cha, Dex or Int: Changeling
Cha, Dex or Wis: Drow
Cha, Int or Wis: Eladrin (2)
BY RACE
Bladeling: (Dex-Wis; Int?)
Bugbear: Str, Dex or Wis (Str-Dex; Wis predatory senses, will power)
Bullywug: (Con-Dex; Int?)
Changeling: Cha, Dex or Int (official)
Deva: Wis, Int or Cha (Int-Wis Invoker, Int intellect, Wis contemplative mysticism; Cha angelic glory, Wis-Cha Cleric)
Dragonborn: Cha, Str or Con/Wis (Str-Cha Paladin, Cha cunning as a serpent, Con breathweapon)
Drow: Cha, Dex or Wis (Wis-Cha Cleric, Cha-Dex Chaos Sorcerer, Dex-Cha Rogue)
Duergar: Con, Str or Wis (Con-Wis; Str-Con Fighter)
Dwarf: Con, Int or Wis (Con-Wis, Con tough as stone, Wis prophecy; Int-Con Artificer)
Eladrin (1): Dex, Int or Cha (Dex-Int Shiere Eladrin; Dex-Cha Bralani-Ghaele-Coure)
Eladrin (2): Cha, Int or Wis (Int-Cha Tulani Enchanter Wizard, Fey Warlock, Telepath Psion; Cha-Wis Firre Prescient Bard)
Elf: Dex, Str or Wis (Wis-Dex Wood Elf Druid, Seeker; Str-Dex Wild Elf Ranger)
Genasi: Str, Int or Cha (Str-Int Warlord; Cha expressive imposing boldness, Str-Cha Warlord)
Githyanki: Int, Con or Wis (Con-Int; Int-Wis Telekinetic Psion)
Githzerai: Dex, Con or Wis (Dex-Wis, Dex martial arts, Wis contemplative intiution; Con ascetic discipline)
Gnoll: Con, Dex or Cha (Con-Dex, Con feral, relentless, Dex opportunistic leaping; Cha unnerving hyena laugh, Intimidation)
Gnome: Cha, Con or Int (Int-Cha Illusionist Wizard; Con previous D&D tradtions)
Goblin: Dex, Str or Cha (Dex-Cha: Str Brutal Rogue)
Goliath: Str, Con or Wis
Half Elf: Cha, Con or Wis (Cha-Con Valor Bard, Con hybrid vigor; Wis perceptive, intuitive, Wis Wood Elf parentage, Cha-Wis Diplomacy-Insight, Cha-Wis Prescient Bard)
Half Orc: Str, Con or Dex (Str-Dex; Con tough feral, Orc parentage)
Halfling: Dex, Con or Cha (Dex-Cha Rogue, Dex Acrobatics, Stealth, Cha crowd-pleasing, cute, charming, celebrated stuntman, daredevil; Con toughness, relentlessness)
Hobgoblin: Con, Str or Cha (Con-Cha: Cha Intimidation, Str warrior)
Kalashtar: Wis, Int or Cha (Wis-Cha, Wis intuition and contemplation, Cha personal presence, will power; Int Psion)
Kenku: Dex, Wis or Cha (Dex-Cha Kenku, Wis Insight, perceptive listening)
Kobold: (Con-Dex Kobold, Wis perceptive)
Minotaur: Str, Con or Cha (Str-Con Fighter; Str strong as an ox, Con tough; Cha intimidation, archetypal presence)
Orc: Dex, Str or Con (Dex-Con Orc, compare Str Half Orc and Con Revenant)
Revenant: Con, Str or Dex (Con-Dex Revenant; Str superhuman in reallife folklore)
Shifter: Wis, Str or Dex (official, Str-Wis Longtooth, Dex-Wis Razorclaw)
Shadar-Kai: Dex, Con or Int (Dex-Int; Con pain endurance, Dex-Con Assassin)
Tiefling: Int, Con or Cha (Int-Cha, Cha seductive, Int calculating; Con-Int Infernal Pact Warlock)
Warforged: Con, Str or Int (Str-Con Fighter; Int robotic logic, memory, ‘reproduction’ via Int-Con Artificer)
Wilden: Wis, Con or Str (Wis-Con Druid, Wis personification of nature, Nature; Str like a tree)
The Idea of a Minotaur and a Elf having the same racial bonuses is a little weird to think about...
Geeze, people are going to be so ticked if Wizards doesn't do this.
Geeze, people are going to be so ticked if Wizards doesn't do this.
People will be ticked if Wizards does it, too. No matter what Wizards does, someone gets nerdrageous (NERDRAGEOUS! [/Aquaman]) over it. I have to think that every WotC writer has ulcers just from the inability to please anybody no matter what they do.
At this point, I'm not even sure if it's the actual "optional stat" races that bother me, or just the reaction that people have had to them. Folks seem to be taking them as a sign from above that it's even more important that a character has +2 to his primary stat - in some places, in order to be "good" at X.
It makes it look like folks have gone from "Hooray, no one has penalties - now every race is viable for every class!" to "Boo, races don't have enough bonuses - they need more bonuses so that they can be viable in more classes!"... in about a year (or two).
At this point, I think I'm just going to start hoping that "optional stat" races are just another shtick - that it won't be officially expanded beyond the races they've already chosen for it. I've not seen the printed fluff, but the impressions I've gotten from the previewed races make me feel that "optional stats" might be appropriate as a feature for the PH3 races (and the Mul, and the Changeling, obviously) - that they fit the actual fluff of the races, and make particular sense for them and them alone.
Except the Minotaur. That's the one race that sticks out, to me, as a "Whuh?" Then again, as I've said, I've not seen their actual fluff and mechanics.
So, in closing: *shrug*
From an optimization point of view it's been obvious from the first month of 4e that the difference between an 18 and a 16 in your starting primary stat is huge. The difference in power with just a +2 to one stat is so big people still argue whether it's worth going to 20 in your primary stat, even with it butchering your secondary. It's not surprising in the least to me that public opinion has came around to accept something that's been optimization fact for two years now.
At this point, I'm not even sure if it's the actual "optional stat" races that bother me, or just the reaction that people have had to them. Folks seem to be taking them as a sign from above that it's even more important that a character has +2 to his primary stat - in some places, in order to be "good" at X.
It makes it look like folks have gone from "Hooray, no one has penalties - now every race is viable for every class!" to "Boo, races don't have enough bonuses - they need more bonuses so that they can be viable in more classes!"... in about a year (or two).
At this point, I think I'm just going to start hoping that "optional stat" races are just another shtick - that it won't be officially expanded beyond the races they've already chosen for it. I've not seen the printed fluff, but the impressions I've gotten from the previewed races make me feel that "optional stats" might be appropriate as a feature for the PH3 races (and the Mul, and the Changeling, obviously) - that they fit the actual fluff of the races, and make particular sense for them and them alone.
Except the Minotaur. That's the one race that sticks out, to me, as a "Whuh?" Then again, as I've said, I've not seen their actual fluff and mechanics.
So, in closing: *shrug*
From an optimization point of view it's been obvious from the first month of 4e that the difference between an 18 and a 16 in your starting primary stat is huge. The difference in power with just a +2 to one stat is so big people still argue whether it's worth going to 20 in your primary stat, even with it butchering your secondary. It's not surprising in the least to me that public opinion has came around to accept something that's been optimization fact for two years now.
I wonder if the 'difference' between 18 and 16 as far as hitting an enemy is concerned came about because the initial classes and encounters were balanced based on the assumption that there would be a Leader in the party to push his allies' rolls past that threshold (whether through buffing allies or debuffing enemies). Therefore, in the vacuum of optimization theory (based mostly on solo characters without these added factors), the perception came around that you needed an 18 in your base stat or you'd fall behind.
This is somewhat tangential, though. But it shows that balance should be based on both group and solo considerations (the DM may be advised not to split the party, but it's not always avoidable).
From an optimization point of view it's been obvious from the first month of 4e that the difference between an 18 and a 16 in your starting primary stat is huge. The difference in power with just a +2 to one stat is so big people still argue whether it's worth going to 20 in your primary stat, even with it butchering your secondary. It's not surprising in the least to me that public opinion has came around to accept something that's been optimization fact for two years now.
No, actually most optimizers don't think a 20 is worth while. Only a few classes (rouge, bow-ranger, swordmage) are suggested to take 20 (and not always). 18 primary /18 seondary is considered optimal for far more classes. And yes there are even a few "optimal" builds that take a 16 primary, (though that's usualy, but not always, in order to take a 20 secondary).
There's actually a few builds that suggest an 8 too, but those intentionally trying to miss.
So you really can get away with a 16 just fine. Even if it isn't "optimal".
Other races like elf and dwarf are fine as is. If they get a stat choice, fine, that breaks nothing, if they don't hey, I have other things to worry about like how to pay next month's rent or starving kids in Africa.
No, actually most optimizers don't think a 20 is worth while. Only a few classes (rouge, bow-ranger, swordmage) are suggested to take 20 (and not always). 18 primary /18 seondary is considered optimal for far more classes. And yes there are even a few "optimal" builds that take a 16 primary, (though that's usualy, but not always, in order to take a 20 secondary).
Which is why I said "debate". A 20 causes you to lose a huge chunk of flexibility, and for most classes that sacrifice outweighs the gain like you said. But for many... for many it's considerable, and for some it really is straight up better. It just shows how powerful two little stat points are.
So you really can get away with a 16 just fine. Even if it isn't "optimal".
And I have never said you can't. The only thing I have said is that it's a very sizable detriment to your character's power and therefore fun. Hell, you can get away with a 14 in your primary stat and still do well if you optimize right. Doesn't make it fun, though, and doesn't make it feel like you aren't gimping yourself intentionally.
Heck, my first 4e toon was a two sixteen, one seventeen Elf two-weapon but also shoot ranger. Worked rather well, (even though my party wasn't condusive to my play it safe style) and I could switch nicely between bow and blade without hurting too much, and that was pre-weapon expertise. a lot of fun to play.
Personally I'm for the change. I'd already considered implementing something similar as a house rule months ago, but never sat down long enough to figure out what 3rd stat to add to each race. It's a bit disappointing that we may have to wait months more before all the older races are updated as well, but I'm not the type to get agitated over such. The most potentially troubling factor is what boon humans will gain (if any) to keep them up to par. A single stat boost was already on the weak side, with versatility supposedly being the balancing factor. While humans will still be the most versatile race, this change will reduce that edge, if only slightly. I'm not particularly worried about that though, more so curious to see what WotC's solution might be.
All That said I do have one mild complaint. Personally I don't care for only being able to choose A+B or A+C and would prefer to have the option to pick B+C as well. Not really a problem though, as I don't play RPGA or any other official rules only format, and I can always house rule it for my own games.
Tharag: [For humans] a single stat boost was already on the weak side, with versatility supposedly being the balancing factor. While humans will still be the most versatile race, this change will reduce that edge, if only slightly.
Haldrik: The solution is easy enough.
If the races get a choice of racial abilities, then humans can get an extra racial boost.
As noted, the human is currently on the weak side with only one boost, and will probably balance out with two ...
+2 to any ability
+2 to any other ability.
If for some reason, the above is unbalanced, then the human can get ...
+2 to any ability
+1 to any other ability.
