What I'm wondering is whether WotC will be giving the older races a facelift with the Essentials line, giving them a choice between two for their second ability score and keeping them competitive and up-to-date.
With PH3, it seems like WotC has decided to focus on making races more versatile by adding the "Bonus to Ability 1, and bonus to either ability A or ability B" like they did with Changelings. While I was skeptical at first, I now must admit I like the expanded possibilities provided by this, However, this sort of short-changes previously published races, especially those with bonuses that only align with a few classes.
What I'm wondering is whether WotC will be giving the older races a facelift with the Essentials line, giving them a choice between two for their second ability score and keeping them competitive and up-to-date.
Considering the blurb on the product page mentions "new racial traits", and the fact that if they didn't do it it would make all the old races uncompetitive with the newer ones (at least excusing feat support which, theoreticalyl, should even out eventually).
Also, there have been many topics on this already, including much speculation on what said racial alternates will be. Some are pretty much a given, Like Eladrin being Int + Dex/CHA, or Dwarf being Wis + Str/Con, but there's some debate on the others. Like Warforged, for instance, could be Con + Str/Int, or Str + Con/Int, or hell, Con + Str/Wis (who knows).
Needless to say, the "Con + Int" people are going bonkers over the possibility.
However there is circumstantial evidence to support that they will be doing this for old races. Both Tieflings and Half-Elves have had game elements revealed which allow them to choose between one of their current stat boosts and another stat which they currently do not get a bonus to when determining the effect of the game element. Half-Elves getting it through a feat in last month's Dragon and Tieflings through a PP power that was previewed for Player's Handbook Races: Tieflings today.
With PH3, it seems like WotC has decided to focus on making races more versatile by adding the "Bonus to Ability 1, and bonus to either ability A or ability B" like they did with Changelings. While I was skeptical at first, I now must admit I like the expanded possibilities provided by this, However, this sort of short-changes previously published races, especially those with bonuses that only align with a few classes.
What I'm wondering is whether WotC will be giving the older races a facelift with the Essentials line, giving them a choice between two for their second ability score and keeping them competitive and up-to-date.
Considering the blurb on the product page mentions "new racial traits", and the fact that if they didn't do it it would make all the old races uncompetitive with the newer ones (at least excusing feat support which, theoreticalyl, should even out eventually).
Also, there have been many topics on this already, including much speculation on what said racial alternates will be. Some are pretty much a given, Like Eladrin being Int + Dex/CHA, or Dwarf being Wis + Str/Con, but there's some debate on the others. Like Warforged, for instance, could be Con + Str/Int, or Str + Con/Int, or hell, Con + Str/Wis (who knows).
Needless to say, the "Con + Int" people are going bonkers over the possibility.
Flex stats do not make old races 'uncompetitive' it only makes the new races 'optimal' for more classes. The dwarf, not even including ability modifiers, is generally better than a wilden, and elves and githezerai generally do dex/wis better than wilden. Minotaur are likewise somewhat meh compared to Warforged or Goliaths are Strength/Con, they are arguably better than shifters at Strength/Wis unless the shifter has one of those wepaons that lets them count as bloodied for a round.
As to half-elves, there are no current Str, Dex, Int specific classes, so having those three choices in stats helps give them a breadth of choices in their use of their dilettante power.
That said, it is entirely possible we'll see such updates to pre-existing races in the future. I would very much like to, along with many others here; I just don't think the suggested power and feat represent them as such.
The previewed power for Tieflings is a Divine power for their new paragon path. Since Wisdom is the preferred ability of most divine classes, it makes sense to include it as a choice for attack.
And now that I think about it, all the way back to PHB2, the Tiefling's Racial PP, Turathi Highborn, uses Cha, Int or Cons for their attacks. Coincidence? Or already (so soon) a tip from what is coming?
Of course, that was back at the very beginning of D&D, may not well reflect the new paradigm.
I'd love to jump on that bandwagon, but remember, Dragonborn's Breath Weapon is based off Str, Con, or Dex, rather than Cha as an option.
Of course, that was back at the very beginning of D&D, may not well reflect the new paradigm.
D&D did not start at 4E.
I played 2e, 3e, 3.5e… I know it didn't start with 4e.
God, I hope not. More Power gaming munchkin min/maxing? No thanks!!
.... I don't know how to even respond to the level of fail here ...
.... I don't know how to even respond to the level of fail here ...
I am going to wholeheartedly agree.
God, I hope not. More Power gaming munchkin min/maxing? No thanks!!
.... I don't know how to even respond to the level of fail here ...
.... I don't know how to even respond to the level of fail here ...
I am going to wholeheartedly agree.
May I suggest ...
...specifically designed for Tieflings...
I have seen nothing to back this up.
That said, even if that were true, it suggests nothing one way or the other about the possibility of other races getting third ability score options, but I'd personally be more inclined to select DEX for the Tiefling instead of CON to begin with. That being said, it will probably be CON judging from the Tiefling racial PP in the PHB2.
...specifically designed for Tieflings...
I have seen nothing to back this up.
Umm... have you actually read the article? The tiefling focus is... pretty obvious. The new warlock spells presented there are specifically stated to be the ones the original tieflings of Bael Turath gained from Asmodeus and the other lords of the Nine Hells.
That said, even if that were true, it suggests nothing one way or the other about the possibility of other races getting third ability score options,
I didn't actually claim that it did. But when the biggest reason people give for why tieflings should get a third ability bonus option (so they can make optimal infernalocks like their ancestors) is neatly eliminated in this manner - by the game's lead designer no less - it suggests that the thinking among the design team might be to find alternative methods of solving 'problems' like this rather than just shoehorning in more ability bonus options to existing races.
but I'd personally be more inclined to select DEX for the Tiefling instead of CON to begin with.
Well, they've been associated with the rogue class longer than with the warlock class, so that would make sense. Con does fit well with the "self-reliant survivor" theme 4th edition tieflings have, though.
That being said, it will probably be CON judging from the Tiefling racial PP in the PHB2.
Then somebody ought to tell Mike Mearls.
This article could tide us over until then. Also, many Infernalocks won't want to take these because they want to be able to actually -use- their Dailies, and Infernal Pact ones at that.
This gives one option for Tiefling Infernalocks, but Con/Int would give a much better variation on it.
Even if Tieflings become an Int-Con/Cha race, this Dragon article with its sample of Infernal-Pact Warlock Cha powers permits players who choose an Int-Cha Tiefling to still share the racial Inflock flavor. Meanwhile, players who choose an Int-Con Tiefling would be exemplary Inflocks.
With Intelligence as the primary racial ability, the Tieflings function as an erudite race, known for their legal contracts and arcane research. They would descend from nobles, who served as courtiers, advisors, scholars, and bureaucrats.
With Charisma as one secondary racial ability, along with Intelligence for the cold calculation of mental manipulation, the Tiefling can express the devilish flavors of deception (Bluff) and seduction (Diplomacy). More mundanely, the Cha expresses courtly diplomacy and intreague.
With Constitution as another secondary racial ability, along with Intelligence for the Infernal Pact of the Warlock class, the Tiefling can share the unkillable dark-magic toughness of the hellish Immortals. Here, folklore themes like selling ones soul for eternal youth, immunity to disease, quick-healing, etcetera come into play. These Inflocks-proper would be the iconic warriors (strikers) of the Tiefling culture.
Notably, the Tiefling would lack Con-Cha flavor. Devilish flavor that is both seductive and tough would remain unimpressive in Tiefling culture. Thus, Int is the key. It would be the exacting bargains that founds the devilish seductive flavor, and the ingenious research that grounds the hellish toughness.
...
I doubt most players view Tieflings as a race of scholars. But granting Tieflings access to Int-Con for the Infernal Pact makes Int their constant ability, thus the umbrella racial flavor that informs all other racial flavors. Significantly, the Inflock forces Tieflings to become an Int race.
Likewise, Int would become the primary vehicle to *escape* devilish flavor. For example, there would be Tiefling subcultures who rebel against their devilish ancestry by becoming Int-Con Artificers.
...
Personally, I feel this Arcane scholarship flavor belongs to the Eladrin race. Not the Tiefling race. I wish the Players Handbook had been more consistent about matching flavor with racial ability scores from the very beginning.
That said, if Eladrin became an Int-Dex/Cha race while the Tiefling became an Int-Con/Cha race, I could live with it. These would be two very different flavors for a wizardish theme, and that diversity of options can be good thing.
Heck, based on some of the "popular" asignments, I'm getting my complaints together already.
Heck, based on some of the "popular" asignments, I'm getting my complaints together already.
I know I'll be griping if any of the three 'elven' races get the option to not have a Dex bonus. To me, that would be like giving them an option to not have pointy ears...
Heck, based on some of the "popular" asignments, I'm getting my complaints together already.
I know I'll be griping if any of the three 'elven' races get the option to not have a Dex bonus. To me, that would be like giving them an option to not have pointy ears...
.... What? The Eladrin should most definitely get the option not to have Dex. Int is without a doubt the stat they should have as static. I don't even know how one could think otherwise, because it matches up with their archetypal classes - Wizard, Swordmage, and Warlord. There is no other acceptable alternative.
Shrug. D&D isnt Lord Of The Rings. Not every elf concept needs to be a bow-wielding Legolas.
Consider the 'Sun Elf' from the D&D tradition, who 4e officially identifies with the Eladrin. In the previous edition the Sun Elf got a +2 Int and a -2 Con as its racial ability modifiers, and no Dex bonus whatsoever. Intelligence was the salient, primary, and only bonus.
In 4e, the option for a non-Dex Eladrin is desirable. It makes room for certain traditional themes about elves as a wizardish mental race.
Notice, the 4e Gith races dont share the same primary ability either. The Githzerai are Wis-Dex/Int with Wis as the primary, but the Githyanki so far are Int-Con and lack the possibility of Wis as the primary.
Related races should have different ability scores. They became separate races because theyr different.
I would strongly prefer that all the elven races get [+2 Dex, +2 (X or Y)] if optional ability bonuses are extended to existing races. Being quick and graceful is the defining feature of elves (of all types) for me personally (probably more due to Warhammer influence than anything else). But I'm not really so bothered about it that I'm going to throw a hissy fit.
But those should be locked, and it would be nice to see, say, Strength as being switched out for Dexterity.
Eladrin have a long history of warriors, knights, and soldiers; Elves benefit from the Barbarian and Warden support to tie them closer to Primal; Drow Paladins, Battle Clerics and Runepriests are a desirable point too.
...specifically designed for Tieflings...
I have seen nothing to back this up.
Umm... have you actually read the article? The tiefling focus is... pretty obvious. The new warlock spells presented there are specifically stated to be the ones the original tieflings of Bael Turath gained from Asmodeus and the other lords of the Nine Hells.
Given the Crimson Knight fluff, I think the article is just as much, if not more so, about enabling Infernal Warlock|Paladins as it is enabling Tiefling Infernal Warlocks.
I still think that Eladrin, Elf, and Drow are defined by their secondary score – Int, Wis, and Cha respectively, and shouldn't overlap in that regards.
I can agree Eladrin and Drow being defined by their mentals, but I think the baseline Elves are far more defined by DEX than WIS. Personally my picks might be something like.
Eladrin: INT+DEX/CHA (adds various fey-like classes to their optimal selection)
Elf: DEX+WIS/CON? (explains half-elves, also matches several other 'primal' oriented races)
Drow: CHA+DEX/WIS (makes them better divine fanatics to their spider goddess)
But those should be locked, and it would be nice to see, say, Strength as being switched out for Dexterity.
Can't see this at all. Yes all the elven races have distinctive martial traditions and most such classes are STR oriented, but the elven races tend to be more about style than brute force. Yes stats are abstract, but to me giving any elf +STR is a little to abstract.
I would shy away from heavy-handed symmetry for the 'elfish' race designs. They evolved differently. I feel we should allow them to be different.
Instead of architecting a symmetric design for the elfish races. Lets compare the desirable abilities on a case-by-case basis, and see where it goes.
Elf
Wis-Dex (Predator Druid, Bloodbond Seeker)
Dex-Wis (Centered Monk)
Dex-Str (Archer Ranger, Hunter Ranger, Stonefist Monk)
Str-Dex (Beastmaster Ranger, Marauder Ranger, Two-Weapon Ranger, Guardian Fighter)
Str-Wis (Life Warden, Tempest Fighter)
Wis-Str (Spiritbond Seeker)
The Dex-Wis Elf already synergizes the flavor of the Predator Druid, Bloodbond Seeker, and Centered Monk.
Dex-Wis/Str gains the iconic Archer Ranger and Beastmaster Ranger.
Wis-Str/Dex gains the Life Warden and Spiritbond Seeker.
The D&D tradition features a 'Wild Elf' with a Strength bonus and remote primitive flavor.
Highly problematic: Defender classes require Str. The recent exception to the rule is the Battlemind that requires Con, which doesnt help any elfish race. Likewise, the Swordmage requires Int, which doesnt help the Elf. The game desperately needs a Dex-primary or Wis-primary Defender class. Worst-comes-to-worst, a strong Elf can still serve as a Str-Dex Fighter build.
On balance, especially if the needed Dex Defender comes into existence, the Elf flavor seems to synergize best as a Dex-Str/Wis race. The existence of Dex-Str covers the physically strong Wild Elf tradition and epitomizes the Ranger class.
Eladrin
Int-Cha (Fey Warlock, Telepath Psion, Enchanter Wizard, Illusionist Wizard, needs a new Int-Cha 'Fey' Artificer build)
Cha-Int (Cunning Bard)
Int-Dex (Wand Wizard, needs Int-Dex 'Eldritch' Swordmage build)
Dex-Int (?!)
Int-Wis (Warrior-Forge Artificer, Tinkerer Artificer, Orb Wizard, Telekinetic Psion)
Wis-Int (Preserving Invoker)
Cha-Wis (Prescient Bard, Enlightened Ardent)
Wis-Cha (Laser Cleric)
Int-Str (Assault Swordmage)
Str-Int (Tactical Warlord)
Dex-Cha (Artful-Dodger Rogue)
Cha-Dex (Storm Sorcerer)
Unfortunately, the current Int-Dex Eladrin suffers the lamest support from synergizing class flavors. Wand Wizard. Thats it. And its Wand Mastery class feature is good but not musthave, while Dexterity offers almost no benefit in the Wizard powers. The Wand Wizard needs some kind of class feature to make the Dex investment worthwhile. Creating a new Int-Dex 'Eldritch' Swordmage build that focuses on longsword, teleportation, flight, and acrobatics would help out immensely, and supply another Defender class option without requiring Strength.
Clearly Int-Cha are the go-to abilities for Eladrin class flavor: Fey Warlock, Telepath Psion, Enchanter Wizard, and Illusionist Wizard. While Cha-Int gains Cunning Bard for good ole Eladrin revelry. A new Int-Cha 'Fey' Artificer build would actualize the Eladrin flavor of arcane scholars and magical technology, with the flavor of imbuing magic items with their own innate magic to enchant them.
Notably, the Cha-Dex Storm Sorcerer has desirable class flavor because of the Autumn Bralani and the Winter Ghaele. But gaining this class fails to compensate for the loss of the Int-Cha class flavors. Perhaps a new Bloodline feat can create Eladrin that use Drow mechanics (similar to how the Dusk Elf feat creates Eladrin that use Elf mechanics). Then these 'Skyborn Drow' with their racial Cha-Dex, who reunify with their Eladrin cousins, can cover the Storm Sorcerer flavor. Perhaps the Bloodline feat lets 'Skyborn Drow' gain Feystep instead of Darkvision, and the Diplomacy skill instead of Stealth. Intimidation remains appropriate. Even the Lolth-touched powers can easily reflavor as stormcloud obscuration and the electrical aura of 'Saint Elmos fire'. Followup feats could add other atmospheric features.
There are precedents for the Int-Str Assault Swordmage and Str-Int Tactical Warlord. Even Int-Con could serve the Eladrin with Staff Wizard and Battlesmith Artificer. But I strongly dislike the physicality of Strength or Constitution flavor for this otherworldly 'wizard elf' tradition. And the loss of access to explictly Fey Int-Cha classes would be too much.
In sum, the Int-Cha/Dex racial abilities seem to optimize the mechanics and flavor of the Eladrin best.
Drow male
Dex-Cha (Nightstalker Assassin, Cunning-Sneak Rogue)
Cha-Dex (Wild Sorcerer, needs Cha-Dex 'Dark' Sorcerer, Dark Warlock still depends on Int or Con)
Cha-Wis (Prescient Bard, Enlightened Ardent)
Wis-Cha ( )
Dex-Str (Brutal-Scoundral Rogue)
Str-Dex ( )
Str-Cha (Inspiring Warlord)
Cha-Str (alternatively needs Cha-Str 'Dark' Sorcerer)
Cha-Int (Dark Warlock)
Int-Cha (Illusionist Wizard)
Drow female
Wis-Cha (Lolth Devoted Cleric)
Wis-Dex (Lolth Pursuing Avenger)
Str-Cha (Lolth Avenging Paladin, note, the ONLY 'Drow' Defender!)
Currently, the Dex-Cha Drow can resonate the flavor of the Nightstalker Assassin class. Cunning-Sneak Rogue seems appropriate too despite its mundane source. These two classes cover the traditional dexterous warrior flavor for Drow males.
Meanwhile, Cha by itself can partially access the Dark-Pact Warlock for the traditional arcane mage flavor of Drow males. Warlock powers tend to require either Int or Con, thus the Dark Pact remains suboptimal for the Drow abilities in contradiction to its Drow fluff. Fortunately, the Cha-Dex Wild Sorcerer remains a reasonable candidate for the male arcane tradition, supplying the Elemental flavor of the Elemental Chaos, and perhaps the demonic flavor of its Abyss. Given the available options, Wild Sorcerer is probably the most iconic class for Drow males. Tho a new Cha-Dex 'Dark' Sorcerer build could tweak the Wild build with Drow-flavor goodies.
Finally, the PH4 could come with a suite of Cha-Dex Shadow classes, with a necromantic spin on the Drow arcane tradition. These Shadow mages would resonate the already established flavor of the Assassin, as well as resonate the flavor of the Underdark itself which, in fact, blends with the deathly Shadowdark as well as the Feydark. Shadow powers are probably the best way to streamline Drow male magic.
All in all, the current Cha-Dex racial abilities seem to serve the flavor of Drow males well.
Drow females, on the other hand, squirm when it comes to synergizing with a flavor-appropriate classes, despite being the center of Drow society, and the cultural icons by which all things Drow revolve. Any additional racial ability must serve the flavor of the Drow female.
Str (!). Despite the emphatic tradition of weak Drow who suffer a Str penalty, the female characters tended to be warrior Clerics (and the males tended to be 'Fighter/Magic Users'). Thus, even if it requires Str, a Divine class actually continues the Drow tradition. The possibility of a Str-Cha Drow Paladin who serves Lolth is an excellent way to convey the (literally) 'strong' female archetype. Good for female blackwidow spider flavor too. This Paladin build also supplies one of the only Defender classes that can suit Drow flavor. Thus the Cha-Str/Dex racial abilities enjoy surprising appeal.
Wis. Obviously, Wisdom serves a host of Divine classes to Lolth. The Wis-Cha Devoted Cleric would continue the Drow female magic tradition exactly. Alternatively, the Wis-Dex Pursuit Avenger is worth mentioning, putting an edgy twist on the Divine theme.
In sum, all of these seem excellent candidates for Drow racial abilities:
Cha-Wis/Dex (Devoted Cleric)
Dex-Wis/Cha (Pursuit Avenger)
Cha-Str/Dex (Avenging Paladin)
I probably prefer the straightforward access to the Devoted Cleric, but this is more personal taste than the best way to optimize flavor and mechanics. All three options seem good.
Ahhh, Salla. Your love for Primal flavor brings warmth to my heart. LOL!
I think its humorous justice, your wife IIRC really does love Primal flavor.
'Pointy-eared monkeys'
Ahhh, Salla. Your love for Primal flavor brings warmth to my heart. LOL!
I think its humorous justice, your wife IIRC really does love Primal flavor.
I wouldn't say she 'loves' it, but she's not averse to it.
Elf - Wis and Str/Dex
Eladrin - Int and Cha/Dex
Drow - Cha - Wis/Dex
allows elves to excel with all ranger builds, their archetypal class, and the Eladrin and drow are already well explained, the 'fey' eladrin and the Lolth worshiping drow.
If how people imagine a race to be happens to fit with the classes traditionally associated with that race, then that's cool. But shoehorning an ability bonus into a race just to fit a particular class feels very clunky and artificial to me.
Thankfully, the designers so far seem to share my view. Dwarves get Con/Wis because dwarves are tough and stubborn and wise. They don't get Str or Cha even though they're described as producing a lot of paladins and fighters, because neither of those abilities fit the dwarf flavour.
Anyway, this is how I'd do the elven races:
Eladrin: Dex + Int/Cha
Elf: Dex + Str/Wis
Drow: Dex + Cha/Wis
See, I think doing it based on what classes people think each race should be good at is backassward. It should be fluff/concept first, mechanics second. The fluff/flavour/concept should dictate the mechanics, not the other way around.
If how people imagine a race to be happens to fit with the classes traditionally associated with that race, then that's cool. But shoehorning an ability bonus into a race just to fit a particular class feels very clunky and artificial to me.
Thankfully, the designers so far seem to share my view. Dwarves get Con/Wis because dwarves are tough and stubborn and wise. They don't get Str or Cha even though they're described as producing a lot of paladins and fighters, because neither of those abilities fit the dwarf flavour.
Anyway, this is how I'd do the elven races:
Eladrin: Dex + Int/Cha
Elf: Dex + Str/Wis
Drow: Dex + Cha/Wis
Except going by fluff Eladrin should still be Int primary. They're all about scholarly-ness, imperiousness, cunning, etc. Not to mention that choosing by class is not at all the same thing as choosing class over fluff. Eladrin fluff specifically states the preference for Wizards, Swordmages, and Warlords. You're actually going against their fluff by claiming Dex should be prime. Int really is the only fit.
Definitely no Dex primary for the Eladrin. I'm not as confident on Drow, but Eladrin are intelligent first. I also personally think Drow are Cha primarily, as they're charming and silver-tongued, allowing for good divine, arcane, and psionic options if need be, all three of which I've seen more often. Elves are really the ones I think that are most definied by their physical stats, being ranged characters and what not.
Definitely no Dex primary for the Eladrin. I'm not as confident on Drow, but Eladrin are intelligent first. I also personally think Drow are Cha primarily, as they're charming and silver-tongued, allowing for good divine, arcane, and psionic options if need be, all three of which I've seen more often. Elves are really the ones I think that are most definied by their physical stats, being ranged characters and what not.
definitely, the reason I put Wis with Dex or Str secondary is apart from the ranger angle, elves are by fluff a very primal, perceptive and compared to their cousins, a very mundane fey race, Wis benefits all the primal and most martial classes so fits as the primary, and Str/Dex relates to stealth and other physical aspects one would need without the inert magic which elves no longer possess
The Elf racial abilities would have to have Dex as primary, and Wis or Str as secondaries, in order to get the Dex-Str option for the Ranger builds.
Dex-Wis/Str = Dex-Wis / Dex-Str
However, I WOULD like to see Wis primary and Dex or Strength secondary Elves. That would allow them to be good Wardens as well – right now, there is no Defender build for Elves. This is a problem, and Warden fits the Elf perfectly thematically.
Also, I see the Elven races defined by their mindset, not their physicality. Elves are wise, in touch with nature; Eladrin are cold and calculating – perilous; Drow are cunning and silver-tongued.
It makes perfect sense.
For me, I could easily see that happening. Though at the same time, I could also see who was in charge sitting down and rotating and just spitting back out geniric "Elf are Dex! Eladrin n Drow are Elf! All dex!"
I'm still hoping humans get a double stat, and Gnolls/Revenant get something good so they don't have to be stuck as Bleak Dicsiples if you want to fit thier stats to be the best.
I REALLY want Malediction Revenants and Stone Fist Gnolls.
Why not? All the cool races are doing it…
Are Gith, Minotur, Shardmind and Wilden the cool races? I kind of had the opposite impression... Especially for Wilden.
Why not? All the cool races are doing it…
Are Gith, Minotur, Shardmind and Wilden the cool races? I kind of had the opposite impression... Especially for Wilden.
Yes, they most certainly are the cool races.
I agree with you greatfrito, I think the great races are going to get screwed if this does not happen.
How exactly are the old races screwed apart from not having a 20 on a primary stat for a particular class combination?
How exactly are the old races screwed apart from not having a 20 on a primary stat for a particular class combination?
Flexibility and versatility. Options are a type of power, and they're definitely worth something. If the PHB3 races gave up nothing in the rest of their mechanical write-up for this power, then they have more power than PHB1 races have. Therefore, there is an imbalance against the older races, leaving them "screwed".
Also, as far as I know, almost nobody really goes for a 20 in their primary ability score anyways. It just costs too much and leaves you secondary scores and defenses too badly screwed.
Flexibility and versatility. Options are a type of power, and they're definitely worth something. If the PHB3 races gave up nothing in the rest of their mechanical write-up for this power, then they have more power than PHB1 races have. Therefore, there is an imbalance against the older races, leaving them "screwed".
Also, as far as I know, almost nobody really goes for a 20 in their primary ability score anyways. It just costs too much and leaves you secondary scores and defenses too badly screwed.
I don't really understand this sentiment. Do you think that shifters are overpowered because they have two different sub-races? That's effectively what's happening here except without a bunch of extra fluff write-up and without the division of certain feats.
Versatility with regards to character creation means almost nothing with regards to racial balance. Yes, these new races are better at more classes, but they're not better than the old races at the classes the old races are good at.
That being said, having more stat spread options is cool and I totally support old races getting a ret-conned secondary bonus choice.
Flexibility and versatility. Options are a type of power, and they're definitely worth something. If the PHB3 races gave up nothing in the rest of their mechanical write-up for this power, then they have more power than PHB1 races have. Therefore, there is an imbalance against the older races, leaving them "screwed".
Also, as far as I know, almost nobody really goes for a 20 in their primary ability score anyways. It just costs too much and leaves you secondary scores and defenses too badly screwed.
I don't really understand this sentiment. Do you think that shifters are overpowered because they have two different sub-races? That's effectively what's happening here except without a bunch of extra fluff write-up and without the division of certain feats.
Versatility with regards to character creation means almost nothing with regards to racial balance. Yes, these new races are better at more classes, but they're not better than the old races at the classes the old races are good at.
That being said, having more stat spread options is cool and I totally support old races getting a ret-conned secondary bonus choice.
Apperently Yes, having two different subraces was 'overpowered.' Why?
Cause Shifters have not freeking racial traits. Not even a howdy-do! You are a shapechanger!
What crimson is saying is that versitility is a type of power. Not like a bugbear having a huge size fullblade and a 40 foot reach, but a type of power of "Will i play Race A or B?"
Like the Humans of 3.5, they were the every man race. 2 feats, extra skill point, no exp penalty. Unless you were going for something very specific or you had a fetish for a particular race, you would always default to Humans because of thier versitility.
This was because no matter what you did, humans could always do it. (Unless of course you had to have 20 dex by level 4 or something crazy like that.)
You wont see Kobolds or Goblins as PC write ups any time soon if ever.
I wouldn't be surprised to see them go into Dragon at some point. Wouldn't expect them in a PHB, though.
The one thing I hope to get out of alternative scores, if/when they publish them, is enjoyment from the discussion about which ability scores were wrong, which were right, and general complaints about how they did it wrong.
Heck, based on some of the "popular" asignments, I'm getting my complaints together already.
Sailor, I like the cut of your jib.
How about a "true" shapeshifting race where the stat bonuses are not static. For example, after an extended rest the PC could change the racial bonuses from STR & CON to DEX & WIS. I realize that this would increase the complexity of the game and this particular race would never be developed. But wouldn't it be a cool race?