Personally I'm for the change. I'd already considered implementing something similar as a house rule months ago, but never sat down long enough to figure out what 3rd stat to add to each race. It's a bit disappointing that we may have to wait months more before all the older races are updated as well, but I'm not the type to get agitated over such. The most potentially troubling factor is what boon humans will gain (if any) to keep them up to par. A single stat boost was already on the weak side, with versatility supposedly being the balancing factor. While humans will still be the most versatile race, this change will reduce that edge, if only slightly. I'm not particularly worried about that though, more so curious to see what WotC's solution might be.
All That said I do have one mild complaint. Personally I don't care for only being able to choose A+B or A+C and would prefer to have the option to pick B+C as well. Not really a problem though, as I don't play RPGA or any other official rules only format, and I can always house rule it for my own games.
Tharag: [For humans] a single stat boost was already on the weak side, with versatility supposedly being the balancing factor. While humans will still be the most versatile race, this change will reduce that edge, if only slightly. Haldrik: The solution is easy enough. If the races get a choice of racial abilities, then humans can get an extra racial boost. As noted, the human is currently on the weak side with only one boost, and will probably balance out with two ... +2 to any ability +2 to any other ability. If for some reason, the above is unbalanced, then the human can get ... +2 to any ability +1 to any other ability.
While the ability to be optimal at everything makes the Human race a bit overpowered, NO race should have a +1 to an ability score. It's unbalanced.
While the ability to be optimal at everything makes the Human race a bit overpowered, NO race should have a +1 to an ability score. It's unbalanced.
I am not so sure that +1 to any ability score is inherently unbalanced as it would have been in 3d edition. There are no ability score penalties, after all. A +1 to an ability score could be balanced depending on the other factors for that race. I don't know of any race for which that would necessarily be a good idea, but I would not dismiss the idea out of hand.
However, I don't think humans need any additional boosting to ability scores even with the new scheme. Even with the first PHB, humans sacrificed power for flexibility in terms of stat bonuses, as all six stats were covered by the fixed bonuses of the other seven races. No change since then has altered that basic situation, so I don't think humans need any major power boost. I think I once suggested allowing humans an extra background benefit as sufficient compensation for the limited power-up that the more flexible stat allocation gives the other races.
While the ability to be optimal at everything makes the Human race a bit overpowered, NO race should have a +1 to an ability score. It's unbalanced.
I am not so sure that +1 to any ability score is inherently unbalanced as it would have been in 3d edition. There are no ability score penalties, after all. A +1 to an ability score could be balanced depending on the other factors for that race. I don't know of any race for which that would necessarily be a good idea, but I would not dismiss the idea out of hand.
Agreed, i ran a game where everyone got +1 to all as their racial (they where all the same race). It worked out fine and was balanced.
That said, humans should get a feat "+2 to any stat other then the one you've picked, can't be taken by half-elfs, must be taken at first level". So you can have a +2 any / +2 any , but at the cost of your bonus feat, getting both is over-powered.
Tharag: [For humans] a single stat boost was already on the weak side, with versatility supposedly being the balancing factor. While humans will still be the most versatile race, this change will reduce that edge, if only slightly. Haldrik: The solution is easy enough. If the races get a choice of racial abilities, then humans can get an extra racial boost. As noted, the human is currently on the weak side with only one boost, and will probably balance out with two ... +2 to any ability +2 to any other ability. If for some reason, the above is unbalanced, then the human can get ... +2 to any ability +1 to any other ability.
I've said it before, but I will repeat myself: if this is done, it won't be an errata, but an alternative racial feature. Therefore, no race will get something without giving something else up, including humans.
Imagine the entry in PHB4 or whatever:
Dwarves: As an alternative racial feature, you can give up +2 to Wis, and instead get a +2 to Int.
Humans: As an alternative racial feature, you can give up +2 to any one atrribute, and instead get +2 to any two attributes.
That wouldn't be an alternative racial feature--it'd be a "so obviously better than the original that it's an errata in disguise racial feature." Mind, WotC's done that in the past, but it's at least been a little less blatant. The only way they'd give humans something like that would be if it read:
Humans: As an alternative racial feature, you can give up the extra at-will, feat, skill training, and the +1 to all defenses, and instead add +2 to a second attribute of your choice.
I think it's a poor trade. If they end up giving races an optional stat, I predict that humans will get an alternative class feature, but it won't be that.
If the races get more versatile by being able to select their racial ability, then the human needs a boost to keep human versatility competative.
I feel the extra +1 to any other ability is fair for the human now, even without the other races getting more versatility. If the other races do get versatility the human needs to be compensated for the relative lack of versatility. An extra +1 is fair, perhaps even relatively underpowered. That said, Im openminded about how to boost the human if all other races get a boost in versatility.
If the races get more versatile by being able to select their racial ability, then the human needs a boost to keep human versatility competative.
I feel the extra +1 to any other ability is fair for the human now, even without the other races getting more versatility. If the other races do get versatility the human needs to compensated for the relative lack of versatility. An extra +1 is fair, perhaps even relatively underpowered. That said, Im openminded about how to boost the human if all other races get a boost in versatility.
How is not getting an extra starting feat not huge enough? Unless I have a solid character concept based on race, any character I consider creating always faces the, "now what if I went human instead" dilema.
Except that it only takes that odd ability point that you couldn't quite use to turn that into a +1 more to a defence, and if Dex, into initiative. It's inherently unbalance, because of the way high ability scores have proportionally odd costs.
That is why I said that it depends on the other racial features (and also, I guess I should add now, what degree of flexibility if any you have in assigning the stat bonus). It seems that you may be saying that the benefit of a +1 is so close to the benefit of a +2 that there would be no value gained in using the former -- not to mention that it is esthetically unappealing given the established pattern of making all bonuses +2.
If the races get more versatile by being able to select their racial ability, then the human needs a boost to keep human versatility competative.I feel the extra +1 to any other ability is fair for the human now, even without the other races getting more versatility. If the other races do get versatility the human needs to compensated for the relative lack of versatility. An extra +1 is fair, perhaps even relatively underpowered. That said, Im openminded about how to boost the human if all other races get a boost in versatility.
How is not getting an extra starting feat not huge enough? Unless I have a solid character concept based on race, any character I consider creating always faces the, "now what if I went human instead" dilema.
Also, as more powers are released, humans get more options. So their not getting weaker, neither are half-elfs.
And there is an issue. Flexibility with your racial features is a huge part of what it means to be Human, and if that's being depreciated, then that is a problem, both conceptually and when it comes to balance.
I think that a good idea might be to allow Humans to give up their Human Defense Bonuses racial feature for a second +2 any. This sort of flexibility to have the perfect set of ability score boosts was a problem back when other races got two fixed boosts, which is why they ended up with only a single boost to begin with, but with everybody else becoming so much more versatile, I honestly don't think that it's a big problem, especially when they have to give up their racial defense bonuses to get it, which is what was being used to balance out their only getting a single ability score boost to begin with.
Certain races seem to require optional racial bonuses for fluff reasons, both to express the racial fluff itself, as well as to match up with iconic racial classes. Generally, a consensus seems to be emerging about which races should get which stats.
These races enjoy official support for optional racial abilities:
Changeling: Cha, Int/Dex (Dex-Cha Rogue; Int-Cha Illusionist Wizard)
Shifter: Wis, Str/Dex (Wis-Str Longtooth, Wis-Dex Razorclaw)
Githzerai: Dex, Int/Wis (Dex-Wis Monk; Dex-Int)
Minotaur: Str, Con/Wis (Str-Con Greatweapon Fighter; Str-Wis)
Shardmind: Int, Wis/Cha (Int-Wis Telekinetic Psion; Int-Cha Telepathic-Psion)
Wilden: Wis-Dex/Con (Wis-Con Druid, Wis Nature, personification of nature; Wis-Dex Druid, Seeker)
Mul: Con, Str/Wis (Str-Con slave race, Fighter; Con-Wis Dwarven parentage)
Thri-Kreen: Dex, Str?/Wis (Dex-Str Monk; Dex-Wis Monk)
These races seem to enjoy an emerging consensus:
Deva: Wis, Int/Cha (Wis-Int Invoker, Wis contempative, intuition, Int intellect; Cha angelic glory, Wis-Cha 'Laser' Cleric)
Dragonborn: Cha, Str/Con (Cha-Str Dragon Sorcerer, Str-Cha Paladin, Cha serpent tongue; Con breathweapon)
Dwarf: Con, Wis/Int (Con-Wis Guardian Druid, Con tough as rock, Wis fate; Int-Con Artificer)
Genasi: Str, Int or Cha (Int-Str Assault Swordmage, Str-Int Tactical Warlord; Cha-Str Chaos Sorcerer, Str-Cha Warlord, Cha expressive imposing boldness)
Goliath: Str, Con or Wis (Str-Con Greatweapon Fighter, Str giant, Athletics, Con tough as rock; Str-Wis Wildblood Warden, Wis Primal)
Half Orc: Str, Con/Dex (Str-Dex Two-Blade Ranger, Dex-Str Assassin; Str-Con Rageblood Barbarian, Earthstrength Warden)
Halfling: Dex, Con/Cha (Dex-Cha Artful Rogue, Dex Acrobatics, Stealth, Cha crowd-pleasing, cute, charming, Dex-Cha daredevil, stuntman; Dex-Con D&D-tradition Stout Halfling, Con tough, relentless)
Shadar-Kai: Dex, Con or Int (Dex-Int; Dex-Con Assassin, Con pain endurance)
Tiefling: Int, Con/Cha (Int-Cha, Cha seductive, Int Calculating; Con-Int Infernal Warlock)
Warforged: Con, Str/Int (Str-Con Fighter, warrior race; reproduction via Int-Con Artificer, Int Psi-forged, robotic logic, memory)
I agree with Concerto. Having the human drop the Defense bonuses, and gain an additional +2 Any, seems a fair and aesthetic remedy to compensate for the other races getting ability options.
These races enjoy official support for optional racial abilities:
Are Thri-Kreen confirmed, or guesswork?
Also, I wouldn't quite consider Shifter to be the same thing, as they are are more distinct than just "Pick an ability modifier".
These races seem to enjoy an emerging consensus:
What, exactly, is your criteria for "emerging consensus"? Because some of these I've not even seen suggested (Halfling as Cha-Con/Dex) (perhaps I missed a post in one of the X-billion threads dealing with this topic), and some of them are a strong point of contention (Dwarf/Warforged +Int).
I liked an earlier suggestion which was, "Humans get to take any race's feat, so long as it is not dependant on a racial power (breath weapon, eldarian teleport, etc)
Note that I also suggested to allow this only once (aka my feat proposal doesn't allow itself to be take more than once). So no taking of multiple racial feats from other races
I liked an earlier suggestion which was, "Humans get to take any race's feat, so long as it is not dependant on a racial power (breath weapon, eldarian teleport, etc)
Note that I also suggested to allow this only once (aka my feat proposal doesn't allow itself to be take more than once). So no taking of multiple racial feats from other races
Still very acceptable, and even more reasonable.
If humans got 2 plus two's at the meager loss of +1 defense loss all around, (which could just turn into +1 defense loss in 2 areas if the player did not take overlapping stats) I couldn't ever seen the point of playing a non-human beyond flavor.
+2 anything, +2 anything, +extra at-will(which just gets better with each release), + 1 feat = Best choice.
+2 anything, +2 anything, +extra at-will(which just gets better with each release), + 1 feat = Best choice.