Sounds like a great homebrew race.
How about a "true" shapeshifting race where the stat bonuses are not static. For example, after an extended rest the PC could change the racial bonuses from STR & CON to DEX & WIS. I realize that this would increase the complexity of the game and this particular race would never be developed. But wouldn't it be a cool race?
It's cool in concept, but would serve little practical purpose. The standard game mechanics strongly encourage players to choose two high stats, both to spend their initial point buy on and to boost at each optional level. As such there would be little benefit to be had from the ability to change the racial stat boosts post character creation, save possibly for a few builds that divide one of their level boosts between two secondary stats.
Human: +2 any stat, +1 to all stats (I want to maintain the resourceful theme of humans while making them an actual option but not making them the best option like they tended to be in 3.5 This might be a little over board though).
Elf: +2 Dex, +2 wis/+2 str.
Eladrin: +2 Int, +2 cha/+2 wis
Half-Elf: +2 con, +2 any stat? - Having trouble nailing down a stat outside of trying to meld them to a specific class. This may be too much/stepping on humans toes.
Dwarf: +2 con, +2 wis/+2 int (the int is campaign specific, Dwarves are a bit different in my setting)
Dragonborn: +2 str, +2 int/+2 Cha
Orcs: +2 str, +2 dex/+2 wis. (Wisdom is again, slightly campaign specific, though it could probably be made to work by standard. These take the place of Half-Orcs in my campaigns)
Warforged: +2 con, +2 str/+2 Int (intelligence because they have a fairly robotic, artificial intelligence type feel at times and are neither wise nor charismatic)
Goblins (Replace halflings in my setting): +2 dex, +2 int/+2 cha,
Tieflings: +2 int, +2 con/+2 charisma (not set in the con, may turn it into dex).
Deva: +2 Cha, +2 wis/con+2
None of the others really fit into my world.
Deva - WIS, INT/CHA (10)
Dragonborn - STR, INT/CHA (6); CHA, STR/CON (5); STR, CON/CHA (4)
Drow - CHA, DEX/WIS (8); DEX, WIS/CHA (6); DEX, INT/CHA (5)
Dwarf - CON, INT/WIS (10); CON, STR/WIS (5)
Eladrin - INT, DEX/CHA (14); DEX, INT/CHA (8)
Elf - DEX, STR/WIS (15); DEX, WIS/CON (4)
Gnome - INT, DEX/CHA (5); INT, CON/CHA (3)
Goliath - STR, CON/DEX (5); STR, CON/WIS (4); CON, STR/WIS (3)
Half-Elf - CHA, CON/DEX (8); CHA, STR/CON (3)
Halfling - DEX, WIS/CHA (8); DEX, CON/CHA (5)
Half-Orc - STR, CON/DEX (9); STR, DEX/WIS (3)
Tiefling - INT, CON/CHA (13); CHA, INT/CON (5)
This would be a great, fun, choice-friendly revision to the game. If there's anything I hate in any game is Option B or C "sucks" compared to Option A when it comes to power. Story-wise, I love characters whose stats don't always "fit" because the hooks and backstory jump out at you easily, making them instantly fun to RP.
There shouldn't be a gulf of difference in power though - some difference, of course, but not a gulf - when creating a character of one race and class vs. one of a different race but same class. Dragonborn paladins, half-orc paladins, halfling paladins - I'll take them all!
If I were to make the stat combinations up, I would do something like this. Most of them just because they fit the flavor I feel for the races.
Deva:Wis, Int/Cha (Not a huge fan of them being exclusively mental stat based, but it makes them good at a good number of divine classes)
Dragonborn:Str, Con/Cha
Drow:Cha, Dex/Wis (To have some be very good Sorcerers, others be very good Clerics/Paladins)
Dwarf:Con, Wis/Str (for good fighters and clerics among others)
Eladrin:Int, Dex/Cha (Mostly a flavor choice. Makes them good at more than just one Arcane Implement Mastery[given their resistance to charms being good at the Orb of Deception makes sense to me too] among other things)
Elf:Wis, Dex/Cha (part of me wants to make them Wis, Dex/Int so all of the "elven" races have different combinations but it does not fit, I also think Wis, Dex/Str might be good too)
Genasi:Int, Str/Con (they would be the quintessential Swordmages)
Gnome:Int, Cha/Con (To bring back the Rock Gnome and also the Dragonlance Gnome ability to survive explosions, I also considered Int, Cha/Dex but that would give them the same combo as Eladrin)
Goliath:Str, Con/Wis (admittedly, I don't much care for this race so I would be happy with practically every combination)
Half-Elf: Cha, Con/Wis or Con, Cha/Wis (can't decide)
Halfling:Dex, Cha/Wis
Half-Orc: Str, Dex/Con (all physical)
Kalashtar:Cha, Wis/Int (makes them at least marginally good at a number of psionic classes)
Tiefling:Int, Cha/Con (good at all types of Warlock, at that is all that matters to me)
Warforged:Con, Str/Dex (all physical, can be Warforged warriors or Warforged scouts [I played one in 3.5 and am saddened they are not back])
That is all.
As I said before, Kalashtar should not have Int. They should have Dex.
That is all.
Dex would allow them to be good monks, so I see how that could be helpful. Perhaps Wis, Cha/Dex would be a good choice?
As I said before, Kalashtar should not have Int. They should have Dex.
That is all.
Agreed.
I really think people need to stop with giving races certain ability score boosts because they want them to be good at certain classes. Sure, Kalashtar are quintessential Psions, but they're not actually any more intelligent than anybody else. They are sure as hell more graceful than most everybody else, though, so it should be DEX, not INT. A race doesn't need a primary ability score boost to be good at a class, either. Just ask any Dwarf Fighter.
As I said before, Kalashtar should not have Int. They should have Dex.
That is all.
Agreed.
I really think people need to stop with giving races certain ability score boosts because they want them to be good at certain classes. Sure, Kalashtar are quintessential Psions, but they're not actually any more intelligent than anybody else. They are sure as hell more graceful than most everybody else, though, so it should be DEX, not INT. A race doesn't need a primary ability score boost to be good at a class, either. Just ask any Dwarf Fighter.
Shhh, Crimson - you'll ruin everything!
I mean, for the vast majority of folks' decisions on third stat boost, that's all they've got to work with!
If they can't assign them based on classes they want them "to be good at", then they're mostly just arbitrarily assigned stat boosts.
And the idea that Int makes you good at Psionics is laughable. Only Psions like Int at this point in time. Wis covers every classes' second, and Cha covers secondary for Battlemind and Primary for Ardent. They're already amazing Ardents, but being amazing Monks makes a lot of sense too.
They don't seem the race to be more of the Psion type of Psionics.
But I have to say, the description of them as Graceful fits their archetype more: they're more Dex than Int.
I have cultural and specific arguments about other races too.
Is it already accepted though that Humans should have two choosable stats?
It's highly debated, with good points made on both sides.
Generally speaking, however, those who believe it to be acceptable for Humans to get two floating racial ability score bonuses agree that they should give something up for this, usually their racial defense bonuses.
+1 is always an odd thing here. It means you can set it up so that you end up with an ability modifier bonus up by 4th level, which is very powerful. It should be taken with great care when dealing with such an idea.
"What? Are you suggesting what I think you're suggesting?"
"Are you actually saying that it's 'REALLY POWERFUL' to bring a stat from an odd to an even by 4th level? If so, My PCs are all super broken. Okay, that might be a little true anyway, due to house rules, but I don't... Please tell me I'm misunderstanding you."
Is it already accepted though that Humans should have two choosable stats?
It's highly debated, with good points made on both sides.
Generally speaking, however, those who believe it to be acceptable for Humans to get two floating racial ability score bonuses agree that they should give something up for this, usually their racial defense bonuses.
Well I for one don't believe they should give up thier defense, no more than one of the other races should give up one of there racial traits to gain a secondary bonus.
Humans over all, are just simply verstile. After character creation, most of thier racial abilities are gone. They can't use more than one at-will a turn, Unlike other races who have the ability to use a minor action early on for racial abilities ect ect.
What about giving humans the current +2 to any stat and another +1 to another stat, while not as good as the non-human races it also retains some balence due to humans extra skill and feat.
Odd ability score adjustments have always been problematic in a game where ability score modifiers go up every even level. The intent of giving out a +1 bonus is, of course, to give out something more powerful than no bonus but less powerful than a +2 bonus, but that's not actually what happens. What actually happens is that it'll either come out to be exactly as useful as not giving any bonus at all or exactly as useful as a +2 bonus. It just doesn't do what it's intended to do.
Well I for one don't believe they should give up thier defense, no more than one of the other races should give up one of there racial traits to gain a secondary bonus.
Humans are different from other races, though. The difference here is exactly that the entire point of the Human defense bonuses was to counteract their not getting two ability score bonuses like the other races. I don't think that anybody's suggesting that they should totally remove the defense bonuses from the Human, just that their proposed update include an additional option in versatility in that they can choose to give up those bonuses for a second +2 any. Any Human can still decide not to make this trade.
Humans over all, are just simply verstile. After character creation, most of thier racial abilities are gone.
Yes, but versatility at character creation still means something and is still worth something.
I do not see how a +1 is any more powerful than a +2 to a stat.
It's not. You misunderstand. What makes it problematic is that it has the potential to be exactly as powerful as a +2 bonus while under the guise of being less powerful. OR it has the potential to be exactly as power as not getting any bonus at all while under the guise of being more powerful. It's only more powerful than not getting a bonus when it's exactly as powerful as a +2 bonus, and it's only less powerful than a +2 bonus when it's exactly as powerful as not getting a bonus at all. In either case, it never fulfills its intended purpose, to provide a benefit between getting a +2 bonus and not getting one at all.
Mechanics can be problematic and questionable without being overpowered.
Is it already accepted though that Humans should have two choosable stats?
It's highly debated, with good points made on both sides.
Generally speaking, however, those who believe it to be acceptable for Humans to get two floating racial ability score bonuses agree that they should give something up for this, usually their racial defense bonuses.
I'm still firmly in the camp that says, "Humans do not need to be altered inspite of this change, if this change comes"
I think +2 anywhere, and any feat you want is pretty good.
I do like the idea that someone posed to allow that specific feat (not ever feat a human gets) to be chosen from any race, so long as a human has the prerequisits. Such as, a Human could not take a feat like Bolstering Breath, but he could certainly take Eladrin Solider.
A "minor" tweek like that would be fine.
Also, I'd be all over that Gith Swordsman feat.
Well I for one don't believe they should give up thier defense, no more than one of the other races should give up one of there racial traits to gain a secondary bonus.
But all the other races do have to give something up. Minotaurs for example give up +CON to gain +WIS. Humans are already a good race as is, to grant them an extra stat bump without taking something else away wouldn't only be making them more versatile, but more powerful as well.
Well I for one don't believe they should give up thier defense, no more than one of the other races should give up one of there racial traits to gain a secondary bonus.
But all the other races do have to give something up. Minotaurs for example give up +CON to gain +WIS. Humans are already a good race as is, to grant them an extra stat bump without taking something else away wouldn't only be making them more versatile, but more powerful as well.
Part of me would be willing to go with it just because it means someone might actually play a human ...
Part of me would be willing to go with it just because it means someone might actually play a human ...
Yup, for all the sudden talk about how humans are already so powerful that it's OK for all other races to get a new trick while they can get by with what they already have, I fail to see all these human PCs at game days. Lot of different players, lot of different races and characters, yet almost no humans.
Before the possibility of getting a more free floating stat bump for all these other races came up, a lot of people said "yeah, humans might be a little bit weaker than anyone else, but that's because they get their versatility".
Now versatility is obviously no big deal at all, and it's in fact required for all the poor other older races to catch up to the overpowered human?
Also, I'd be all over that Gith Swordsman feat.
That's annother issue. DWT und ES were fine (the goliath version a little underpowered and should grant at least one superior proficiency). At first they were a little better than two feats in one at heroic tier, decreased to two feats in one in paragon tier and finally to a little worse than two feats in one at epic tier.
Yet suddenly the newer feats, like the githzerai feat and the new elven feats in recently dragon, are not just merely two feats in one throughout their entire career, they're actually 2.1 feats in one.
This effectively gives an improved version of one of the human racial traits to these races for many different classes.
The human avenger/fighter/barbarian/runepriest/paladin doesn't just now have essentially only the same number of feats than the githzerai avenger/fighter/...., even while spending his racial feat to try to catch up, he's still a little bit behind.
Humans are already a good race as is, to grant them an extra stat bump without taking something else away wouldn't only be making them more versatile, but more powerful as well.
When PHB1 came out, all 6 races were balanced with each other. Now with giving versatility to the other races, we have to adjust the human. In play, the original races are balanced with the PHB3 races no?
Well I for one don't believe they should give up thier defense, no more than one of the other races should give up one of there racial traits to gain a secondary bonus.
But all the other races do have to give something up. Minotaurs for example give up +CON to gain +WIS. Humans are already a good race as is, to grant them an extra stat bump without taking something else away wouldn't only be making them more versatile, but more powerful as well.
Part of me would be willing to go with it just because it means someone might actually play a human ...
Well this is pretty amazing, Salla and I have found something we can agree on.
Yes Humans are different from other races as such races are different from other races. Otherwise people would be complaining that Race X and Race Y are the same race, different names.
Saying that a Minotaur gives up con is kinda dumb. Cause if a human was able to select I dunno.. Con\Int as his stats.. He is giving up STR, DEX, WIS and CHA. Basically, this is nothing more than a strawman argument against humans. (After all, Minotaurs also gained +1 healing surges and a more expanded racial power.)
Saying that a Minotaur gives up con is kinda dumb.
How is that dumb? When you get to select between two options, you give up one to select the other. When a Minotaur takes +2 CON, it has given up +2 WIS. I'm not big on economics, but isn't that what's referred to as an "opportunity cost"?
Basically, this is nothing more than a strawman argument against humans. (After all, Minotaurs also gained +1 healing surges and a more expanded racial power.)