I contest that this is really as big of a problem anymore as you think that it is. It's great for everybody, yes, but Humans were always meant to be great for everybody to begin with. The key is that they're not any better than any other character might be for each individual character. If I play a Human with +2 STR / +2 CHA, then that character isn't necessarily going to be any better than a Dragonborn character, and if I play a Human with +2 DEX / +2 WIS, then that character isn't necessarily going to be any better than an Elf character. This sort of versatility was a problem back when other races were locked into two ability score bonuses and back when there were only 7 other races to pick from, yes, but now that they're not and now that there are more race options out there, there's no reason to hold the Human back from also benefiting from the increased versatility that's going to be offered across the board. If the current Human versatility were currently considered overpowered, that might be one thing, but that's clearly not the case.
Look at it this way. The extra at-will is the replacement for their racial encounter power, and then if they get rid of their defense bonuses and you count their bonus trained skill as making up for their lack of racial skill bonuses, then all they have left after that is a bonus feat, which is great, but I think it's questionable whether it really makes up for their not having any other racial features.
I mean, compare to the Eladrin, that bonus feat is taking the place of low-light vision, a save bonus vs enchantments, a bonus trained skill, weapon proficiency, fey origin, and trance (I won't count the Will boost), most of which are admittedly fluff abilities, but still. Try comparing to Dwarf, where that bonus feat is making up for low-light vision, weapon proficiency, a save bonus vs poison, forced movement resistance, and a save versus prone (though Dwarves have that speed penalty). I'm not saying that the Human would be underpowered, of course, not by any stretch of the imagination, just that there are certainly various reasons to play races other than Humans even if Humans are reliable in filling anybody's ability score bonus needs. There is still plenty of reason to play an Eladrin over a Human even if you're looking for DEX/INT, and there's still plenty of reason to play a Dwarf over a Human even if you're looking for CON/WIS.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Races are neither conceptually nor mechanically defined solely by their ability score bonuses. This is not new, and this is not being changed.
Id like to see a consensus emerge for ability options for some races that seem under debate. Especially the Elfish races: Elf, Eladrin, Drow, Half Elf, and to which I would add Gnome.
Elf
Dex, Str/Wis (Wis-Dex Wood Elf Druid, Seeker, Wis intuitive, perceptive; Str-Dex Wild Elf Ranger)
For the Elf, this option is very strong thematically.
The only possible downside is it seems to be identical to the new Thri-Kreen abilities, but ignoring needless symmetry, this coincidence doesnt seem to problematic. There are several suggestions for elves, but without thoughtful explanation.
Drow
Cha, Dex/Wis (Dex-Cha Artful Rogue, Cha-Dex male Wild Sorcerer; Wis-Cha female Cleric, Cha-Wis Retribution Avenger)
These ability options are a good setup for both male Arcane tradition with Wild Sorcerer and the female Divine tradition with Cleric. Unfortunately these abilities lose out on the iconic Cha-Int Dark Warlock, but then again the Dark Warlock build could get updated with Drow Cha-Dex or Cha-Wis in mind despite the Warlock taboo against using Dex or Wis.
Cha, Dex/Int (Dex-Cha Artful Rogue; Int-Cha male Dark Warlock, 'Deception' Wizard)
These abilities match the iconic Dark Warlock and the traditional Wizard well for males, but express less well the cultural centrality of females and Lolth with their corresponding iconic Divine tradition. For the sake of brainstorming, since Lolth herself is a demon, the female worshipers themselves could be reunderstood as making a new Abyssal Pact for the Warlock class, not a Divine class at all.
Dex, Cha/Wis (Dex-Cha Artful Rogue, Cha-Dex males Wild Sorcerer; Wis-Dex female Pursuit Avenger)
This abilities setup maintains Dex for Elfish races. Males get Wild Sorcerer for their Arcane tradition, but not Dark Warlock. Females get Pursuit Avenger for their Lolth tradition, but the Dex doesnt especially help Cleric or Paladin. A reasonable setup.
Cha, Str/Dex (Dex-Cha Artful Rogue, Wild Sorcerer; Str-Cha female Paladin)
This setup maintains the mental specialization for each elfish race. Paladins are an excellent class for female Drows. Dexterous males versus Strong females potentially coheres with Drow gender division. Unfortunately, D&D tradition made Drow significantly lack Str, but this same tradition often made Drow males 'Fighter Magic-Users' and females full-armored Clerics, despite consistency. Also Loses out on the Cha-Int Dark Warlock for males, but supplies Wild Sorcerers as possible male Arcane classes.
In short, which ability is the most Drow: Wis (Cleric), Int (Wizard), Str (Paladin)?
Eladrin
The Eladrin is perhaps the most confused racial design, with traits that lack synergy or even outright conflict with flavor. Basically, the Eladrin is clumbsy adhoc of High-Wizard 'Mage' flavor versus Fighter-Wizard 'Gish' flavor, with strong flavors of Charisma and innate magic. (Less helpfully, there is also nature-loving Primal themes, which I prefer to delete from the Eladrin descriptions, making the Feywild dreamlike and preternatural, and decidedly unnatural).
The simplest solution is as follows. The Int-Dex picks up the graceful Gish mageknight themes, and the Int-Cha the charismatic Mage innate-magic themes.
Int, Dex/Cha (Int-Dex Wand Wizard Gish; Int-Cha Tulani Enchanter Wizard Mage, Fey Warlock, Cha-Int Cunning Bard, Eberron Dream Eladrin)
The only downside of the above Eladrin ability options is the official existence of Dex-Cha Eladrin ... in the form of Archfey in the Monster Manuals (Bralani, Ghaele, Coure) whose access players would continue to lack.
Tulani officially exist (per a reference in PH2) but still lack stats. Flavorwise, Tulani scream Int-Cha. Firre dont officially exist yet, but per tradition are idealistic artists and champions, and scream Cha-Wis Bard.
As such, it might make sense to split the Eladrin into two separate races (similar to the split between Elf and Eladrin). That way, the streamlining could better express the different fluff. Namely the split between the Gish (in the tradition of the Fighter Magic-User) and the Mage (in the tradition of the Grey Elf Wizard)
Eladrin (Gish): Dex, Int/Cha (Int-Dex Eladrin Wand Wizard; Cha-Dex Archfey Storm Sorcerer)
Tulani (Mage): Cha, Int/Wis (Int-Cha Tulani Enchanter Wizard, Fey Warlock, Telepath Psion; Cha-Con Firre Prescient Bard)
While Wisdom may surprise some for Eladrin, the PH2 does list Wisdom as a significant ability for the Shiere Eladrin Paragon Path. Moreover the Cha-Wis combo matches themes of charm, insight and influence, and doesnt intrude too much on the Primal Elf themes.
Eladrin and Iconic Classes
There are certain classes the Eladrin shoud excel at because of flavor, namely, Swordmage and Artificer. However in these cases, Id rather create new class builds that synergize with the Eladrin, rather than to further confuse the Eladrin design with even more conflictive traits to match these classes.
New Int-Dex Swordmage build: specialize in Gish magical acrobatic longsword fighting.
New Int-Cha Artificer build: specialize in Mage magic item creation, innate magic, and the Eladrin culture of magical technology.
Haldrik: Regarding the Dwarf, theres the suggestion of Con, Str/Wis. But the Mul, pretty much ninjas the Str-Con Dwarf concept (not to mention the Duergar which is also a Dwarf slave concept that could fit the Str-Con Dwarf concept).
Regarding the Warforged, the race has no possibility of reproduction except thru Artificers, thus Int. Theres already many other candidates Str-Con-Dex physical races.
Note, the Artificer class fluff itself emphasizes the Warforged and Dwarf races (Eladrin too), so it makes sense for these races to exemplify it.
Consider a human and a dwarf fighter. The human takes bastard sword proficiency & weapon focus, the dwarf takes dwarven axe training and uses a war axe. The dwarf has effectively gotten two feats for the price of one, negating one of the big selling points of playing human.
(preemptive rebuttal: there is no reason a dwarven fighter has to start with a 16 Strength either. Both the human and dwarf can easily have primary/secondary/tertiary of 18/16/13 (either Str/Con/Wis or Str/Wis/Con). or even 18/14/14/12/10/8, which isn't far off from a human array of 18/14/14/13/10/8.)
I liked an earlier suggestion which was, "Humans get to take any race's feat, so long as it is not dependant on a racial power (breath weapon, eldarian teleport, etc)
I offer something similar in the form of an alternate Background Option, though any race can select it.
- Choose one race associated with your background. You are treated as a member of the chosen race instead of your own for feats, powers, paragon paths, and epic destinies. For example, if you are a Dwarf and select Human, you can take feats that require you to being Human, but you cannot select feats requiring you to be a Dwarf.
I think I once suggested allowing humans an extra background benefit as sufficient compensation for the limited power-up that the more flexible stat allocation gives the other races.
Oh, I missed this. I like this! A Lot!
I don't know if a blanket +2/+2 would necessarily make humans optimal at everything; there is more to optimization than just stats. On the other hand, someone might actually *play* a human if that were the case. Nobody in my group's played a human since 4e came out (and even before that).
Some folks still play Humans, even if they're not "the best" choice. Humans were the most prevalent race in any of the 3.X games I played in or ran, and remain so into 4th Edition.
One more thing to note about humans. They may get an extra feat, but many other races get a feat that effectively acts as two (or more) feats.
Consider a human and a dwarf fighter. The human takes bastard sword proficiency & weapon focus, the dwarf takes dwarven axe training and uses a war axe. The dwarf has effectively gotten two feats for the price of one, negating one of the big selling points of playing human.
the human takes Bastard sword and weapon expertise, so now he has a +4 to hit weapon, where as the dwarf has a +2.
he who hits more, does more damage.
I don't know if a blanket +2/+2 would necessarily make humans optimal at everything; there is more to optimization than just stats. On the other hand, someone might actually *play* a human if that were the case. Nobody in my group's played a human since 4e came out (and even before that).
I hear that. In the two new campaigns my group has started since the beginning of 4e only 1 player in 6 has used human. This is a far cry from our 3.5 games where half or more of the party might be human, too the point that players might occasionally have their concepts group vetoed because we didn't want to run any all human teams.
Are Thri-Kreen confirmed, or guesswork?
Guess work. They haven't even been confirmed to have "versatile" stats, let alone that particular combo, unlike their DSCG companions the Mul, who has been confirmed as Con +Str/Wis. The only thing confirmed about the Thri-kreen's modifiers is Dex/Wis.
Are Thri-Kreen confirmed, or guesswork?
Guess work. They haven't even been confirmed to have "versatile" stats, let alone that particular combo, unlike their DSCG companions the Mul, who has been confirmed as Con +Str/Wis. The only thing confirmed about the Thri-kreen's modifiers is Dex/Wis.
Alright, that's what I thought. I was wondering if we've seen more on Thri-Kreen than I'd previously heard of.
I don't know if a blanket +2/+2 would necessarily make humans optimal at everything; there is more to optimization than just stats. On the other hand, someone might actually *play* a human if that were the case. Nobody in my group's played a human since 4e came out (and even before that).
I hear that. In the two new campaigns my group has started since the beginning of 4e only 1 player in 6 has used human. This is a far cry from our 3.5 games where half or more of the party might be human, too the point that players might occasionally have their concepts group vetoed because we didn't want to run any all human teams.