What exactly is the strawman here? Humans get racial features too. Furthermore, I'd be careful suggesting that the Minotaur racial power is in any way good.
Humans are already a good race as is, to grant them an extra stat bump without taking something else away wouldn't only be making them more versatile, but more powerful as well.
When PHB1 came out, all 6 races were balanced with each other. Now with giving versatility to the other races, we have to adjust the human. In play, the original races are balanced with the PHB3 races no?
Yes, humans could use an adjustment, but that needs to be improved VERSATILITY, not a straight increase in POWER, otherwise humans will actually gain an advantage rather the remain balanced. As, such trading their +1 to all NADs for a second stat bump is probably the best option.
Saying that a Minotaur gives up con is kinda dumb.
How is that dumb? When you get to select between two options, you give up one to select the other. When a Minotaur takes +2 CON, it has given up +2 WIS. I'm not big on economics, but isn't that what's referred to as an "opportunity cost"?
Now follow through on the logic here. When a Gith takes one stat, he gives up the other Correct? When the Changeling takes Dex, he gives up Int correct? Shardmind, Wilden, and every other race they all have to give up that other stat. Correct?
Unless you are going to point blank tell me that humans get all six stats when they would be created, Humans too also have to give up stats. A human who takes CON/INT has given up STR, DEX, WIS, CHA.
There is the opportunity cost right there. Very much like your beef with the minotaur, the human was initially poorly designed for the game that they created. They created a game that runs off a primary and a secondary stat. Very few builds run a single stat, and some even run multiple stats.
With the inclusion of hybrids, Humans, already in a terrible possition, fall even more. Because now they are limited to hybrids that run off that single stat.
Basically, this is nothing more than a strawman argument against humans. (After all, Minotaurs also gained +1 healing surges and a more expanded racial power.)
What exactly is the strawman here? Humans get racial features too. Furthermore, I'd be careful suggesting that the Minotaur racial power is in any way good.
Yes, humans have 2 racial features. an extra feat and a small defense bonus to the NADs. However thats how every race, (Except for the poorly designed Shifter races) runs.
The strawman, if you would have actually read what I posted, was that the Minotaur really didn't give anything up. Not any more than a human with two racial stats would have given up. The minotaur actually got slightly more powerful.
Furthermore, again read what I actually wrote. No where did I say that the power was Good. I only said it was expanded.
Humans are already a good race as is, to grant them an extra stat bump without taking something else away wouldn't only be making them more versatile, but more powerful as well.
When PHB1 came out, all 6 races were balanced with each other. Now with giving versatility to the other races, we have to adjust the human. In play, the original races are balanced with the PHB3 races no?
Yes, humans could use an adjustment, but that needs to be improved VERSATILITY, not a straight increase in POWER, otherwise humans will actually gain an advantage rather the remain balanced. As, such trading their +1 to all NADs for a second stat bump is probably the best option.
And I'm going to have to continue to disagree with you. Yes, being able to gain a secondary stat does increase power. How ever, as this game (As I'll say again and again) builds often focus on two stats, humans with all their VERSATILITY really have nothing going for them once the game begins.
Humans right now are like a one arm man in an episode of American Gladiators. And you are currently trying to tell me that if we were to give him a new arm, we would have to take away his giant cuetip thing. Or we could allow them to choose between blue, red, pink or purple giant cuetip thingies so they continue to be just versatile.
I think a +1 to a second stat would go along way to fixing this imbalence problem and make humans much more viable to players...
I'm confused. Didn't we just go over this?
Unless you are going to point blank tell me that humans get all six stats when they would be created, Humans too also have to give up stats. A human who takes CON/INT has given up STR, DEX, WIS, CHA.
There is the opportunity cost right there.
Yes, you're right, it is. Both are giving things up. The Minotaur is giving up +2 WIS for +2 CON, and the Human is giving up +2 STR or +2 DEX or +2 INT or +2 WIS or +2 CHA for +2 CON. The Human has more opportunities, yes, but it also has to give up more of those opportunities when it makes a selection.
Very much like your beef with the minotaur, the human was initially poorly designed for the game that they created.
I'm not sure that I agree with this entirely. Imagine, if you will, if Humans had gotten +2 to any two ability scores right from the beginning of 4E. As there are 15 possible ways to grant a race a +2 bonus to two ability scores and only 7 of these ways otherwise covered by the remaining PHB races, the Human could easily become too good, with 8 totally exclusive ability score bonus combinations. Now, of course, this isn't a problem any more, not now that the only ability score bonus combination that they would have exclusive access to would be +2 CON / +2 INT, but back then, I can see why it would have been a bit problematic. In any case, however, I do still agree that it's probably not too big of a deal any more.
Yes, humans have 2 racial features. an extra feat and a small defense bonus to the NADs.
Under the assumptions that the bonus trained skill makes up for the lack of racial skill bonuses, that the bonus at-will powers makes up for the lack of a racial power, and that the defense bonuses makes up for the lack of a second ability score bonuses, Humans are actually left with only a single racial feature, a bonus feat, which I think is fair for the massive amount of versatility and opportunity afforded to the Human, but with everybody else getting a boost in opportunity, versatility, and flexibility, I think that giving Humans the additional option to give up their defense bonuses for a second ability score boost is fair, especially since it's not so mechanically problematic anymore.
The strawman was that the Minotaur really didn't give anything up. Not any more than a human with two racial stats would have given up.
You're confusing me. Weren't you the one that just said that saying that saying that the Minotaur gives anything up is dumb? But now that's the strawman? And I understand that the Minotaur giving up one ability score for the other isn't a good argument against giving Humans a second ability score bonus, but I don't see how it's a strawman specifically, especially since I don't think that was the intent of the argument to begin with.
I think that all Tharag_Bocc was trying to say was that offering Humans an additional +2 any without asking it to give anything up would be similar to offering Tieflings +2 CON without asking it to give anything up (+2 CON, +2 INT, and +2 CHA). If, however, we were to ask the Tiefling to give up +2 INT to get the +2 CON, that would be balanced and in line with Minotaurs and the like. Similarly, if we're going to offer new options to the Humans, it's only natural, logical, and balanced that they give something up for that options, and the defense bonuses are the prime candidate, as they were granted to the Humans in the first place to counteract their not having a second ability score boost.
if you would have actually read what I posted
...
Furthermore, again read what I actually wrote.
Already? It's far too early in the discussion for that. I have read what you wrote. It makes sense to you because you wrote it, but the way that you wrote it makes no sense to me. That's why I'm asking you about it. I don't even disagree with you on any meaningful level yet, I don't think.
Will most parties just have 5 humans, or 4 humans and 1 quirky race?
Would the racial powers and other benefits (including exclusive feats) be enough to entice players to play other races?
Would players make the choice to play races not because of opitmization reasons but for Roleplaying reasons?
I'm beginning to think that this would be a good thing.
Humans can be good at anything, and can equal the races that have optimal stats for certain classes.
And thats the strawman, and why i said that saying minotaurs had to give up con is dumb.
What your asking is more like the tiefling having to give up their fire resistance in order to be able to switch the second stat.
This is all based of course on the notion of "What came first?" In other words, all races before phb3 were printed as X. However X is starting to show its age, and just how it doesn't really work out too well with the rest of the game. (Exception to this of course is the Changeling, but obviously WotC doesn't care about them.)
So since humans were initially printed as missing that second stat, any attempt to bring them so they could have a second stat is seen only a straight power boost. And since tieflings were printed with Cha and Int, it makes one belive that they give up Int in order to gain Con.
@Poostick
Yeah, I for one would actually consider humans a little more if they just gained another +2 to any stat. However, the other races, now they they don't have any penalty still would probally take over the most of my characters.
So I'd use humans when I need that versitility, when I need that clay pot to be in a specific shape. However the rest of the time, I'd probally play some other race that fits better.
And thats the strawman...
Even if you disagree with it, how is it a strawman? o_O
What your asking is more like the tiefling having to give up their fire resistance in order to be able to switch the second stat.
No, I don't think so. Humans were specifically given their defense bonuses to make up for the fact that they only got a single ability score boost, the same way that Eladrin or Goliath get +1 Will because both of their ability score bonuses go towards ability scores whose modifiers would go towards the same defense, so asking Humans to give those defense bonuses up for a second boost totally makes sense. Tieflings weren't given fire resistance because of anything having to do with ability score bonuses at all, so that wouldn't make any sense at all.
So since humans were initially printed as missing that second stat, any attempt to bring them so they could have a second stat is seen only a straight power boost.
Anything you grant to previous races is going to be a power boost, if not direct power then the power of having more options. This isn't necessarily a problem.
What if Humans got +2 to 2 Ability Scores, and +1 to one Defence not covered by either ability score and +1 to another Defence? Then they'd keep the same amount of power in terms of defences, get that second ability score to be up to snuff and everybody would be happy.
As someone who has stalked this thread as well as its many predecessors, I thing this is a safe solution. The one flaw -- it's a tiny flaw, but you have to admit that it'll give the designers pause -- is phrasing it succinctly in the rules. I dunno if "You gain a +1 racial bonus to Fortitude, Reflex or Will, and a +1 bonus to one of those defenses whose contributing ability scores you did not put your +2 into" works. Okay, that's actually not bad and people could probably get it. It's a good idea.
I'd like to think that if there is a change, Humans won't be 'left behind.' Wizards of the Coast will do this either to simply appease us (not likely for so shallow a reason) or to properly bring races into alignment with player character choices. As was said, it's a game about having two ability scores to focus on. Maybe people would often, perhaps more often than Wizards expected, choose a race to go with the class that best suited it. +2 to the stat seems herculean at 1st level, and that's the tier of play everyone starts in and gets an impression of game structure in. Giving all the races more versatility means that people are more willing to try out more combinations. It's the easiest and most visible form of optimization. Which is why I think Wizards cares. And knowing that part of it is having both ability score bonuses fit the class, Humans would lose out on the interest if they weren't given the boost.
I dunno if that's some original input there.
I... "appreciate" that one of the "Humans need a boost so that people will play them!" folks has said that he still wouldn't play humans.
By that, I mean of course that this wouldn't make me go "OH my goodness, humans are now just so awesome now, I'll play them for ever and ever."
But now it would give me the ability to at least choose to use them in good faith, seriously and not as just a starting point until I how to fit a race in better or because I don't like half-orcs.
@Crim.
Its a strawman is it basically is misrepresenting the actual facts here. And that is Race X gives up Stat A, So humans also have to give up thier racial trait.
Now I may have the fallicy wrong of course, but basically its using only half the Logic that was applied to the first race, and now attempting to apply it to the humans.
So the humans get a +1 to all Nads. You justify it as "They only had one stat, so they should get it." But also point out that other races who had double duty stats have something similar as well.
Will you be demanding that those races now have to give up there NAD increase because they gained verstility, or in the humans case, actually are now set up to be usable?
I mean, they were of course usable in the PHB days, but it was similar to how one uses a screwdriver as a hammer. It worked, but the constant focus on double stats, and inclusion of hybrids makes having that single stat very weak to most people.
If you're not seeing many people playing humans, it's nothing to do with them being underpowered. It's because people play D&D because they like fantasy and, to many people, humans are not a 'fantasy' race.
If humans are so hideously underpowered compared to other races, as some people here are claiming, then why do the CharOp handbooks for every single class in the game rate humans as blue or sky blue?
You mean just like the old races are also ranked blue or sky blue for many classes and yet people are now demanding them to get the PHB3 treatment to become blue or sky blue in even more combinations?
If you're not seeing many people playing humans, it's nothing to do with them being underpowered. It's because people play D&D because they like fantasy and, to many people, humans are not a 'fantasy' race.
That might be one of the reasons, the other is certainly that they're just much more often blue instead of sky blue and people forgo them for the sky blue.
However two freely placeable +2 are too much. There needs to be something else, something more minor.
If humans are so hideously underpowered compared to other races, as some people here are claiming, then why do the CharOp handbooks for every single class in the game rate humans as blue or sky blue?
If you're not seeing many people playing humans, it's nothing to do with them being underpowered. It's because people play D&D because they like fantasy and, to many people, humans are not a 'fantasy' race.
Its not that they are hideously underpowered. For that to happen they would have to be weaker.
CharOp boards though rate it because the human can fit most of the time. 90% of the time though, its because the person making the little handbook just doesn't really use them in play, or even run through character building senarios.
IF I was making a handbook myself, humans would be exactly in the middle of bad and good. Cause its not like trying to make a race that is totally incompatible with a class and attempting to make it work. Example would be a Deva assassin.
But if you want to drag CharOp into this, you can't just take the handbooks. You also have to take the builds. When is the last time you have seen any build in there that uses human? Especially one that works well.
But if you want to drag CharOp into this, you can't just take the handbooks. You also have to take the builds. When is the last time you have seen any build in there that uses human? Especially one that works well.
Some classes and class builds have a high dependence on their secondary ability. These include classes/builds wearing light armor (who don't have Dex or Int as the primary ability) and classes who depend on a secondary ability for a scaling benefit, such as a battle cleric's Wisdom or a resourceful warlord's Intelligence or Charisma. With these classes, an optimized character will probably have two ability bumps that align with the primary and secondary abilities.
Some classes and class builds don't have a high dependence on their secondary ability. Staff and tome wizards, swordmages of any stripe, bow rangers, sword-and-shield fighters... all of these work well as long as there's a bonus to the primary ability. Yeah, you still want the secondary for kickers, but the character still functions fine with -1 to that ability's modifier.
I think that the reason you don't see more humans on character optimization is that they've received much less useful racial support than many other races, in part because they don't have distinctive racial traits to improve. Action Surge and saving throw bonuses just aren't that sexy. Builds are also frequently given at level 30, or paragon at least. The human benefits of an extra at-will and an extra feat have the greatest effect at the heroic tier. If it's fair to build characters that only take off at level 11, then it's fair to note that some other builds would be better at levels 1-10.
I personally play a couple of human characters in LFR (a shielding swordmage and a Censure of Unity avenger), and both of them are plenty effective. I could have made them into another race with little difference, but at low levels, that extra feat and at-will really helps a lot. Both of them also appreciate the improved defenses, since they both stick in the middle of a fight.
@Crim.
Its a strawman is it basically is misrepresenting the actual facts here. And that is Race X gives up Stat A, So humans also have to give up thier racial trait.
I don't see where you think the misrepresentation is. What aren't you understanding?
Now I may have the fallicy wrong of course, but basically its using only half the Logic that was applied to the first race, and now attempting to apply it to the humans.
I don't think that's a strawman. I think that what you're trying to say is that it's a false analogy. Now, it's not a false analogy, but I think that's what you're trying to say.
So the humans get a +1 to all Nads. You justify it as "They only had one stat, so they should get it." But also point out that other races who had double duty stats have something similar as well.
I don't see why you think this premise is flawed.
Will you be demanding that those races now have to give up there NAD increase because they gained verstility, or in the humans case, actually are now set up to be usable?
Those races such as Eladrin and Goliath probably should give up their NAD boosts if their alternate racial ability score bonus option isn't going to require it the same way that their current racial ability score bonus combinations do.
Well then crim, you haven't really been paying attention to races, such as the changeling and the wilden.
I have no idea what you're talking about. The Changeling, Genasi, and Wilden don't get their defense boosts for the same reason that the Eladrin, Goliath, and Warforged get them. It has been specifically stated that the Eladrin, at the very least, got its +1 Will bonus because its DEX and INT bonuses go towards the same defense, and so without the racial defense boost, it would fall behing on defenses compared to other races. This logic extends to the Goliath and Warforged. The Changeling, Genasi, and Wilden, however, got their defense boosts for entirely different reasons, so they're not what I'm talking about.
Just look at all thier racial feats. A very large number are about surviving.
Die Hard
Don't count me out
Human Perseverance
Frantic Recovery
Stubbron Survivor
ect ect.
Well applying that logic, Humans got thier defense bonuses not because they had a match up, but because they are survivors...
No, that's not applying that logic at all. Applying that logic, what you should be seeing is that, due to their single ability score bonus, Humans will only benefit from a single defense bonus as a result of their ability score bonus, just like Eladrin and Goliath and Warforged. But of course, a single bonus isn't enough to bring Humans up to par like it is with those other races because Humans still only have a single racial ability score bonus, and an ability score is more than the bonus that it provides to a defense, so Humans get more than a single defense bonus to further compensate. If Humans were to gain a second racial ability score bonus, that would become irrelevant.
You are telling me that Eladrin, Goliaths and Warforged get there defense bonus because they have double duty stats, and thats why humans get not one, not two, but all three NADs because they have a single stat. Which doesn't add up. If Humans were suppose to match up like these races, then humans would have only 1.. MAYBE 2 NADs you get to choose, but not all three.
And this continues to malfunction when you also bring in Wilden, Changelings and Gensai. Two of these races don't have double duty, and the one that does was the first with a verstile stat as we are seeing now in PHB3. However, because logic 1 doesn't follow with this, you want me to ignore them, explaining that they get thiers for an entirely different reasons.
At which point, I give you the reason why Humans have all three NADs and not just a verstile defense to make up for the lost stat.
Also I said earlier something about giving humans as nothing but a power boost. I forget who, but someone said that exactly what it is. Yes and No. My point here was people are looking at it as though we got perfectly balanced races and that giving Humans the ability to finally have the second stat as bringing thier power level above others rather than it balancing it.
Course someone just recently starting saying things like "well while, humans suffer in 90% of the classes that focus more and more on single stats, These 10% classes (If we ignore certian aspects of the class) don't focus on two more more stats."
He brought up sword mages as an example. Yes, humans can play swordmages if we ignore all the times that it looks for stats other than Int. Heck, I could play a wizard who has 14 stats all the way across, and as long as my dice roll high every single time, there isn't a problem with it.
2 stat points, allowing to bump up from a 16 to an 18. How many points is that? I don't got the numbers right off hand, but if memory serves correctly, that is 7 points out of what? 28? Meaning that races with 2 stats (As in all of them) gain optimally, 7 points over humans in stats.
You are telling me that Eladrin, Goliaths and Warforged get there defense bonus because they have double duty stats, and thats why humans get not one, not two, but all three NADs because they have a single stat. Which doesn't add up. If Humans were suppose to match up like these races, then humans would have only 1.. MAYBE 2 NADs you get to choose, but not all three.
That doesn't follow, though, and the reason that doesn't follow is because an ability score boost is more than the bonus that it adds to a defense, an ability score boost is worth more than the bonus that it adds to a defense, so a single defense boost does not make up for the loss of an ability score boost. I could even MAYBE see it being only two, but only one would definitely not cover it.
And this continues to malfunction when you also bring in Wilden, Changelings and Gensai. Two of these races don't have double duty, and the one that does was the first with a verstile stat as we are seeing now in PHB3. However, because logic 1 doesn't follow with this, you want me to ignore them, explaining that they get thiers for an entirely different reasons.
There is no logical malfunction here. Different things can get the same thing for different reasons, and different things do get the same thing for different reasons. The Wilden, Changeling, and Genasi just get their defense bonuses because the developers got lazy with them and decided to give them a boring, unnecessary feature instead of coming up with something thematically interesting and unique.
At which point, I give you the reason why Humans have all three NADs and not just a verstile defense to make up for the lost stat.
And it's not a terrible explanation, but it's much less likely to be the reality, and even if it is, that doesn't stop the idea of the exchange from being the best solution to the Human's "problem".
I don't disagree with you that Humans could use a boost. I just don't think that there's any good reason to give it away for free when the much more obvious, intuitive, and balanced answer would be to give them the option to give up defense bonuses for that boost. I have yet to see a suggestion that works out as well.
There is no logical malfunction here. Different things can get the same thing for different reasons, and different things do get the same thing for different reasons. The Wilden, Changeling, and Genasi just get their defense bonuses because the developers got lazy with them and decided to give them a boring, unnecessary feature instead of coming up with something thematically interesting and unique.
Bullcrap. One, Changelings getting the +Will is not only thematically appropriate, it is thematically interesting, and it is explained. Two, that's your bias talking. You may think the deveolpers got lazy, but you actually have no idea. It's just that those things go against your deeply, near obsessively held beliefs about what 4e race design is supposed to be, something the develpers have repeatedly shown they don't agree with. Three, they're only unnecessary to you.
About the only thing you're right about here is the "different things can get the same things for different reasons" part, and them not being unique.
This is your logic loop, Mr. Unfailing Arbiter of All that Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM.
The Logic malfuctions on those three races, as a result you call it boring and unnecessarry and something that only laze developers would do. Which means that in order to not be lazy the developers would have to remove the the logics "Double Duty = +1 Def" function out of Eladrin Warforged and Golioths, only applying it when keeping the origanall Double duty defense stats. Which means that any race that ends up gaining a double duty stat set up, would have to then gain a defense bonus as well.
Which means that this becomes greater than just Multi-ability scores. It also becomes adding defenses into the races. But then there are some races that wouldn't get the defensive bonus. There are some that just were made from phb3 who didn't get it (Gith and Minotaur for example.) Races that were vestile that got it, should lose it.
And down and down we go.
What your asking is more like the tiefling having to give up their fire resistance in order to be able to switch the second stat.
Having Tieflings give up a racial trait, such as fire resistance, merely to gain the OPTION to exchange one of there current fixed stats would indeed be a bad trade (as it would be a double cost), but that's not an accurate comparison. Giving humans a second stat boost does a lot more than just increase their versatility, it flat out makes the race superior.
In the case of all the other old races, adding a flex stat creates a choice, do you play the old stat combo or the new one. Giving humans a second stat bump, without taking anything in exchange would be entirely different. It would never be a choice of play the old version or the new, because the new would ALWAYS be the the better choice. It would be like giving any other race a THIRD stat without making them give up one of their other stats.
Genasi, Changeling and Wilden are clear examples of something that breaks the double stat "rule". Warforged actually had Will defense before 4e ever even existed. So its actually more fair to say that Warforged got +2 str because they already had Will.
You say that if the humans gain another +2 stat to allow them to actually be verstile and be able to fit any class equally (This doesn't make them the best though) that they should lose thier survior defense. Because now that they have a second stat they no longer fall under your Logic Loop of Double stat Defense. (Or in this case a single stat defense.)
Which also goes on further to say that if any other race gains a choice in stats, they should lose their defence bonus as well. Which means now we regain the whole issue which you thing is suppose to be fixed for these races. And if they lose it, well what about the other races who didn't actually lose anything? Oh sure you can continue to use the strawman of "No look see! they had to lose Con in order to gain wisdom!" but that doesn't fly.
So you start having to add a defense in order stay within the logic loop, but that just gets ridiculous.
Or we could ignore the entire logic there, cut off the humans leg to use it as an arm so that its "Balanced" cause now they are tottally giving up something while no other race truely is when you actually stop to think about it.
What your asking is more like the tiefling having to give up their fire resistance in order to be able to switch the second stat.
Having Tieflings give up a racial trait, such as fire resistance, merely to gain the OPTION to exchange one of there current fixed stats would indeed be a bad trade (as it would be a double cost), but that's not an accurate comparison. Giving humans a second stat boost does a lot more than just increase their versatility, it flat out makes the race superior.
In the case of all the other old races, adding a flex stat creates a choice, do you play the old stat combo or the new one. Giving humans a second stat bump, without taking anything in exchange would be entirely different. It would never be a choice of play the old version or the new, because the new would ALWAYS be the the better choice. It would be like giving any other race a THIRD stat without making them give up one of their other stats.
This is exactly what i mean by it is only seen as a power bump and NOT something to balance the races in.
You are compleatly obssessed with the whole notion that other races give up something, while they truely don't.
In your example, this is not just giving another race a THIRD stat. This is giving a race a third stat when EVERY SINGLE OTHER RACE HAS THREE STATS and the entire game beyond the 1 or 2 builds focuses on THREE OR MORE STATS.
You are compleatly obssessed with the whole notion that other races give up something, while they truely don't.
But they do give something up, by way of opportunity cost. That's not an obsession, it's a fact. Had the PH3 Minotaur been STR+CON+WIS then it would be blatantly superior to every race that has come before for it. Giving humans a second stat without taking anything in exchange would be exactly the same as that.
If anyone here is obsessed it's you (and my good fried Crimson Concerto, but for different reasons mostly not relating to this particular thread
). You keep insisting that it is okay to just give humans a second stat for FREE, claiming that as they are now they are too underpowered. Which is just simply not true, on both accounts.In your example, this is not just giving another race a THIRD stat. This is giving a race a third stat when EVERY SINGLE OTHER RACE HAS THREE STATS and the entire game beyond the 1 or 2 builds focuses on THREE OR MORE STATS.
Yet humans are still blue for basically every class/build in the game. Being second best at every class/build (not counting ties) means that they are already a great grace. To give them a second stat bump will make them sky blue at EVERY class/build in the ENTIRE game. That kind of ULTIMATE versatility is in my opinion well worth the trade of the NADs, and is why some people think humans should lose a more significant class feature (such as the bonus feat or bonus at-will).
I for one don't see any of the older races loosing any of their current abilities as most of these are there for logical reasons that have little to do with gaming rules such as tiefling fire res. These are established cannon from novels and other writen media. To use the tiefling as a example they will not loose anything but may very well gain a variable either or stat and I am fine with it, I do not see any real imbalence issues with that. Now before everyone says I always say this here is my logic behind giving humans a single seconday stat of +1. First it makes humans much more versitile than they are now in every class. Second they do not need to loose any of their current abilities. Third the idea of a +1 being a huge boon to a player at 4th lvl is not going to cause a imbalence in the game, that is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.
There are a lot of classes that a human is ok at but how many are they really good at, the answer is none. Other races will be better every time and why is that? Was it by design or by accident? If it was by accident it is something Wizards needs to address soon. If it was by design what were they thinking, making the largest and most common race inferior to all the other races. I though this edition was all about balence but it is clear from reading these forums and from my experience that humans are not used for most of the reasons that have been stated in this thread. If humans are going to be truely versitle they really need a new look or they will just kind of fade away and that is truely sad.
Actually it has everything to do with the conversation. And no amount of smoke and mirrors is going to discract me from it.
You're starting to be the sort of unreasonable where it doesn't matter what I say because you've already made up your mind. And I think it's ironic that you keep going on about strawmen when the reality is that you're the one who ignored the substance of my post to attack an opinion that I totally recognize is an opinion and is totally irrelevant to the discussion.
Genasi, Changeling and Wilden are clear examples of something that breaks the double stat "rule".
No, the Genasi, Changeling, and Wilden do not break the paired racial ability score convention. They exist completely outside of it. If you really want to look for something that breaks that convention, I'll openly point you towards the Kalashtar.
You say that if the humans gain another +2 stat to allow them to actually be verstile and be able to fit any class equally (This doesn't make them the best though) that they should lose thier survior defense. Because now that they have a second stat they no longer fall under your Logic Loop of Double stat Defense. (Or in this case a single stat defense.)
No. If they gain another +2 any, then they should lose something because otherwise they would be overpowered. Their defense bonuses are just the prime candidate because the second ability score boost makes them less necessary. They'd have less impact because of diminishing returns, and having the option between them as the bonus feat (assuming that the bonus skill makes up for no racial skill bonuses and the bonus at-will power makes up for no racial power), the defense bonuses are less iconic to the race.
Which also goes on further to say that if any other race gains a choice in stats, they should lose their defence bonus as well. Which means now we regain the whole issue which you thing is suppose to be fixed for these races.
You misunderstand. Let me just use the Eladrin as an example and pretend that it's proposed alternative would be to give up DEX for CHA. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the proposition, but I've seen it around a couple of times. Now, the Eladrin racial ability score bonuses would then theoretically be "+2 INT and either +2 DEX or +2 CHA". One of these, DEX, has a defense overlap with INT. The other, CHA, does not. What I mean is not that the Eladrin should give up +1 Will in order to gain "+2 INT and either +2 DEX or +2 CHA", but merely to gain "+2 CHA". If it keeps the DEX, it keeps the Will. If if choses CHA instead, then it loses the will because it becomes redundant.