Well, there are 14 PHB 1&2 races out there. In any campaign of 6 players, and assuming even odds for each, there's a 64% chance that no one will select humans. So you're not actually complaining that humans are less popular than other races. You're arguing that they're not more popular than other races as much as you think they should be.
Frito: A strong point of contention (Dwarf/Warforged +Int).
Haldrik: Regarding the Dwarf, theres the suggestion of Con, Str/Wis. But the Mul, pretty much ninjas the Str-Con Dwarf concept (not to mention the Duergar which is also a Dwarf slave concept that could fit the Str-Con Dwarf concept).
Regarding the Warforged, the race has no possibility of reproduction except thru Artificers, thus Int. Theres already many other candidates Str-Con-Dex physical races.
Note, the Artificer class fluff itself emphasizes the Warforged and Dwarf races (Eladrin too), so it makes sense for these races to exemplify it.
It could always be Wis + Str or Con (the idea being that both Con and Str represent toughness, though of different types). There also are less Str/Wis races than there are Str/Con, and both shifters and minotaurs are more bestial than a lot of people would prefer for their paladins.
I don't know if a blanket +2/+2 would necessarily make humans optimal at everything; there is more to optimization than just stats. On the other hand, someone might actually *play* a human if that were the case. Nobody in my group's played a human since 4e came out (and even before that).
Some folks still play Humans, even if they're not "the best" choice. Humans were the most prevalent race in any of the 3.X games I played in or ran, and remain so into 4th Edition.
Game group differences, then, I suppose.
I was thinking that perhaps +2 to a physical stat and +2 to a mental stat might work, though, if the +2/+2 anywhere is untenable.
Well, there are 14 PHB 1&2 races out there. In any campaign of 6 players, and assuming even odds for each, there's a 64% chance that no one will select humans. So you're not actually complaining that humans are less popular than other races. You're arguing that they're not more popular than other races as much as you think they should be.
It's not really a question of something so subjective as popularity, but matter of the more objective quality of basic stat optimization. In 3e it was my observation that players typically defaulted to human unless race was an important aspect of their PC concept. Now in in 4e, it seems that players default to whichever race has matching primary and secondary stat boosts.
Whether or not this change is good or bad is mostly a matter of subjective opinion, but for those of us who have played both 3e and 4e it is still a noticeable change in party construction dynamics.
I don't know if a blanket +2/+2 would necessarily make humans optimal at everything; there is more to optimization than just stats. On the other hand, someone might actually *play* a human if that were the case. Nobody in my group's played a human since 4e came out (and even before that).
Humans were easily the best race in the game in 3.5e and they're very solid bordering on optimal for many classes and builds in 4e. Your group might not appreciate them, but honestly you're the exception here. Humans are perfectly fine. Although the second background choice is pretty cool, I admit.
I don't know if a blanket +2/+2 would necessarily make humans optimal at everything; there is more to optimization than just stats. On the other hand, someone might actually *play* a human if that were the case. Nobody in my group's played a human since 4e came out (and even before that).
Humans were easily the best race in the game in 3.5e and they're very solid bordering on optimal for many classes and builds in 4e. Your group might not appreciate them, but honestly you're the exception here. Humans are perfectly fine. Although the second background choice is pretty cool, I admit.
Oh, I'm sure I am.
One more thing to note about humans. They may get an extra feat, but many other races get a feat that effectively acts as two (or more) feats.
Consider a human and a dwarf fighter. The human takes bastard sword proficiency & weapon focus, the dwarf takes dwarven axe training and uses a war axe. The dwarf has effectively gotten two feats for the price of one, negating one of the big selling points of playing human.
the human takes Bastard sword and weapon expertise, so now he has a +4 to hit weapon, where as the dwarf has a +2.
he who hits more, does more damage.
At 2nd level the dwarf takes expertise, and then they're back to even. If the human takes wp bastard sword and expertise, he's not taking weapon focus, so he's got to take it at second level. The fact remains that, thanks to the combo feat the Dwarven weapon training is, the human spends his extra feat just equalling what the dwarf gets. Some bonus.
As to the proficiency difference between heavy blades and axes, that's not germaine to the discussion.
I don't know if a blanket +2/+2 would necessarily make humans optimal at everything; there is more to optimization than just stats. On the other hand, someone might actually *play* a human if that were the case. Nobody in my group's played a human since 4e came out (and even before that).
Humans were easily the best race in the game in 3.5e and they're very solid bordering on optimal for many classes and builds in 4e. Your group might not appreciate them, but honestly you're the exception here. Humans are perfectly fine. Although the second background choice is pretty cool, I admit.
Other than controllers, who might get a lot of use out of the 3rd at will, what are they optimal for? (and while the extra at-will for controllers is nice, I'm not sure it's a "gotta have")
Supposedly, humans are intended to be the "second best" at every class. By this time, I would hazard it's more like 4th or 5th best for most classes, but nevermind. If they're "second best", all things being equal, why play them compared to the "first best"?
I mean, you'll always have people like me, who always roll human, but we don't do it because of the mechanical benefits. Aside from roleplay, there's really very little incentive to play a human.
Crankshaw: [The Dwarf] could be Wis + Str or Con (the idea being that both Con and Str represent toughness, though of different types). There also are less Str/Wis races than there are Str/Con, and shifters and minotaurs are more bestial than a lot of people would prefer for their paladins.
Haldrik: Ah. I see what your getting at. Your looking for a suitably flavored Str-Wis race, and so look to the Dwarf as a possible candidate.
A Wis-Str/Con Dwarf is plausible, but its close to what the Con-Wis/Str Mul already offers. Meanwhile, the Int-Con Dwarf Battlesmith Artificer has popular support (even as far back as when the Artificer class was still being written). A Con-Int/Wis Dwarf is thematically strong.
For humanish Str-Wis concepts, a Str-Con/Wis Goliath can work well.
Any thoughts about the Duergar? I see them as non-Int, perhaps Cha. Perhaps a Wis-Str/Con Duergar could work for a Str-Wis Dwarf concept?
As an aside, the plant-form Wilden personify the forces of nature and reek Wis. Currently, I see them as Wis-Con/Str, tho Wis-Con/Cha could work too.
Other than controllers, who might get a lot of use out of the 3rd at will, what are they optimal for?
Well, to be fair, I know that with MP2, Humans are now a really good choice for Ranger exactly because they can obtain Marauder's Rush, Throw and Stab, and Twin Strike. I've also often heard Humans called out as a good choice for Rogues, who also have a lot of really good at-will powers, and Warlock and Sorcerer, who like to be able to target all three NADs effectively just as controllers do. As more good at-will powers come out with future supplements, though, the value of the Human bonus at-will power will increase and is increasing.
EDIT: However, it's worth mentioning that there was a long period of time when the 3rd Human at-will was seen as totally useless to almost everybody, not worth the loss of a racial encounter power for, so the fact that it's becoming more useful doesn't mean that Humans are getting overpowered but that Humans are getting to be as powerful as they were supposed to be to begin with, that 3rd at-will actually being a reasonable trade for not having a racial encounter power.
Any thoughts about the Duergar? I see them as non-Int, perhaps Cha. Perhaps a Wis-Str/Con Duergar could work for a Str-Wis Dwarf concept?
We don't care about MM races at the moment.
As an aside, the plant-form Wilden personify the forces of nature and reek Wis. Currently, I see them as Wis-Con/Str, tho Wis-Con/Cha could work too.
Wilden are confirmed Wis + Con or Dex.
Haldrik: I can live with that. Tho the concept of quick acrobatic ... plants ... hurts if I think about it too much, theyr not so much plants as the physicalization of all nature at large.
Mar: We don't care about MM races at the moment.
Haldrik: Certain MM races are popular for players: Kobold, Githyanki, etal. But including them here demonstrates how well the *mechanic* of optional abilities works for expressing the flavor of any and every race. Its a strong design concept.
In any case, Iv been away from the D&DI for bit, and am just catching up with the latest. Im glad the mechanic of optional racial abilities is gaining traction because its something that Iv advocated since last year.
Your group might not appreciate them, but honestly you're the exception here.
Unfortunately I have to disagree. I don't have a home group so I can only play on public LFR events whoch on the other hands means meeting with lots and lots of different players each time.
Humans are the minority, they were in the minority when 4e was new and with each new race made available their numbers dwindle even more.
One guy I was playing with (as it often happens as the only human PC at the table) summarized it with commenting my character with "Oh, a human? I thought they're extinct".
I care about the concepts that people discuss. Not necessarily what someone happened to say last. Thats the beauty of a bulletin board, as opposed to a chat site.
Yes ... but actually using the BB's quote function would make it easier to discuss things ...
At 2nd level the dwarf takes expertise, and then they're back to even. If the human takes wp bastard sword and expertise, he's not taking weapon focus, so he's got to take it at second level. The fact remains that, thanks to the combo feat the Dwarven weapon training is, the human spends his extra feat just equalling what the dwarf gets. Some bonus.
As to the proficiency difference between heavy blades and axes, that's not germaine to the discussion.
Actually, in this instance, it is.
The dwarven feat in question specifically allows access to all hammers and axes. High damage, lower bonus to hit. With axes and hammers dwarves have an advantage, just like they do in a shoving contest. Makes sense.
However you yourself brought bastard sword into the mix, which honestly, is what a human may actually go for (build pending). The advantage is a better plus to hit. Even your second level dwarf is still only +3 to hit, where as the Human is +4, with room for an extra feat to do what ever he pleases. (he's a fighter, maybe he'll take plate now, and have an even better AC)
So where you are saying, "look, the dwarf has it better here!" I'm saying, "the dwarf has a better damage potential when he hits, however, the human has a better chance to hit, and at level 2, potentially a better defense."
And more to the point, Dwarven Weapon training looks more unballancing when compaired to other races who do not share a similar feat, or have an extra feat to make up for it. I think right now Gnomes and Eladrin have a feat that allows them a +2 and superior weapon access, Goliaths just get +2 to all two handed weapons they can wield, (no free access to all 2-handed superior weapons) If you are using it as an example of human inadequacey, you saying a bunch of races look a lot worse.
And without getting too off track, Dwarven weapon training in the PHB1 was fine, until the Adventurer's vault hit and let the mordenkrads, the war axes, and other such bearded weapons of mass destruction through.
Key word 'option', it's not like it is mandatory.
I personally like it that some races are just not any good at somethings and good at others.
If we make everyone too much like everyone else, we might as well just pass on identifying the race at all.
Well yes, but some races are still bad at some things. I don't see warforged getting Int bonus anytime soon, so they are still gonna be less then ideal wizards/psions/articifer what have you. ANd with out Cha bards/sorcerers/Ardent aren't good options got them.
Meanwhile if the Kalashter get an optional Int bonus Psion becomes an option. This is a strong thematic option for the race. An optional con bonus for tieflings makes them Infernal warlock a strong mechincal choice, witch makes sense as opposed to being better fey or such.
It will open up some good thematic options for some race though.
"Well yes, but some races are still bad at some things"
Not sure how you managed to miss the point of my post, but, I reiterate, the point is I think it is OK that some races are NOT good at some things.
It makes the game more interesting when you have to accomodate being lousy at something.