I hope that makes more sense now, because I think that you think that I was suggesting they should give up the bonus just to get the option to begin with, not as a result of the selection.
You are compleatly obssessed with the whole notion that other races give up something, while they truely don't.
But they do give something up, by way of opportunity cost. That's not an obsession, it's a fact. Had the PH3 Minotaur been STR+CON+WIS then it would be blatantly superior to every race that has come before for it. Giving humans a second stat without taking anything in exchange would be exactly the same as that.
If anyone here is obsessed it's you (and my good fried Crimson Concerto, but for different reasons mostly not relating to this particular threadIn your example, this is not just giving another race a THIRD stat. This is giving a race a third stat when EVERY SINGLE OTHER RACE HAS THREE STATS and the entire game beyond the 1 or 2 builds focuses on THREE OR MORE STATS.
Yet humans are still blue for basically every class/build in the game. Being second best at every class/build (not counting ties) means that they are already a great grace. To give them a second stat bump will make them sky blue at EVERY class/build in the ENTIRE game. That kind of ULTIMATE versatility is in my opinion well worth the trade of the NADs, and is why some people think humans should lose a more significant class feature (such as the bonus feat or bonus at-will).
People assigining humans blue and sky blue in thier handbooks means very little of anything actually. After all, in the handbooks we get such insightful things as "Weee! I'm a Kobold" and "This power is truely terrible, move on."
If you really were to have a GOOD handbook, humans would rate black, even purple almost every time. (Though with the inclusion of Gold as a new color, blue/sky blue are not the highest rated.) Tell me, how many handbooks have an upside down bell curve when it comes to races?
Most of the choices in color of handbooks are based more on opinion than hard fact. After all, the one time I tried to make a handbook for the assassin, I was quickly attacked for having the opinion that assassin's escape was a great feat because it gave you the ability to live longer.
When I started up the JTF handbook, which was suppose to be balanced between three peoples opinions.. (Until Bouncyferrett and VD suddenly disappeared) we started coming up with a more inclusive rating system than saying "Oh I like this race, but don't like this one." then putting a color on each. We even started to design assassins for races that did NOT have the best stats for the class.
Basically, what I'm saying is stop pointing at the handbooks, and focus more towards the builds and find how many are humans who Actually work well as a human and not as other races.
@ Crim,
No I did not misunderstand. Basically what you are saying is that these races not only have to "give up" thier stat (As Thaocc keeps saying they do) but then they also lose one of thier racial traits because it doesn't fall with in your logic wheel. Which means races who have these "give up" more than races who don't.
Then if say Elves get dex/int (for example.) then they would have to gain a defense bonus as well to continue with this logic.
Humans who take Int/Dex would also still continue to need a defense bonus because now they have the double stat defense.
Kalashter, Changeling, Wilden, Minotaur, Githyanki, and Genasi would also require changes to defense. If we are going to do it for one, we should do it for all of them.
And No dispite your claims of such, I'm not ignoring your substance...
According to you, Mr. Arbiter, the defense bonus causes very little impact. Which leads me to wonder, if it has such little impact.. why even remove it at all? If it has little impact, then the rest of the races defensive bonuses also have little impact, (In fact, less impact).
How can someone be OVERPOWERED!! with something that causes so little impact, when you have races like the Revenant who has the ability to ignore the dying status, the dwarf who cannot be forcefully moved or knocked down easiliy, the warforged who can ignore any failed death save, the kalaster who can roll to save before thier turn..
The only one who has tried to give any point towards how the humans would be totally overpowered is Bocc, as futile as the attempts are thus far because he keeps pointing towards the random joe schmoo who decided he wanted to make a handbook and colored humans blue or sky blue.
People assigining humans blue and sky blue in thier handbooks means very little of anything actually. After all, in the handbooks we get such insightful things as "Weee! I'm a Kobold" and "This power is truely terrible, move on."
Maybe, but considering that there are multiple guides by multiple authors, I think at least some truth can be gleaned through cross comparison.
Most of the choices in color of handbooks are based more on opinion than hard fact.
Yes opinion is a factor, but basic race to class value is reasonably analytical in nature. If a race has both the appropriate primary an secondary stats then it is generally sky blue, if it only has the primary then it is blue, if it only has the secondary then it is black, if it has neither the primary or secondary then it is purple. Certainly there are expiations based on synergistic/anti-synergistic racial traits, but the preceding is still the general rule.
As such humans are pretty much guaranteed blue status in every class, especially as their bonus feat is perhaps one of the best racial traits in the game, and the bonus at-will is nearly as good (or even better) depending on class. About the only class/build combination they are bad at is balanced V-classes, where the lack of a second stat bump makes it mostly impossible to attain an 18 in both primaries (though even at that, their extra at-will can make trying at least tempting).
For example, the Human could start out with the following pointbuy:
17 (20), 16, 11, 10, 10, 8
Which equals:
18 (20), 14 (16), 11, 10, 10, 8
Alternatively, the Human could start out with:
18 (21), 14, 11, 10, 10, 8
And occasionally enjoy the advantage whenever boosting the prime ability evenly.
This is sort of the opposite of the original 4e design, but what if the Human got a +3 to a single chosen ability score, whereas all the other races got +2 to two chosen ability scores?
For example, the Human could start out with the following pointbuy:
17 (20), 16, 11, 10, 10, 8
Which equals:
18 (20), 14 (16), 11, 10, 10, 8
Alternatively, the Human could start out with:
18 (21), 14, 11, 10, 10, 8
And occasionally enjoy the advantage whenever boosting the prime ability evenly.
Your last line demonstrates the problem. Either the +3 is no better than a +2, and thus of no benefit, or the +3 is the same as a +4, which is more than you're given.
For the eleventy billionth time, in the present D&D system, ODD ABILITY SCORE BONUSES DO NOT WORK.
I agree with your logic about why odd ability bonuses are problematic: either the resulting scores are too powerful or not powerful enough.
Actually, now, I strongly agree.
A character that is sometimes too powerful at certain levels and sometimes not powerful enough at other levels, inherently violates the character advancement table, means the character will never be level-appropriate for monster encounters, and is necessarily a broken design.
I hereby abandon all further explorations of 'odd ability bonuses'.
@tharag After a certain point the extra at will is something you rarely if ever use and while it maybe a small advantage at lvls1-5 after that at wills take a back seat to encounters and dailies and even at lower lvls you still can only use one at will per turn, this is not that big of a help.
From what I can see here there is no way of fixing the human race without a very big errata; most people that have posted here either say just give humans a second +2 to another stat which in mind is too much without humans loosing something or give them another +2 and loose one of their current abilities. If that is the route wizards goes I hope they drop the extra at will power as it is from your own class. This does not promote versatility to me and if something must go I would suggest that over the def bonus. I do agree that a +3 is too high of an bonus and no stat should be able to excede 20 at lvl 1.
Your last line demonstrates the problem. Either the +3 is no better than a +2, and thus of no benefit, or the +3 is the same as a +4, which is more than you're given.
For the eleventy billionth time, in the present D&D system, ODD ABILITY SCORE BONUSES DO NOT WORK.
YES they actually do (I couldn't keep up the shouting), and it's outdated thinking to believe they don't.
Under 3e, odd ability score bonuses supposedly didn't work well because the default assumption for character generation was still random die rolls. So the trick was to give the same bonus or penalty to the person who rolled a 13 as to the person who rolled a 12. Odd bonuses were more valuable to somebody who had rolled odd than someone who rolled even. Of course they were never actually as bad as all that, since ability score increases over 20 levels were odd, and feat requirements always caused an odd score. And in the case of a floating +1, like what we're discussing for a human, it's almost always useful, since odds are at least one of your scores will be an odd one you can bring to the next higher rank.
But, in 4e, the default rule is point buy, and the bonuses aren't really "+2" as they are a variable discount on the cost to buy a particular score. Odd and even scores are merely choices with various costs along a spectrum, and a +1 is always a smaller boost than a +2 on that spectrum.
For instance: I want to start play with a 18 dexterity, this costs me 16 points to do, assuming I assigned a beginning score of 10 (as opposed to an 8). If I play an elf, it only costs me 9 points, the cost of a 16, thus saving me 7 points that I can now assign to something else, like strength or charisma.
On the other hand, a +1 bonus, like many want to give the theoretical human, would allow me to save 4 points rather than 9, which is a pretty nice deal, and about half the value of a +2.
A +2/+2 to the primary/secondary stats of a class is equal to 14 extra build points assuming you want to start with 18/18.
A +2/+1 is equal to 11 extra build points. In every other build option (18/16, 20/14, etc.) it's worth less.
A floating +1 can be better than a fixed +2, assuming the fixed +2 is not going to be applied to a primary or secondary ability. For instance, a +1 taking a Con score from 17 to 18 (4 points) is more valuable to a battlerage fighter than the +2 to charisma (2 points) for being a dragonborn. Most of the time though, even those are worth exactly the same amount (2 points to go, say from 15 to 16 adds the same amount of points as going from 8 to 10). Of course not all stats are created equal, but if one planned to spend any points at all on an ability, then a fixed +2 is as good or better than a floating +1.
In point buy, odd bonuses work just fine.
No I did not misunderstand. Basically what you are saying is that these races not only have to "give up" thier stat (As Thaocc keeps saying they do) but then they also lose one of thier racial traits because it doesn't fall with in your logic wheel. Which means races who have these "give up" more than races who don't.
Not true at all.
Let's look at, I don't know, the Wilden. It gets +2 WIS and either +2 CON or +2 DEX. When a Wilden gives up it's +2 CON for its +2 DEX, it loses the +1 Fortitude attached to +2 CON and instead gains the +1 Reflex attached to +2 DEX, a balanced trade option. Alternatively, let's look at the Shardmind, which gets +2 INT and either +2 WIS or +2 CHA. When a Shardmind gives up its +2 WIS for its +2 CHA, it loses the +1 Will attached to +2 WIS but gains the +1 Will attached to +2 CHA, another balanced trade options.
If on the other hand, we were to look at a hypothetical Eladrin with +2 INT and either +2 DEX or +2 CHA, then we'd see that when it gives up its +2 DEX for it's +2 CHA, it doesn't give up the +1 Reflex attached to +2 DEX it because that becomes covered by its +2 INT. Instead, there is only a net gain of +1 Will from +2 CHA, which is not a balanced trade. Therefore, unless that racial +1 Will boost becomes attached to the +2 DEX, an Eladrin giving up its +2 DEX for +2 CHA is in fact giving up less than the aforementioned Wilden and Shardmind. Understand now?
Then if say Elves get dex/int (for example.) then they would have to gain a defense bonus as well to continue with this logic.
Humans who take Int/Dex would also still continue to need a defense bonus because now they have the double stat defense.
Sure, I don't see a problem with that.
Kalashter, Changeling, Wilden, Minotaur, Githyanki, and Genasi would also require changes to defense. If we are going to do it for one, we should do it for all of them.
The Kalashtar and Minotaur could certainly use some work, sure, but I don't see what you think that I think is wrong with the Changeling, Wilden, Githyanki, or Genasi, at least not mechanically; I'm not totally thrilled with them, but I'm not suggesting that they should require any change. I would welcome one, but that's not really relevant.
(EDIT: Also, Githyanki are an NPC race, not a PC race, so they're even less relevant. I was thinking that you meant Githzerai.)
According to you, Mr. Arbiter, the defense bonus causes very little impact.
I never said that. I said that the defense bonus is boring and unoriginal, at least when it comes to races that don't require them due to the established convention. That's not the same thing as causing very little impact.
EDIT:
In point buy, odd bonuses work just fine.
It's not as simple as you think that it is, and even if it were, that wouldn't mean that it should be done. Odd ability score bonus still screw with the system because of the deliberate manipulation they require to provide an actual bonus as their end result or else end up equivalent to no bonus at all.
In point buy, odd bonuses work just fine.
It's not as simple as you think that it is, and even if it were, that wouldn't mean that it should be done. Odd ability score bonus still screw with the system because of the deliberate manipulation they require to provide an actual bonus as their end result or else end up equivalent to no bonus at all.
Yes, it is as simple as I think it is. Odd ability scores do EXACTLY the same thing that even ability scores do, in a point buy system. They make it cheaper to buy the score you want. There's nothing any more random or complicated about it than an even bonus.
Deliberate manipulation is not a bug in point buy system, it's the intended feature.
The consequences of using the Human Racial Bonus feat for this:
* For skills, the Human is about equal. A wash.
* For powers, the Human has a racial at-will power, while others have racial encounter-powers. A wash?
* For offense, the Human becomes par with other races if he splits between two stats. Wash.
* For offense, the Human becomes slightly more powerful if he concentrates on a single stat. Positive vs non-Human.
* For defenses, the Human ends up with +1 on his off-save vs other races. Minor positive vs non-Human.
* For feat prerequisites, the Human remains at a disadvantage. Negative vs non-Human.
* For effect riders, the Human remains at a disadvantage. Negative vs non-Human.
@tharag After a certain point the extra at will is something you rarely if ever use and while it maybe a small advantage at lvls1-5 after that at wills take a back seat to encounters and dailies and even at lower lvls you still can only use one at will per turn, this is not that big of a help.
It really depends very much on class role. Notably controllers tend to make the best use out of the third at-will, both because of increased NAD coverage and freedom to select more situational powers (powers that might not get used very often, but matter quite a bit whenever they come into play). Also, while the lack of a second stat bump make the race's hybrid options more limited, having a third at-will that can be from either class can come in very handy.
It might often seem like a waste of an ability because the third at-will doesn't get used very often, but the important thing to remember is that it is mostly the replacement for the encounter power most other races get. As long is it comes into play on AVERAGE 1/encounter it is serving its purpose. It might go completely unused in some encounters but in others it might be the primary power used. Even the best racial powers aren't guaranteed to be useful every encounter (Elven Accuracy doesn't do much good when you dice are hot, while Dwarven Resilience means almost bup in any fight were you take little to no damage).