Reading through several pages of the thread, and aside from some of you demonstrating an incredible capacity for naseating devotion to number crunching (do you guys actually do anything else with your day
), I still think everyone is miss the point, it is ok to not be great at some things.Perhaps the solution is to eliminate race bonuses entirely. Make it so everyone gets a single modification to any one stat of +2, and try and make it count as best as possible. Or perhaops only permit stat bonuses if you roll your stats as opposed to making them via point purchase. Then we would have fewer examples of PCs with incredible stats like 22, alongside incredible lame stats like an 8.
Your group might not appreciate them, but honestly you're the exception here.Unfortunately I have to disagree. I don't have a home group so I can only play on public LFR events whoch on the other hands means meeting with lots and lots of different players each time.
Humans are the minority, they were in the minority when 4e was new and with each new race made available their numbers dwindle even more.
One guy I was playing with (as it often happens as the only human PC at the table) summarized it with commenting my character with "Oh, a human? I thought they're extinct".
I'm just not sure where this should be unexpected. There are 14 PC races to choose from. Unless humans make up significantly less than 1/14th of the PCs in use, then I don't see their minority status as a problem.
Changeling
Deva
Dragonborn
Drow
Dwarf
Eladrin
Elf
Genasi
Githzerai
Goliath
Gnoll
Gnome
Kalashtar
Half-elf
Half-orc
Halfling
Human
Minotaur
Revenant
Shadar-kai
Shardmind
Shifter
Tiefling
Warforged
Wilden
Not to mention the upcoming Thri-kreen and Mul raising that 27. Nor the monster races or the debatable Bladeling.
14? More like 25.
Changeling
Deva
Dragonborn
Drow
Dwarf
Eladrin
Elf
Genasi
Githzerai
Goliath
Gnoll
Gnome
Kalashtar
Half-elf
Half-orc
Halfling
Human
Minotaur
Revenant
Shadar-kai
Shardmind
Shifter
Tiefling
Warforged
Wilden
Not to mention the upcoming Thri-kreen and Mul raising that 27. Nor the monster races or the debatable Bladeling.
I was limiting it to the PHB 1/2 races. Dragon/MM/PHB3 races are expected to be underrepresented.
Races should be good or not as good at something. Having classes which synch up better with a given race than others is a GOOD thing.
Giving every race a Flex Stat really deprives the Human of what makes it unique while also killing the Racial traits we associate with a given Race.
Also frankly there's better ways of Fixing the Swingy races (like the Tiefling) that don't involve "well just pick your second stat!"
You don't need a 100 percent optimized to stat character to be more than capable in 4e. It's just escalation for escalation's sake.
Haldrik: These optional racial abilities still ensure the races will be good at some classes and not as good at other classes.
For example, the Changeling can be Cha-Int or Cha-Dex. This allows the class to cover either Wizardish illusion flavor or Roguish imposter flavor. Characters will be extremely good at these classes but less so at peripheral classes. Changelings will still suck at anti-iconic classes, like Str-Wis Polearm Fighters, etcetera. Generally speaking, the Changeling will still suck at Str, Con, and Wis, and will even shy away from builds that require one of these as a secondary ability.
So, the modal ability scores allow the player to reuse a race to actualize a variety of specific archetypes, a variety that keeps the race fresh and interesting. But there are still taboos the race will tend to avoid.
Far from diluting distinctiveness, the optional racial abilities actually intensify the uniqueness of each race. For example, Drow are also a Cha-Dex race. And Halflings. And Goblins. And Kenku. And many others to come. But these alternate racial abilities help express in actual gameplay, how all of these Cha-Dex races can differ from each other. In this case, the Changeling is always pursuasive (Cha), and swift but can be swift of mind (Int) or swift of body (Dex).
Moreover, even if the Eladrin were given the same racial abilities as the Changeling, the Eladrin could still remain unique by always being swift of body (Dex), but Wizardish via somatically precise Arcane rituals (Int) or graceful innate magic (Cha).
The racial abilities option doesnt make a race good at everything. It just makes a race good at being itself.
I don't want the gap that narrow between races. It dilutes IMO part of the point of choosing Race.
The changeling's floater makes sense and works for it.
An Elf? *shakes head* not so much.
I think Perceptive and Dextrous when I think of Elves. Mind you I do think Elf Drow and Eladrin should have been a Flex Race with mix and match components because I find it quite tiresome to see three entries of the same coin in a series of book.
But most races don't suffer from the Elf Complex. naegunfael.proboards.com/index.cgi?board... that's what I did to Elves (very rough draft). Because really how hard would that have been to do? Not very. They just wanted three elves.
And for the Suck Races *looking at you Tiefling* there are other ways of fixing it that do not involve Flex stats.
Adding it to certain races now seems like it disturbs the balance of the races. I wasn't thrilled about it for changeling, but saw them as a 'unique' case. Now it just seems tacked on to divergent races that don't have any reason to have it over some of the races already presented. So, if they do it for these ones, it seems like they should do it for others. And doing it for others seems like way too substantive retconning. I much preferred the approach of using feats to help non-optimized race/class combinations. So, as much as I find it mindblowing that tieflings do not make good infernal warlocks, I still don't think I would want them switched to a con race. After all, you can fix the problem with a simple feat.
Silver-tongued devil
Use Cha instead of Con for warlock powers with an infernal rider.
(yes, it's not formatted right or using proper terminology, it's just off the top of my head while I'm at work, lol).
I do not want a 4.5...I know this isn't a 4.5 but it is a small step on a slippery slope. A slippery slope already being greased by the essentials line. No one thing is making it a 4.5, but a bunch of little things will start blurring the lines and complicating matters that 4.0 worked so hard to clean up.
I do not want a 4.5...I know this isn't a 4.5 but it is a small step on a slippery slope. A slippery slope already being greased by the essentials line. No one thing is making it a 4.5, but a bunch of little things will start blurring the lines and complicating matters that 4.0 worked so hard to clean up.
Alternatively, consistant and long-running errata will keep 4e going without the need of an edition change – we'll just keep errating without a real re-printing.
I do not want a 4.5...I know this isn't a 4.5 but it is a small step on a slippery slope. A slippery slope already being greased by the essentials line. No one thing is making it a 4.5, but a bunch of little things will start blurring the lines and complicating matters that 4.0 worked so hard to clean up.
Alternatively, consistant and long-running errata will keep 4e going without the need of an edition change – we'll just keep errating without a real re-printing.
I thought the essentals line was a reprinting. Basicly the books + errata's.
I do not want a 4.5...I know this isn't a 4.5 but it is a small step on a slippery slope. A slippery slope already being greased by the essentials line. No one thing is making it a 4.5, but a bunch of little things will start blurring the lines and complicating matters that 4.0 worked so hard to clean up.
Alternatively, consistant and long-running errata will keep 4e going without the need of an edition change – we'll just keep errating without a real re-printing.
This is true to some extent, but only goes so far. At what point, when you say 'Player's Handbook 1 is required to play this game', and then have errata that renders obsolute everything in the book, do you suddenly find yourself needing a new Player's Handbook 1? It will get to the point that the books you need to play the game are no longer usable. When you need a new version of the 'core' book, you are effectively working with a new edition, whether you call it that or not. Having a rolling edition evolution doesn't change the fact that at some point you are going to render your core material obsolete without a new edition.
Does anyone have the link to the teaser material that started this? I've been discussing it elsewhere and have been asked for it - I'd really like to be able to provide it. Unless, of course, it's DDI stuff that can't be disseminated here. Thanks!
I found it here:
forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=501232&pa...
This is true to some extent, but only goes so far. At what point, when you say 'Player's Handbook 1 is required to play this game', and then have errata that renders obsolute everything in the book, do you suddenly find yourself needing a new Player's Handbook 1? It will get to the point that the books you need to play the game are no longer usable. When you need a new version of the 'core' book, you are effectively working with a new edition, whether you call it that or not. Having a rolling edition evolution doesn't change the fact that at some point you are going to render your core material obsolete without a new edition.
Except that the material is never OBSOLETE, even if it may become OUTDATED. It remains just as possible to play with the rules as they were originally written in the PH1 as it was he day the book was released. If you do so you'll be playing a rougher and less polished version of the game, but the game will still entirely playable and even enjoyable. Also very few rules have been changed so significantly as to make new books incompatible with the original PH1, or when the rules have changed sufficiently as to create such a problem they are reprinted as needed (such as the stealth errata appearing in Martial Power 2).
In the case of the Tiefling, the solution seems simple. Int-Cha/Con.
It occurs to me, having optional racial abilities is more or less the same thing as having a 'primary' ability score and a 'secondary' ability score. For example, for the Changling, Cha equates to the 'primary' ability score, while Int and Dex equate to the auxilliary ability scores depending on the racial build. IMO, this format works very well for class builds. I suspect it will work well for the racial builds too.
When you say you wouldv wanted a 'flex race' for the Elf-Eladrin-Drow tradition, I assume you more or less mean you wouldv wanted optional racial abilities to distinguish these (in addition to heritage feats). Generally, I like this design format to distinguish racial subtypes: optional racial abilities plus (desirable) racial heritage feats. But in this case, Im glad Elf, Eladrin, and Drow are separate races.
You said you like the optional stats for Changelings, but why not for other races. To me they make just as much sense for other races as for Changelings. For example, an Int-Con Dwarf who makes magic-items is a popular archetype, and would be just as reasonable as a Wis-Con Dwarf Cleric, or even a Str-Con Dwarf Fighter.
For me, I prefer the Elf, Eladrin, and Drow to become even more different from eachother, to justify their status as separate races. Even with them as separate races, the optional abilities seem to help highlight their unique racial nuances.
Im happy with the 4e Primal-flavor Elf. Wis-Dex Wood Elf Druids and Seekers (possibly with a Str-Dex Wild Elf Rangers) seems an iconic ideal.
The 4e Drow is an elegant and balanced translation from the traditional Drow into the new 4e mechanics, a Cha-Dex Elf with Shadow magic and Darkvision. But. It did lose much in the translation, especially with regard to its former Int Wizard and Wis Cleric. The new optional abilities can do much to salvage this loss. Personally Im satisfied with a (new) Cha-Dex Sorcerer build (or perhaps a new Shadow mage?) to represent Arcane male Drow and a Wis-Cha Cleric build to represent Divine female Drow. The suggestion by Mar for Cha-Dex male sorcerers and Str-Cha female Paladins at first bothered me, but seems to be growing on me.
For me, I wish, wish, wish, the Eladrin was a strictly mental race, Int-Cha. Radically different from the woodsy Elf.
But Eladrin as both Int-Dex and defacto Cha-Dex is now a done deal, and cant be undone. The Eladrin in the Players Handbook is Int-Dex, whereas the Eladrin Archfey in the Monster Manual are defacto Cha-Dex (even dumping Int!). It would be wise for the devs to simply define the Eladrin as a Dex-plus-Int-or-Cha race. The racial optional abilities resolves all current discrepancies. The Eladrin racial paragon paths to become Cha-Primary Archfey, like Bralani and Shiere, become nonissues.
I notice Cha-Dex Archfey and Cha-Dex Drow share the same racial abilities. Indeed, Drow flavor well as 'fallen' Archfey. But their other racial traits diverge so far, it seems better to keep them separate races. So in this case, make them differ from eachother even more.
Finally, I still hold out hope against despair, the Tulani will be an Int-Cha race - thus different from either Elf, Eladrin, or Drow - to be, finally, a realization of a Fey Wizardish race. As a strictly mental race, Cha-Int/Wis would be cool, with Cha-Int Tulani and Cha-Wis Firre. Id also love Int-Cha/Wis for the Tulani, but the Shardmind seems to have ninjaed this.
Dex-Str/Wis Elf
Dex-Int/Cha Eladrin
Cha-Dex/Str (?) Drow
Cha-Int/Wis (?) Tulani
Their racial traits are so different from eachother. Their ability scores are different too. Really, they are different races.
Does anyone have the link to the teaser material that started this? I've been discussing it elsewhere and have been asked for it - I'd really like to be able to provide it. Unless, of course, it's DDI stuff that can't be disseminated here. Thanks!
I found it here:
forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=501232&pa...
Cool. Thanks!
Micha, your link seems to be down, so I couldnt check out your Elf design.
When you say you wouldv wanted a 'flex race' for the Elf-Eladrin-Drow tradition, I assume you more or less mean you wouldv wanted optional racial abilities to distinguish these (in addition to heritage feats). Generally, I like this design format to distinguish racial subtypes: optional racial abilities plus (desirable) racial heritage feats. But in this case, Im glad Elf, Eladrin, and Drow are separate races.
You said you like the optional stats for Changelings, but why not for other races. To me they make just as much sense for other races as for Changelings. For example, an Int-Con Dwarf who makes magic-items is a popular archetype, and would be just as reasonable as a Wis-Con Dwarf Cleric, or even a Str-Con Dwarf Fighter.
For me, I prefer the Elf, Eladrin, and Drow to become even more different from eachother, to justify their status as separate races. Even with them as separate races, the optional abilities seem to help highlight their unique racial nuances.
Im happy with the 4e Primal-flavor Elf. Wis-Dex Wood Elf Druids and Seekers (possibly with a Str-Dex Wild Elf Rangers) seems an iconic ideal.
The 4e Drow is an elegant and balanced translation from the traditional Drow into the new 4e mechanics, a Cha-Dex Elf with Shadow magic and Darkvision. But. It did lose much in the translation, especially with regard to its former Int Wizard and Wis Cleric. The new optional abilities can do much to salvage this loss. Personally Im satisfied with a (new) Cha-Dex Sorcerer build (or perhaps a new Shadow mage?) to represent Arcane male Drow and a Wis-Cha Cleric build to represent Divine female Drow. The suggestion by Mar for Cha-Dex male sorcerers and Str-Cha female Paladins at first bothered me, but seems to be growing on me.
For me, I wish, wish, wish, the Eladrin was a strictly mental race, Int-Cha. Radically different from the woodsy Elf.
But Eladrin as both Int-Dex and defacto Cha-Dex is now a done deal, and cant be undone. The Eladrin in the Players Handbook is Int-Dex, whereas the Eladrin Archfey in the Monster Manual are defacto Cha-Dex (even dumping Int!). It would be wise for the devs to simply define the Eladrin as a Dex-plus-Int-or-Cha race. The racial optional abilities resolves all current discrepancies. The Eladrin racial paragon paths to become Cha-Primary Archfey, like Bralani and Shiere, become nonissues.
I notice Cha-Dex Archfey and Cha-Dex Drow share the same racial abilities. Indeed, Drow flavor well as 'fallen' Archfey. But their other racial traits diverge so far, it seems better to keep them separate races. So in this case, make them differ from eachother even more.
Finally, I still hold out hope against despair, the Tulani will be an Int-Cha race - thus different from either Elf, Eladrin, or Drow - to be, finally, a realization of a Fey Wizardish race. As a strictly mental race, Cha-Int/Wis would be cool, with Cha-Int Tulani and Cha-Wis Firre. Id also love Int-Cha/Wis for the Tulani, but the Shardmind seems to have ninjaed this.
Dex-Str/Wis Elf
Dex-Int/Cha Eladrin
Cha-Dex/Str (?) Drow
Cha-Int/Wis (?) Tulani
Their racial traits are so different from eachother. Their ability scores are different too. Really, they are different races.
The hell? *kicks at my site*
Too many elf entries. Also it really doesn't do anything to explain the half elf half wild elf, elves there are and etc. Elves in the fiction can interbreed. If there are Half Elves in the game and they are all capable of spawning the same Half Elf, then the Elf side should be capable of interbreeding with other elves and have it turn out different. It also takes out Clutter. Which I'm always for.
The reason I'm not for it at all with the other races than those two. (and The Githz and Githy, who are two different races that honestly aren't different races) Is it opens up too many classes for a given race, and hurts the diversity advantage of the Human tremendously. There are some races that need to be flex races, but others such as dwarves? Meh. They are dwarfs. It's not like the dwarfs are representing multiple races or multiple sub species.
The smart dwarf etc... isn't all of that better represented with point buy? I just don't see a reason for Flex Races across the board. making all races Flex Races also isn't some necessity to correct math problems with the game. I think it's just Escalation just for escalation's sake.
It also imo Cheapens the Player's Handbook I and II. Because frankly there would be no point what so ever in using the Original Printing. Which would really blow for new players and old ones alike.
I always thought of class as the 'flexing' in a race.
On the other hand I don't think it works with every race.
Haldrik: Really? Dwarves, Muls, Duergar, Gnomes, Svirfneblin, Halflings, oh my? IMO, these are the 'dwarf' race speciating into multiple races and multiple subspecies.
Optional abilities helps reduce the number of separate entries. For example, if the Dwarf had always been Con-Dex/Str, then the Con-Str build could have been called the 'Mul' build without a separate entry. Optional racial traits (like the Genasi have) andor racial heritage feats (like the Eladrin have) help flesh out the distinctive subtypes.
Micha: ... The smart dwarf etc ... isn't all of that better represented with point buy?
Haldrik: Point-buy by itself isnt enough to express racial flavor. A racial ability bonus allows *exceptionally* high ability scores. With regard to the Intelligent Dwarf as a race of magic item creators, it cant be a race of suprageniuses, if the race is strictly incapable of generating suprageniuses. Or at least known for tending to be more Intelligent. An Intelligent race would need an Int bonus plus other traits that resonate and synergize with Int.
Micha: It also imo Cheapens the Player's Handbook I and II. Because frankly there would be no point what so ever in using the Original Printing. Which would really blow for new players and old ones alike.
Haldrik:
But it makes the D&DI so much more valuable.Seriously, future publications that give new and interesting options for races are inevitable, and fun.
I mean, you'll always have people like me, who always roll human, but we don't do it because of the mechanical benefits. Aside from roleplay, there's really very little incentive to play a human.
There's incentive, even if they're not "the mechanical best option", for a lot (I'd venture most) people. Maybe you want 3 at-wills (even if it's not the best plan). Or you want that extra feat (even if other races get better feats for your class). Or you want that extra skill (and don't want to play an Eladrin).
They have mechanical benefits. Even if those aren't the absolute best option, some people will prefer them.
Allowing humans to trade their extra starting feat (and perhaps their +1 to all NADs) for a +2 in a second stat seems fine with me. Just giving them an extra +2 would be bad though.
I'd happily trade the +1 to NAD's for a second +2. I'd probably even trade the 3rd at-will.
I'd trade the extra feat for access to a feat like Dwarven Weapon training that applied to swords.
Allowing humans to trade their extra starting feat (and perhaps their +1 to all NADs) for a +2 in a second stat seems fine with me. Just giving them an extra +2 would be bad though.
I'd happily trade the +1 to NAD's for a second +2. I'd probably even trade the 3rd at-will.
I'd trade the extra feat for access to a feat like Dwarven Weapon training that applied to swords.
I have been wishing for the feat for a long time. I will be truly shocked if it is ever created.
Finally, I still hold out hope against despair, the Tulani will be an Int-Cha race - thus different from either Elf, Eladrin, or Drow - to be, finally, a realization of a Fey Wizardish race. As a strictly mental race, Cha-Int/Wis would be cool, with Cha-Int Tulani and Cha-Wis Firre. Id also love Int-Cha/Wis for the Tulani, but the Shardmind seems to have ninjaed this.
You are aware that we have already seen a Tulani? Dragon 160, Summers end, Jelendra Tulani of Summer: Race Eladrin and a DEX/CHA animal. JFYI.
Finally, I still hold out hope against despair, the Tulani will be an Int-Cha race - thus different from either Elf, Eladrin, or Drow - to be, finally, a realization of a Fey Wizardish race. As a strictly mental race, Cha-Int/Wis would be cool, with Cha-Int Tulani and Cha-Wis Firre. Id also love Int-Cha/Wis for the Tulani, but the Shardmind seems to have ninjaed this.
You are aware that we have already seen a Tulani? Dragon 160, Summers end, Jelendra Tulani of Summer: Race Eladrin and a DEX/CHA animal. JFYI.
For 4th edition? Or did you mean Dragon 360?
Edit:I found it, it's in Dungeon 160.
For 4th edition? Or did you mean Dragon 360?
Edit:I found it, it's in Dungeon 160.
Sry, my bad. Of course it's Dungeon. Don't know why I mixed it up.
Not sure how I feel about how... inclusive it was.
Dragon9, you mean that -all- races got mention of optional abilities score bonuses? Or just those 3 in addition?
I don't think answering that question is a breakage of CoC: heck, people do "I got this book early" threads all the time here, and while not giving out specifics, do tell things as general as that. Of course, you might be held to a slightly higher standard, being a VCL?
Anyway... I was being coy about the PHB3 races having optional attributes. Nothing about all the other races previously published.
All four races have the optional stat arrangement though: +2 to one fixed stat, and +2 to your choice of one of two others. The optional ones are not always in the same 'silo' like the changeling's were, either.
Don't the Githzerai get that feat basically? Straight up, Master Bladesman or some such; and if I remember correctly it also allowed for superior heavy blades.
I'm not sure that makes sense, fluff-wise. If anything, it would make much more sense for their Evil cousins who are definately sword happy astral pirates (no puns intended).
Some races already come in pairs. I'm thinking of Eladrin/Elf and Longtooth/Razorclaw Shifter. In a way, these races are already Dex + Int or Wis and Str or Dex + Wis respectively. Baseless speculation, but I don't think we'll ever see these updated.
If any race is a strong candidate, then the Tiefling, because the devs have stated themselves in several dragon articles that it's not quite the best situation that the iconic Infernal Warlock race does not have a Con bonus.
Anyway.
Don't the Githzerai get that feat basically? Straight up, Master Bladesman or some such; and if I remember correctly it also allowed for superior heavy blades.
I'm not sure that makes sense, fluff-wise. If anything, it would make much more sense for their Evil cousins who are definately sword happy astral pirates (no puns intended).
He's right though. Githzerai Blademaster - training in all military blades, bastard swords, and fullblades, plus a scaling damage bonus.
Don't the Githzerai get that feat basically? Straight up, Master Bladesman or some such; and if I remember correctly it also allowed for superior heavy blades.
I'm not sure that makes sense, fluff-wise. If anything, it would make much more sense for their Evil cousins who are definately sword happy astral pirates (no puns intended).
He's right though. Githzerai Blademaster - training in all military blades, bastard swords, and fullblades, plus a scaling damage bonus.
Wow, that makes them Really great Avengers.
Purely on a 5th Edition note:
1) Get rid of stat bonuses all together. Make races have unique abilities - not numbers.