From what I can see here there is no way of fixing the human race without a very big errata; most people that have posted here either say just give humans a second +2 to another stat which in mind is too much without humans loosing something or give them another +2 and loose one of their current abilities. If that is the route wizards goes I hope they drop the extra at will power as it is from your own class. This does not promote versatility to me and if something must go I would suggest that over the def bonus. I do agree that a +3 is too high of an bonus and no stat should be able to excede 20 at lvl 1.
The human race as it currently stands isn't broken, a bit lackluster and dull, but very useful if properly exploited. They aren't in need of any major overhauls, just a few minor tweaks.
As for versatility, I think you have the wrong idea of what kind of versatility humans are supposed to represent. Humans are as a RACE very versatile, capable of functioning quite well in any class, but INDIVIDUAL humans aren't all that versatile. The extra at-will isn't a versatility trait it's a specialists trait, representing the a human's ability to be excel at the whatever particular class they have chosen.
Half-Elves are the race that is meant to represent versatility at the individual level.
What your asking is more like the tiefling having to give up their fire resistance in order to be able to switch the second stat.
Having Tieflings give up a racial trait, such as fire resistance, merely to gain the OPTION to exchange one of there current fixed stats would indeed be a bad trade (as it would be a double cost), but that's not an accurate comparison. Giving humans a second stat boost does a lot more than just increase their versatility, it flat out makes the race superior.
In the case of all the other old races, adding a flex stat creates a choice, do you play the old stat combo or the new one. Giving humans a second stat bump, without taking anything in exchange would be entirely different. It would never be a choice of play the old version or the new, because the new would ALWAYS be the the better choice. It would be like giving any other race a THIRD stat without making them give up one of their other stats.
That's the point. Admitting that the original concept is inferior and updating it. Now it's not by that much that a second +2 would be justified, it's far from it. However a little something is appropriate
You could just make a Human Only feat that grants a +1 racial attack bonus.
Granting the Human a +1 racial bonus to attacks ...
Thats a worthy suggestion!
It doesnt need to be a feat. (It would be a musthave anyway, that all Humans would be 'forced' to take. And its probably better if the Half-Elf cant take it.) Errata could simply add it as a new racial trait in addition to the +1 'Human Defense Bonuses'. Id call the attack bonus trait 'Human Aggression', tho by convention it would probably be called the 'Human Attack Bonus'.
Granting the +1 attacks also expresses excellent flavor because ... objectively speaking, in reallife, humans are a highly aggressive species. 'The most dangerous animal on the planet.' Moreover, this aggression can be thru any mode - whether gore-slashing weapons or rarified erudite spells - a particularly Human form of adaptability.
Mechanically, the current +1 defenses plus a +1 attacks, together goes a long way to compensate for the loss of the extra ability bonus that the other races get. While +1 attacks doesnt sound like much, its a *racial* bonus that can stack with every other type of attack bonus, giving the Human a real edge that lasts from level 1 to level 30.
This is a suggestion that deserves everyones attention, whether they feel the human should get +2 to two ability scores or not.
In point buy, odd bonuses work just fine.
I'm curious (in part, becuase I like your post and breakdown - it at least lets us know exactly where you're coming from), but...
How does this suggestion deal with the fact that rolled stats are, still, an "Official" Ability Score Generation Method (#3, to be exact)?
I would think while most people now use the character builder to create their characters the point buy system is the most common and if you make a LFR or WPN character you have to use the point buy system.
A feat for humans only (Specifically says No half elves or revenants) that gives the +2 stat bonus.
Reason being, If a revenant is capable of having two stats and can take a feat to gain the tripple defense, then should not the Human be able to do the reverse?
Feats should be nice, not required.
Feats provide a plethora of options to customize characters. The game must not force characters to lose this valuable customizability by forcing them to take specific feats, thus killing their freedom of choice.
Dont use feats to fix known design problems. In most situations, just errata the problem itself.
For example, if the Human race feels underpowered, then errata the race with a carefully thought-out boost to the Human racial traits.
Another problem with using feats to fix design problems is it discourages newbies from playing D&D. Newbies dont know enough to know there are problematic technical rules. They dont know that certain feats are required to fix certain design problems. They dont know their characters must take these feats to have a balanced gaming experience. Only 'rules lawyers' who have attained game-mastery can benefit from feats that fix design problems.
Another problem with using feats to fix design problems is the feats become vastly unequal in power because the problems they would fix have unequal impacts on the gaming balance. For example, the current Expertise feats correct the problem of imbalance between monsters and adventurers, to successfully hit. As is, the Expertise feats are strictly better than most other feats, is a musthave that almost all character concepts should take, and reduce the ability of players to customize their characters by choosing more interesting (but relatively less powerful) feats. 'Fixer feats' kill customizability.
If theres a design problem, just errata it. Leave feats alone.
This allows you to exchange the bonus feat for a stat bonus without having to create some messy erratta of removing the defense stats because now they have 2 stats, but giving them the ability to gain a defense stat because they have double duty stat.
Which further breaks into other races because now some races lose the double duty stat, thus lose the dense bonus, while others gain it.
That would be all true if humans didn't gain a bonus feat.
Which was a nice feature at release but with more racial "two-in-one-feats" released it becomes hollowed out more and more
That would be all true if humans didn't gain a bonus feat.
Which was a nice feature at release but with more racial "two-in-one-feats" released it becomes hollowed out more and more
Yeah, a lot of people don't realize the human extra feat is literally just a trick. So many other races have excellent feat compression in things like _____ Weapon Training that the extra feat really just means little to nothing.
Mildly Ranty
Just like the Changeling did.
Just like the lack of V-classes beyond PH1 causes an imbalance when you compare new classes to those in the PH1.
Snippy sarcasm aside, I went back up and pulled this quote down to say: I really wish they hadn't done the alternating stats, because now we have all of this mess (several times over), which seems to slowly flow from "We need to do this to be fair..." to "We need more power!" (see: Humans).
Folks wanted to abandon +2/-2 stats, because the penalties limited character choices. So we went to +2/+2.
Now folks apparently want to abandon +2/+2 stats, because the lack of bonuses limit character choices. So we'll go to +2/+2or+2.
I wonder what we'll eventually get to? +2 to all? Floating +2/+2 for every race? (Though when you look, both seem pointless - +0 to all, with slightly increased point buy totals, would have the same effect.)
Which isn't to say that I think any of these are bad ideas. I wouldn't be completely surprised to see one of those implemented in a future edition. I think they're all bad ideas for right now.
Let me say something before I start here, I think giving the new races a secind variable stat was one of the worst ideas I have seen wizards come with. It has caused a imbalence when you compare those races to the ones written before PHB3.
Just like the Changeling did.
Just like the lack of V-classes beyond PH1 causes an imbalance when you compare new classes to those in the PH1.
Snippy sarcasm aside, I went back up and pulled this quote down to say: I really wish they hadn't done the alternating stats, because now we have all of this mess (several times over), which seems to slowly flow from "We need to do this to be fair..." to "We need more power!" (see: Humans).
Folks wanted to abandon +2/-2 stats, because the penalties limited character choices. So we went to +2/+2.
Now folks apparently want to abandon +2/+2 stats, because the lack of bonuses limit character choices. So we'll go to +2/+2or+2.
I wonder what we'll eventually get to? +2 to all? Floating +2/+2 for every race? (Though when you look, both seem pointless - +0 to all, with slightly increased point buy totals, would have the same effect.)
Which isn't to say that I think any of these are bad ideas. I wouldn't be completely surprised to see one of those implemented in a future edition. I think they're all bad ideas for right now.
But considering races like the Revenant and the Gnoll, both are Con/Dex. Right now, with a stats only matchup that means that in classes, they can only be Bleak Assassins for the fullest power. There is no other class out there that uses both Dex and Con as a primary and secondary. There are some that use both as secondarys.
Allowing them to switch out just about any stat for there secondary, would greatly increase the number of classes these two can do, by at least 100% however it would be more like 400-500%. This is of course ONLY when matching up stats, not taking into account ANYTHING else.
Human I Am
Prerequisite: Human Bonus Feat racial feature.
Special: This feat can only be taken as the human bonus feat.
Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to an ability score to which you did not apply your racial ability score adjustment. Once per encounter, when you fail an ability check or skill check associated with this ability score, you may reroll the check. You must use the second result.
This is just one (mild) example of what could be done. Another option could be to make 6 of these feats, one for each ability score and attach some crazy encounter power to each ability modifier. There is a lot of design space that can be used within the feat mechanic to provide a solution to the apparent human extinction problem, to make humans a bit more mechanically interesting and powerful. (I say "apparent" because in games I've played, LFR and otherwise, I've seen my share of humans, and even played one.)
Personally I think the feat is the verstile leg of the humans, while the defenses are are their survivor side. Making it a simple feat fix would remove any real need for messy erratta on the humans, and since they have a bonus feat, all you are doing is replacing there starting trait with a +2 stat bonus (and as mengu says, possible a small rider)
Well how about this Mr. Abriter.
A feat for humans only (Specifically says No half elves or revenants) that gives the +2 stat bonus.
Reason being, If a revenant is capable of having two stats and can take a feat to gain the tripple defense, then should not the Human be able to do the reverse?
Meh. It's not the worst possible solution, but I still don't think that it's the best one either. The Human's bonus feat is more mechanically iconic to the race than the defense bonuses, so given the choice between the two, I'd still rather they have to give up the defense bonuses than the bonus feat. I won't deny that solution to have its own merits, however. Not needing to go back and alter an existing race is definitely not a bad thing, but I question whether it's really necessary if they're going to go back and alter the other existing races anyways...
Cause you know, new players know things get errattad all the time an thus go and look it up. Like the ones who still keep using the old version of Bloodclaw weapons and battle vigor rager fighters.
Hell, i've seen games where you can draw new players a map, show them exactly where to go in the map, and they still can't figure it out.
Well how about this Mr. Abriter.
A feat for humans only (Specifically says No half elves or revenants) that gives the +2 stat bonus.
Reason being, If a revenant is capable of having two stats and can take a feat to gain the tripple defense, then should not the Human be able to do the reverse?
Meh. It's not the worst possible solution, but I still don't think that it's the best one either. The Human's bonus feat is more mechanically iconic to the race than the defense bonuses, so given the choice between the two, I'd still rather they have to give up the defense bonuses than the bonus feat. I won't deny that solution to have its own merits, however. Not needing to go back and alter an existing race is definitely not a bad thing, but I question whether it's really necessary if they're going to go back and alter the other existing races anyways...
Well if they ain't going back to "fix" the other races, then Oh well. I for one will continue to ignore humans and play only races that match nicely with stats or have much cooler abilities.
Like Revenants.
I for one will continue to ignore humans and play only races that match nicely with stats or have much cooler abilities.
Yay! Let's give more support to this attitude! (
) More support for players who only play races that "match nicely" (Pimary/Secondary seems to be the implication) with classes.
Greeaaaat.
Anecdotes!
And because folks kept throwing in anecdotal "never seen a human" episodes...
Humans have been the most prevelant race at my tables since I, and my players, switched to 4th edition. Primary stat, at-will, feat, defenses, extra skill - all are the general "free choice" stuff that my players like, which allows them to play Human-Any-Class, and be great.
And because folks kept throwing in anecdotal "never seen a human" episodes...
Humans have been the most prevelant race at my tables since I, and my players, switched to 4th edition. Primary stat, at-will, feat, defenses, extra skill - all are the general "free choice" stuff that my players like, which allows them to play Human-Any-Class, and be great.
Now, given the realities of available races (22 races, minimum, by my count), humans are massively over-represented in my playgroup, and the other 4th-edition groups I've seen. Heck, if, on average, folks are seeing [x-race] characters better than 1-in-20, they're over-represented.
And heck, I forgot about Dragon races.
So, those stat-choices seem nice, but even we were a bit confused how we should handle the PHB III races balance-wise. Add choices to the older races? cut away one option? Right now, playing one of those races would "feel wrong"
Oh and about humans... we got 2 humans, 1 dwarf and 1 tiefling in our group... so yes, humans are played (we're - however - a band of adventurers from Cormyr, so humans seem natural ;) )
I for one will continue to ignore humans and play only races that match nicely with stats or have much cooler abilities.
Yay! Let's give more support to this attitude! () More support for players who only play races that "match nicely" (Pimary/Secondary seems to be the implication) with classes.
Greeaaaat.
Anecdotes!
And because folks kept throwing in anecdotal "never seen a human" episodes...
Humans have been the most prevelant race at my tables since I, and my players, switched to 4th edition. Primary stat, at-will, feat, defenses, extra skill - all are the general "free choice" stuff that my players like, which allows them to play Human-Any-Class, and be great.
Now, given the realities of available races (22 races, minimum, by my count), humans are massively over-represented in my playgroup, and the other 4th-edition groups I've seen. Heck, if, on average, folks are seeing [x-race] characters better than 1-in-20, they're over-represented.
And heck, I forgot about Dragon races.
As far as Humans are concerned, I already give my own folks two +2 to any two stats option. It doesn't make Human's any more powerful then any other race: some piddly defenses, and an extra feat/skill/at-will means nothing in 4E, not since PHB2 at least. This is from my experience of course, which may vary with the mileage for others.
Eladrin Paladin, Tiefling Warlock, Gnoll Wizard, and I can't remember the cleric, other warlock and the sorcerer, but I do know they weren't humans.
One player was baffled on the whole subject, as he wondered why anyone would want to play a human.
Now one thing I do know is Warforged have always had a good will save, as have changelings. I can't say much about the other double duty races, because Eladrin were a monster race in 3.5 and i forgot what the other one was.
Adding an extra racial bonus isn't really going to help on that front. As you had suggested that you would do, I would guess that the folks around you still wouldn't play humans over other races.
Now one thing I do know is Warforged have always had a good will save, as have changelings. I can't say much about the other double duty races, because Eladrin were a monster race in 3.5 and i forgot what the other one was.