2) Seperate bonuses from the race. Give all races +2 to any two stats.
----
So yes, I really like the options that are being given. I'd like to see more - above, is just how far I would like it to go.
Purely on a 5th Edition note:
1) Get rid of stat bonuses all together. Make races have unique abilities - not numbers.
2) Seperate bonuses from the race. Give all races +2 to any two stats.
----
So yes, I really like the options that are being given. I'd like to see more - above, is just how far I would like it to go.
But then what would Shifters be?
Originally, my opinion of the Githzerai was, they were the uncool cousins of the Githyanki. And another Dex-Wis race in addition to Elf wasnt in itself appealing.
However, by simply adding Intelligence as a racial ability option, the Githzerai is starting to appeal to me.
To be sure, the Githzerai was definitely built to be a Dex-Wis race, and Int seems to be nothing more than a tack-on afterthought. The other racial traits resonate Dex and Wis. Defended Mind (Wis willpower), Danger Sense (Wis perceptiveness, Dex initiative), Shifting Fortunes (Dex swiftness), Iron Mind (Wis willpower but also telekinesis). Skills too, Acrobatics (Dex) and even Athletics (also Dex, since how can you do 'Acrobatics' if you cant jump??). None of the racial traits resonate with the flavor of Int, except perhaps Iron Mind could express Int as well as Wis.
Nevertheless, by simply adding the Int ability, this race has become one I want to play. The Githzerai can be either Wis-Int or Wis-Dex, and this permutation of racial emphases has a flavor all its own. For one thing, the combination of Wis-Int scholasticism and Wis-Dex martial arts really work well to actualize the Githzerai racial fluff of monasticism.
Moreover, the addition of Int really helps the Githzerai rob some of the psionic glamor from the Githyanki. The reality of powerful Int-Wis Telekinetic Psions who influence the Githzerai culture makes the Githzerai awesome, and in my eyes, able to old its own weight as an interesting even compelling race visavis their Githyanki cousins. I now see the Githzerai and Githyanki as equally appealing. Because Im less enthusiastic about necromantic flavor, I probably like the Githzerai even better now.
The bottom line is, the possibility of racial ability options, seems - by itself - to have turned a race that had little personal appeal to one that has strong personal apeal.
I think that any odd ability score boost is a terrible idea. Basically, it almost always ends up being either useless or better than it's supposed to be. There are much more elegant, logical, and balanced ways to deal with the issue, so trying to make an odd ability score bonus work is unnecessary.
And there is an issue. Flexibility with your racial features is a huge part of what it means to be Human, and if that's being depreciated, then that is a problem, both conceptually and when it comes to balance.
I think that a good idea might be to allow Humans to give up their Human Defense Bonuses racial feature for a second +2 any. This sort of flexibility to have the perfect set of ability score boosts was a problem back when other races got two fixed boosts, which is why they ended up with only a single boost to begin with, but with everybody else becoming so much more versatile, I honestly don't think that it's a big problem, especially when they have to give up their racial defense bonuses to get it, which is what was being used to balance out their only getting a single ability score boost to begin with.
I still don't see how the option "+2 to one or +1 to two" is unbalanced for humans. You're probably getting more free points if you go with +2, because the second point is likely more expensive. But you get more versatility if you go with +1 and +1, and might be better if you want a more balanced spread. Seems fine to me. If this is going to happen at all, that is.
I just got my PH3, and started browsing thru it.
Originally, my opinion of the Githzerai was, they were the uncool cousins of the Githyanki. And another Dex-Wis race in addition to Elf wasnt in itself appealing.
However, by simply adding Intelligence as a racial ability option, the Githzerai is starting to appeal to me.
Githerzerai always had a bonus to intelligence. Even though they weren't a PC race originally, their 1e monster entry in Fiend Folio gave them above average intelligence. When they were introduced as a PC race back in 2e (along with Tieflings and Bariaur) for Planescape, they got a bonus to intelligence. 3e reversed their bonus to intelligence, into a penalty as they were dead-set into making all Githzerai Monks, even though they've previously been described as a race that had high regards for Arcane Magic and Psionics.
Now they have the option again to be pretty good at Arcane magic and being the class that exemplifies psionics.
The variable-stat races are fine for what they are - races. I'm fairly content with them.
They don't really put the races "ahead" of other races to any real degree - only to theoretical "But they can be more classes!"-degrees, which don't really pan out. The variable stats, for the most part, leave the races competing with extremely popular and extremely favorable racial choices, to the point where, despite the stats, folks still aren't likely to pick these new races unless they a.) like the concept (and don't put the priority on optimized stats), or b.) like the race's features over the features of existing races.
In the majority of cases, I just can't imagine players picking these races for (b.).
There is absolutely no reason to add variable stats to any of the existing races, though - they have more than enough appeal already, simply by virtue of having been out for longer in the cycle (and thus having better feats/power/pp support). Elves aren't at any risk of not getting played, nor are Dwarves, nor Humans (at least no moreso than they were before), nor Halflings, nor Dragonborn. Adding variable stats to existing races would be giving them a benefit to make up for a problem that doesn't exist.
Variable stats don't put these new races ahead - they help them catch up.
The variable stats, for the most part, leave the races competing with extremely popular and extremely favorable racial choices, to the point where, despite the stats, folks still aren't likely to pick these new races...
I completely disagree with this notion, as well as with the rest of your post. I just don't think that allowing some options to be better than other options and with no downside to compensate can be correctly deemed acceptable just because the more limited option is perceived to be "more popular". You know what makes an option popular? A lot of the time, its power and playability play a big part in bringing it to everybody's mind, and with the possible exception of the Minotaur in some cases, every race in the PHB3 is totally playable and effective, even when compared to preexisting races.
Basically, I don't agree at all that a problem doesn't exist for the pre-PH3 races just because "they're popular", and I'm honestly not sure how you could have reasonably reached that conclusion.
Like so...
Githzerai
Gith A
+2 Dex/+2 Wis
Languages
Skill Bonuses
Danger Sense, Defended Mind, Shifting Fortunes, Iron Mind
Gith B
+2 Int/+2 Wis
Languages
Skill Bonuses
Danger Sense, Defended Mind, Shifting Fortunes, Iron Mind
+ Counts as Gith A for feats, pp, etc. (No feats, pp, etc of its own.)
Gith A
+2 Dex/+2 Wis
Languages
Skill Bonuses
Danger Sense, Defended Mind, Shifting Fortunes, Iron Mind
Gith B
+2 Int/+2 Wis
Languages
Skill Bonuses
Danger Sense, Defended Mind, Shifting Fortunes, Iron Mind
+ Counts as Gith A for feats, pp, etc. (No feats, pp, etc of its own.)
[The old races] don't need it.
Exactly.
Except its not a more powerful option, its a more flexible option.
Flexibility is a type of power. It may not make a character better, but it does give it more potential, and that means something.
[The old races] don't need it.
Exactly.
I honestly do not understand how this is a defensible position. If there is an update in the design convention, as there has been, then it only makes sense for all races to reflect it, not just the new ones and indeed especially the more popular and well-established races.
Because there is no evidence that there has been a change in design conventions.
I don't follow. There has clearly been a change. If there hadn't been a change, then these races wouldn't have gotten these flexible ability score. A change in the design conventions is the only reasonable explanation that I've thought of or heard or read from anybody else, and I wasn't even aware that this was in dispute. I certainly haven't seen anybody but you attempt to dispute it, that is.
It's more likely the new races have this to be competitive. Giving it to the old races would destroy that.
I don't see how this makes any sense whatsoever. Githzerai would have been just fine and totally in line with the other races as just a DEX/WIS race, Shardmind would have been just fine and totally in line with the other races as just an INT/WIS race, Wilden would have been just fine and totally in line with the other races as just a CON/WIS race, and if the Minotaur's racial features and power were any good at all, it too would have been just fine and totally in line with the other races as just a STR/CON race.
Would they have been behind other races as far as racial feats are concerned? Certainly. Does giving them flexible racial ability scores help or fix this? Not at all. It's an entirely different matter.
Assuming that the new races' racial features and powers are balanced with and in line with those of previous races (which is true except for, again, the Minotaur), giving the newer races flexible ability scores while not giving it to older races makes the newer races more flexible than the other races without any compensatory factor for the older races. I don't see how that can be construed as not being a problem.
[The old races] don't need it.
Exactly.
They may not need it, but it doesnt hurt to give it to them either. The only thing i see it doing is increasing the diversity of race/classes combos. Which IMO is a good thing (as long as they don't buff already good race/class combos, like dwarf fighters).
Which IMO is a good thing (as long as they don't buff already good race/class combos, like dwarf fighters).
A compelling reason to make dwarves CON+INT/WIS. Keeps them from becoming overpowering Fighters while also improving their functionality as Artifices (would have made them better warlords too, but MP2 already added WIS riders to the class).
I don't see how that can be construed as not being a problem.
And I don't see how you can be getting so worked up over a complete non-issue.
And I don't see how you can be getting so worked up over a complete non-issue.
And I don't see why you think that I am getting worked up over a non-issue.
Gee, I wonder.
The emphasis of my question was on "non-issue", not on "worked up". I'm getting worked up over an issue, not a non-issue. Apologies if that didn't get across.
[The old races] don't need it.
Exactly.
They may not need it, but it doesnt hurt to give it to them either. The only thing i see it doing is increasing the diversity of race/classes combos. Which IMO is a good thing (as long as they don't buff already good race/class combos, like dwarf fighters).
It may not hurt the races, but I don't think it's necessary. If that's the way they want to go, I'd prefer they just wait until the next edition. (Just my preferences.) I mean, "It won't hurt" could also be used to justify "All races gets +2 to two stats of their choice" as well, but it would also be unecessary - even if it would increase the diversity of race/class combos.
That said, the new races don't seem any more powerful than the Changeling. Did we need to change all ability scores to variable scores to keep all of the other races "up to par"?
An alternative argument I'm considering...
Is no one else concerned that, if all of the existing races were expanded, we would just be expanding the dominance of certain more strongly supported racial options?
For instance, Str/Wis Dragonborn? One would be hard-pressed to not consider them, due to their support and mechanics, a superior choice than Str/Wis Minotaur or Str/Wis Longtooth Shifters. A few races are powerful, but limited by their ability scores in the number of classes they can effectively dominate - expanding variable stats expands the number of builds/classes that those races have the opportunity to dominate. It becomes more of a game of "which racial feats/features are suprior".
Is no one else concerned that, if all of the existing races were expanded, we would just be expanding the dominance of certain more strongly supported racial options?
For instance, Str/Wis Dragonborn? One would be hard-pressed to not consider them, due to their support and mechanics, a superior choice than Str/Wis Minotaur or Str/Wis Longtooth Shifters. A few races are powerful, but limited by their ability scores in the number of classes they can effectively dominate - expanding variable stats expands the number of builds/classes that those races have the opportunity to dominate. It becomes more of a game of "which racial feats/features are suprior".
But it is a non-issue.
No, it is definitely a REAL issue, though it might not be MAJOR issue.
The more important question is whether or not the PH3 races represent a change in racial design policy or are just a one of gimmick for the PH3. If the former than all the older races should get updated to match current standards. If the latter, then I'd be inclined to believe it is an indication that WotC has reached a creative dead end and the 4e doesn't have long to live.
Given that one of the races, Minotaur, was already published as a two stat race, I'm inclined to believe that the PH3 represents a new design policy. Also I'm disinclined to believe that WotC would resort to such merely as a gimmick, as the PH3 already had plenty of more prominent material by which to generate hype and sales. I also reject the notion that this added flexibility was necessary to make the new races 'completive' with the older races. Questionable mechanics aside Minotaurs have become an increasingly popular race, Gith have pretty much always been popular, and Shardminds are pleasantly exotic with evocative artwork. That only leaves Wilden as possibly needing a boost to generate interest in the race.
Is no one else concerned that, if all of the existing races were expanded, we would just be expanding the dominance of certain more strongly supported racial options?
For instance, Str/Wis Dragonborn? One would be hard-pressed to not consider them, due to their support and mechanics, a superior choice than Str/Wis Minotaur or Str/Wis Longtooth Shifters. A few races are powerful, but limited by their ability scores in the number of classes they can effectively dominate - expanding variable stats expands the number of builds/classes that those races have the opportunity to dominate. It becomes more of a game of "which racial feats/features are suprior".
This i agree with. Some races have some pretty impressive abilites, feats, and even some items, which need to be taken into consideration before they add a stat. New races don't have to worry about previously released feats and such, so their "safe".
But if there are "safe" options for old races, then i don't see any reason not to.
Reading the PHB3, it's blatantly obviousd the additional stats were a very last minute decision. I sincerely doubt that means it's a design policy shift.
While I agree that the additional stats were a late entry to the PH3, I disagree with your implication that because of that there has been no change in design policy. I instead take it as evidence of the opposite, as if this were only a one-off gimmick for PH3, the decision to include versatile stats would have been made much earlier. Rather instead I theorize that while working on the essentials line WotC conceived of flexible stats to make up for the more limited racial selection, and that it's a mere convenience of developmental lead time that flex-races are debuting in PH3.
This would suggest that -everything- should get versatile ability score modfiiers.
More support for the theory that they may be splitting the original phb and phb2 races into optional stats is in the half elf article posted today. There is a feat that lets them use Con, charisma or Wisdom to power Dilettante power. The author stated in CharOp board that when he submitted it it was just Con, and cha, and it seems Wotc has added Wisdom to it. Seems like this might be what the half elves are getting in the split. Interesting.
This actually does strike me as evidence that the pre-PH3 races may be getting a split stat.
Maybe we'll see the old races with flexible stats in the Essentials products.
If they are going to do this, I do not know why they just can't throw it into the next Character Builder update. I would imagine by this point, they already have a good idea if they are going to offer the optional stat, and which stat they are offering.
Even a mention on one of our daily website updates would be nice.
If they are going to do this, I do not know why they just can't throw it into the next Character Builder update. I would imagine by this point, they already have a good idea if they are going to offer the optional stat, and which stat they are offering.
Even a mention on one of our daily website updates would be nice.
I don't think they are going to do it before they actually issue errata addressing the change as there would be somewhat of a disconnect if they just suddenly put the changes into the character builder(plus they might have to check every single racial feat to see if they need to make any changes to it to go along with the new stat). So earliest we might get it, assuming we get it pre-essentials, would be May since that is when the next errata update is scheduled.
If/when these changes come into effect, I predict humans will have the option to add a +2 to two stats of their choice (as opposed to the current restriction of only choosing one).
As for the specific races and the applicable stat-bumps, I like the unifying theme of the Eladrin and Elf both having Dex as a main stat (and would prefer that Drow also adhere to the convention). Otherwise, I hope that WotC considers the various classes and tailors the races so that they may fulfill organic and iconic roles (like Tieflings gaining Con so they can excel as Infernal Warlocks and Eladrin gaining Cha so they can excel as Fey Warlocks).
Not gonna read through all the posts, so forgive me if this has already been addressed: this only puts other races closer to human versatility. If they got two +2 stat bumps to ANY ability, they would be the most overpowered race around, with their extra skill, feat, and at-will power. Even if isolated to "+2 STR, CON, or DEX; +2 INT, WIS, or CHA," it'd still be WAY too powerful. At that point, humans would only be sub-uber at things like Psion, Illusionist Wizard, and Ardent.
Not gonna read through all the posts, so forgive me if this has already been addressed: this only puts other races closer to human versatility.
It has, indeed, already been addressed. The point is that, if every race is being powered up, then there's no good reason to leave Humans out of that unless the goal for for people to play Human characters even less. The Human isn't so powerful with its versatility that giving it options similar to those now being granted to other races would be overpowered.
If they got two +2 stat bumps to ANY ability, they would be the most overpowered race around, with their extra skill, feat, and at-will power. Even if isolated to "+2 STR, CON, or DEX; +2 INT, WIS, or CHA," it'd still be WAY too powerful. At that point, humans would only be sub-uber at things like Psion, Illusionist Wizard, and Ardent.
The bonus trained skill just makes up for the Human lack of racial skill bonuses, and the bonus at-will power just makes up for the Human lack of racial power. For there, the current defense bonuses just make up for the lack of a second ability score boost, so if those are given up in exchange for that second ability score boost, then all that's left is the bonus feat, so I find it highly unlikely that this would make any individual character overpowered.
Now, the argument has been made that, while that would be very unlikely if not impossible for this to make any individual characters overpowered, it does have the potential of making the race itself as a whole too powerful by making it too good at too many things, and that's a valid concern, but while I agree that it would have been a problem back at the beginning of the edition when Humans would then have had 8 totally exclusive racial ability score bonus combinations, the number of playable races has grown a lot since then, leaving such a theoretical Human with only a single exclusive racial ability score bonus combination. Frankly, I don't think that it's too big of a deal any more, and even if this resulted in Humans getting more play on average than other races, I have trouble seeing this as too big of a problem, because Humans are... Human. They are supposed to be nothing if not the most common and playable race anyways.
That still does not fix the underlying problem as they are underpowered compared to the other races.
I wasn't aware that humans were considered underpowered. Is that your personal opinion, or is it a sentiment a large number of people have expressed?
If we're looking to preserve the flexibility of humans, how about just letting them take multiple multi-class feats like the bard can? It fits the flexibility theme, and it's not overpowered because they need to spend a feat to get additional options.
That's the wrong sort of 'flexibility' for humans. Half-elves are the multiclassing race. Humans are supposed to be flexible within their own class. That's why the human bonus skill has to be a class skill, rather than being any skill like eladrin get, and why they get a bonus at-will from their own class, rather than the dilettante power from any class that half-elves get. Humans only getting a single ability score boost also discourages them from multiclassing, since it makes it more difficult to have two ability scores high enough to use both as effective attack stats.
That still does not fix the underlying problem as they are underpowered compared to the other races.
I wasn't aware that humans were considered underpowered. Is that your personal opinion, or is it a sentiment a large number of people have expressed?
I believe this is a fairly popular sentiment - especially if you check the build lists on the CharOp board. Humans are weaker.
Now, the argument has been made that, while that would be very unlikely if not impossible for this to make any individual characters overpowered, it does have the potential of making the race itself as a whole too powerful by making it too good at too many things, and that's a valid concern, but while I agree that it would have been a problem back at the beginning of the edition when Humans would then have had 8 totally exclusive racial ability score bonus combinations, the number of playable races has grown a lot since then, leaving such a theoretical Human with only a single exclusive racial ability score bonus combination.
Also if all the other races get flex stats we may find that even that 1 combination (CON/INT) would not be exclusive. Notably I think one of the more popular suggestions has been that Dwarves should be CON+WIS/INT (as CHA and DEX make little sense, while STR would likely make them too good at classes they are already great at).
I believe this is a fairly popular sentiment - especially if you check the build lists on the CharOp board. Humans are weaker.
Humans are good at pretty much every thing. Their never considered weak.
Humans are good at pretty much every thing. Their never considered weak.
Humans are indeed a good races, with plenty of unique potential. Unfortunately they tend to suffer from a case of Overshadowed by Awesome syndrome, which can make them SEEM weaker than they really are. Generally speaking no matter how good they are at any given class or build there is probably another races that is even better.
Human versatility does mean that the race is quite potent from a purely in game perspective (as human society can diversify much more optimally than other races), but they tend to be more lackluster from an external player perspective. Furthermore, the fact that 4e doesn't typically stat out NPCs unless there is a need to mechanically interact with them, and that even when they are stated they use different rules, means that the primary advantage of humans as a race tends to be even less visible. That 4e defaults to more cosmopolitan mixed race communities hides the advantage away even further.
Advanced Aptitude
Tier: Heroic
Prerequisites: Human, Level 1
You gain +2 to any ability score besides the one you chose as your human bonus score. You may only take this feat once.
----
Effectively, this lets Humans trade their bonus feat for a second +2 to any stat (except the one they already have a bonus in, since giving them a +4 to one stat at first level might be a bit too good). Not sure if this would be an overpowered option, though (if it's too good, then maybe move it to paragon tier instead).
An alternate method of boosting humans in a world where all races have flexible stats might be to give them an extra +1 to the stat they picked as their bonus stat at paragon and epic tiers. That way, they start out weaker, but end up with an extra +2 in their primary stat.
Feats arent supposed to be powerful. Powers are supposed to be powerful!
If feats become more powerful than powers, then it destroys the viability of feat system itself. It makes normal feats suck by comparison and accelerates power creep. It always ends bad.
For example, if Humans get a free feat as a racial feature, but then are 'forced' to take a feat that grants an extra two ability score points, it destroys their racial feature by nullifying the extra choice. Its just bad design.
Two extra points to an ability score is vastly more powerful than a feat. Worth at least three feats, possibly five feats!
A normal feat has a very specific value. Equal to an extra 5 hit points. The Toughness feat is the standard worth of a feat.
If you have a tough time deciding whether you would rather have some feat or an extra 5 hit points, then that feat is balanced.
Now there are already so many feats that are way more powerful than the Toughness feat. So, its probably better to think of the Toughness feat as the *minimum* worth of a feat. In other words, a Heroic feat is worth between 5 to 9 hit points. A Paragon feat is worth 10 to 14 hit points. And an Epic feat is worth 15 to 19 hitpoints.
A single +1 bonus to all attacks is worth more than 10 hit points, approximately 15 or 16 hit points. An Epic level feat! So, the Expertise feats that grant this bonus for most (but not all) attacks, is worth maybe 12 or 13 hit points. A Paragon level feat! A reasonable feat for a Heroic level would be Impending Victory, that grants a +1 bonus against bloodied enemies, in other words, grants this bonus to only half of the attacks, thus is worth about 7 hit points - a very respectable feat. But the Expertise feats are so much better, too good for a Heroic level feat. All other Heroic feats become nonoptions. Players have little choice but to take Expertise. It kills the variety of the feat system.
If racial feats are used to fix design problems, then these races are 'forced' to take these better feats and can no longer choose regular feats, because, in comparison, they suck. The only way to fix this problem, and many other arms-race problems is to create even more powerful feats that can compete with the excessive racial feats. All of this accelerates power creep. IT DESTROYS THE BALANCE OF THE GAMING SYSTEM ITSELF.
Using feats to fix known design problems turns D&D into a game of landmines. Most choices become false choices. Traps that only noobies would ever choose. Choices that suck. That only rules-lawyers know how navigate. It is bad design to use feats to fix problems.
"Feats should be nice, not required."