You're wrong about warforged. In 3.5 they had no special bonus to Will saves. In fact, their racial penalty to Wisdom plus stats that lined up poorly with most classes that had high Will meant that a typical warforged would have a rather low Will save. Although they could pursue the Warforged Juggernaut prestige class which granted immunity to mind-affects (which covered most effects that might require a Will save). Personally I would have given the 4e warforged race a +1 to Fortitude defense instead of Will, to represent their formerly impressive list of immunities to various physical effects.
Also, changelings didn't have a blanket bonus to Will, just sleep and charm (not sure about dopplegangers though). That covers a fair number of Will based effects, but not all (notably fear and generic mind-affecting abilities). Though in this case I think the bonus to Will defense is a reasonably fitting adaptation.
Dex as the third ability choice would fit the only iconic warforged hero we have - Pierce.
I think Warforged should be Con - Str/Dex.
Dex as the third ability choice would fit the only iconic warforged hero we have - Pierce.
I would give them CON - STR/INT, because I think they should make good Battle Artificers.
And because folks kept throwing in anecdotal "never seen a human" episodes...
Oh awesome. I often play humans. In 4th ed home-games I have 2 in 6 humans (two of those were group-mandated races). In LFR I had 3 in 9 humans. Also in Pathfinder I have 3 for 3 humans.
I love whenever people say "there's never any humans around." I often play humans and particularly in Pathfinder I bump into them an awful lot. Most people who seem to avoid playing humans are min/maxers. And if you're a min/maxer that's fine. I'll probably avoid playing with you, but if you're having fun that's all that matters.
we tend to min/max less, just trying to abvoid "harder" Race/class comboes (like uhm... half-orc bard or dwarf wizard or such things)
In one of my "race mandated" parties (where we all had to be the same race) we've got a dwarven wizard.
One player was baffled on the whole subject, as he wondered why anyone would want to play a human.
Because I enjoy the roleplaying opportunities provided by playing a human. But if you're playing LFR roleplaying opportunities probably aren't too high on your list of priorities.
They could always just fix humans and just leave the rest alone and call the few races with variable stats an accident.
I don't think humans need to be "fixed", but I wouldn't mind them getting some more interesting human feats.
Heck, with all of the talk of other racial weapon feats earlier in the thread, even something like this would go a ways toward satisfying me:
Human Weapon Specialization [Human]
Prerequisite: Human
Benefit: Choose a weapon. You gain proficiency with that weapon, and gain a +2 feat bonus to damage rolls with that weapon. [If you use/allow the +2/3/4 scaling, then add:] This bonus increases to +3 at 11th level and +4 at 21st level.
Heck, you could even toss in this, too:
Human Implement Specialization [Human]
Prerequisite: Human
Benefit: Choose an implement or superior implement (see PH3, p.195). You can use the chosen implement with your powers, even if it is of a type you could not normally use. In addition, while using the chosen implement you gain a +2 feat bonus to damage rolls. [If you use/allow the +2/3/4 scaling, then add:] This bonus increases to +3 at 11th level and +4 at 21st level.
It will not happen I see the new races in darksun having variable stats also so they need to go back and fix all the earlier races stats and soon.
All classes since PH1 have been A-type, instead of V-type. So, by your logic, they need to go back and "fix" all the earlier class stats and soon.
Getting back to the original topic (ahem), my concern with the multi-ability score races is one of balance. I know, the b-word.
But I'm not talking about mechanical imbalance.
The thing with the the PHB3 races is that they are supposed to be very rare. But because these races are so flexible they are great fits for lots of classes. This means we are likely to see tons of them. I don't mind an occasional Shardmind or Minotaur in my game, but if EVERY player wants to be something super weird it's going to make things a bit tricky.
If Wilden are better fits for more classes you're going to see more Wilden in games. And since they are magical fey plant people they're trickier to incorporate into a game.
Giving Eladrin, Dwarves and other classic races multi-ability score options would help keep these common races, well, common.
My thoughts on it are thus:
The PH3 races are, on a non-mechanical level, niche concepts. The idea of these races is going to appeal to some, but I'd venture not nearly as many as the "classic" races*.
On a mechanical level, these new races still have to compete with / be weighed against existing races in nearly all of their pairings. The "classic" races often remain the best races - Eladrin are spectacular at what they do, for instance. Elves and Dwarves have awesome features / feats / options.
Conceptually, I'd bet you still see more Dwarves and Elves than Wilden. Minotaur might be more prevalent, given that their pairs only compete with races that are fairly "niche" already (Str/Con is Goliath or Warforged; Str/Wis is only Shifter). Gith bump up against Elves and Deva (one of which is one of those "niche" races); Shardmind against Deva and Gnomes/Tieflings.
Plus, I don't think your concern (disproportionate representation of "weird" races) is new, or even dependant on varied ability scores. Deva? Goliath? Drow? We already have races that are disproportionately popular, when compared to the "demographics".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*: "Classic" races wouldn't include Dragonborn or Tiefling, though I'd still suspect that, given their presence for the entirety of the "run" thus far, and their large (for Dragonborn, massive) amount of support, they're nearly as popular as the "Classic" races.
And because folks kept throwing in anecdotal "never seen a human" episodes...
Oh awesome. I often play humans. In 4th ed home-games I have 2 in 6 humans (two of those were group-mandated races). In LFR I had 3 in 9 humans. Also in Pathfinder I have 3 for 3 humans.
I love whenever people say "there's never any humans around." I often play humans and particularly in Pathfinder I bump into them an awful lot. Most people who seem to avoid playing humans are min/maxers. And if you're a min/maxer that's fine. I'll probably avoid playing with you, but if you're having fun that's all that matters.we tend to min/max less, just trying to abvoid "harder" Race/class comboes (like uhm... half-orc bard or dwarf wizard or such things)
In one of my "race mandated" parties (where we all had to be the same race) we've got a dwarven wizard.One player was baffled on the whole subject, as he wondered why anyone would want to play a human.
Because I enjoy the roleplaying opportunities provided by playing a human. But if you're playing LFR roleplaying opportunities probably aren't too high on your list of priorities.
Well path finder is a compleatly different game. Its like me saying I only play humans in 3.5 DnD. (Which I do. I hate all the other non LA races, except lupin unless I'm going for something really specific.)
And no, I'm actually NOT a mix/maxer. I just like being effective, and frankly with my dice rolls.. Lemme put it this way, since the start of my Dnd games, I don't think there has EVER been a session where I didn't roll a one. (Lots where i didn't roll a 20 though.)
I like to come up with off the wall character concepts, even ones that just don't match up in numbers. My changeling assassin, it matches up in numbers sure.. but isn't exactly the reason why I picked the two. I picked them so i could pick up any object and kill someone with it. Its actually my most roleplayed character.. until I was told to shut up several times by other party members cause i kept scaring the npcs with my shapeshifting antics. shortly after that, we've had to mad dash in order to compleate moduels within the alotted timeframe. (Which is why I'm making new characters soon. Soo much more time to roleplay at lower levels.)
I'm pretty sure I've said it earlier, but the lack of awesome racial traits are the biggest killer for me. The only way I would even consider playing a human is when no other race could do what i needed it to do. And since humans barely can do what other races can as stats go...
My revenant warlock, with his ability to not go down at 0 hp, is so much more dramatic than any human 4th edition character i've made. People in our LFR still talk about the the various puppets I made out of our first kills of the night.
My Gnoll Bard, being a bigass bypedal dog still is refered to as well by other players. Spent lots of time disguising himself as various people, like scooby-doo would.
My Longtooth shifter fighter who specilized in bleeding wounds was.. .um.. yeah. Nothing there, even though the stats matched well.
My longtooth Revenant shifter battlemind however, now had a total badass around himself. Totally would regenerate tons of damage and everything and would charge straight through traps.
I don't mind an occasional Shardmind or Minotaur in my game, but if EVERY player wants to be something super weird it's going to make things a bit tricky.
How so? Frequency in a PC group is no indication of frequency in the greater game world. Even if your PCs are all Shardminds or Minotaurs, that doesn't make them commonplace across the countryside.
How so? Frequency in a PC group is no indication of frequency in the greater game world. Even if your PCs are all Shardminds or Minotaurs, that doesn't make them commonplace across the countryside.
How does a party of shardminds and minotaurs end up together? What common purpose would they have? And what would commoners make of them when they showed up at their village?
Half your players are from a feared race of labyrinth-dwelling psychopaths. The other half are basically from outer space. Explaining why these guys have decided to team up to help the mayor hunt down the party of goblin raiders is the easy part. Explaining why the townsfolk don't flee in terror at their very approach is the hard one.
Can you build a campaign where a party of all exotics makes sense? Sure. But it certainly doesn't work for every campaign. If ultra-rare races become very popular player choices, this could result in real headaches for DMs. How exactly did a crew of extraplanar beings and mythological creatures get to Winterhaven? Who the hell cares about strange goings ons in the abandoned keep in that case? Call the mage's guild! We've got a pack of githzerai on the loose!
@ Frito: Its great that you don't think that the older races need some adjustments but alot of people do and that should tell you something. I for one would like to play a human but as they stand currently it will not happen as there are must better races to play.
"A lot of people" say a lot of things - "a lot of people" don't have a really high batting average, though. "A lot of people" think 4th edition was a mistake - and that should tell you something (or not). "A lot of people" think we have to have craft/perform skills to be a roleplaying game - and that should tell you something (or, again, not).
A handful of people won't play humans because there's a "better" option. But that leaves us with players who will only play "the best" options (in effect).
Even in the groups that were listed above (with "no humans"), though, folks were picking race/class combos that weren't matching Primary/Secondary stats (or even any stats) - in those cases, human was an "equal" choice, even if the player preferred the other race's options. Why should human always be the best choice?
Why don't we (as I suggested above) just add more human racial feats, along the lines of the "best" feats that sway players to pick those other races?
All classes since PH1 have been A-type, instead of V-type. So, by your logic, they need to go back and "fix" all the earlier class stats and soon.
Maybe they should, but that would be a degree of update far more radical than adding or-flex-stat to all the current races. Also changing all the V-classes to A-classes is a change that could invalidate many current characters, where as updating all the old races with an optional flex stat would have no such problem.
I'm actually NOT a mix/maxer. I just like being effective, and frankly with my dice rolls.. Lemme put it this way, since the start of my Dnd games, I don't think there has EVER been a session where I didn't roll a one. (Lots where i didn't roll a 20 though.)
I love how "effective" is almost alway something spouted out by people advocating how you must select the correct race for the correct class or otherwise you're going to suck. That said, I'm not necessarily saying are a min/maxer because you say this. I'm simply its typically an argument used by min/maxers.
And since humans barely can do what other races can as stats go...
My revenant warlock, with his ability to not go down at 0 hp, is so much more dramatic than any human 4th edition character i've made.
If you want to be a bad-ass, then yeah. Human isn't always going to work out for you. I don't think I've ever set out to make someone whose a bad ass (in fact I've made more reluctant heroes) then humans aren't going to be as splashy. Personally this isn't something I typically look for. I instead look come up with a certain personality, background and culture I wish to portray and select the appropriate race. A third of the time that race will be a human. I'm never going to say mechanically humans are as exciting as other races, because 9 times out of 10 they're not. I don't much care about the mechanics though. People who don't want to be "special" or "exciting" mechanically can and will enjoy humans. I know someone who loves referring to many 4th ed characters as "special snowflakes" and yet is guilty of this himself despite the fact he plays humans.
Different strokes for different folks.
How so? Frequency in a PC group is no indication of frequency in the greater game world. Even if your PCs are all Shardminds or Minotaurs, that doesn't make them commonplace across the countryside.
How does a party of shardminds and minotaurs end up together? What common purpose would they have? And what would commoners make of them when they showed up at their village?
For one and two, let the PCs hammer that out. For the third ... it depends on your campaign world. After Tieflings and Dragonborn being around forever, Shardminds and Minotaurs don't strike me as being that newsworthy.
Half your players are from a feared race of labyrinth-dwelling psychopaths. The other half are basically from outer space. Explaining why these guys have decided to team up to help the mayor hunt down the party of goblin raiders is the easy part. Explaining why the townsfolk don't flee in terror at their very approach is the hard one.
Already explained above, not that hard at all. Just remember that D&D commoners aren't the inbred superstitious morons that plagued the Earth in the dark ages. They've been around nonhumans for centuries, if not millenia.
Half your players are from a feared race of labyrinth-dwelling psychopaths. The other half are basically from outer space. Explaining why these guys have decided to team up to help the mayor hunt down the party of goblin raiders is the easy part. Explaining why the townsfolk don't flee in terror at their very approach is the hard one.
If your players want to be monstrous races and you're letting them, why are you sending them to towns to help villagers who are more scared of the PCs then the menace the PCs are trying to clean up?
it certainly doesn't work for every campaign.
You have two options. (1) Don't let your players play inappropriate races for your campaign or (2) run a campaign where it makes sense for the players to be exotic races.
This is a problem of a DM who refuses to say no and also refuses to cater the campaign to the players. What would be just as bad is if I ran a campaign where humans were an extinct race and yet let the players all be humans. No matter what they chose, if its an inappropriate choice for the campaign you're going to have problems.
Brainstorming By-Stat
Str? -1 MBA Att/Dam; -1 Str checks/skills; -1 AC (Sorc); -1 Riders.
Con? -1 HP, -1 Surge; -1 Con checks/skills; -1 AC (Warden); -1 Riders.
Dex? -1 RBA Att/Dam; -1 Dex checks/skills; -1 AC (Non-Heavy/Non-Int Primary); -1 Riders.
Int? -1 Int checks/skills; -1 AC (Non-Heavy/Non-Dex Primary); -1 Riders.
Wis? -1 Wis checks/skills; -1 AC (Warden); -1 Riders.
Cha? -1 Cha checks/skills; -1 AC (Sorc); -1 Riders.
Str? -1 MBA Att/Dam; -1 Str checks/skills; -1 AC (Sorc); -1 Riders.
Con? -1 HP, -1 Surge; -1 Con checks/skills; -1 AC (Warden); -1 Riders.
Dex? -1 RBA Att/Dam; -1 Dex checks/skills; -1 AC (Non-Heavy/Non-Int Primary); -1 Riders.
Int? -1 Int checks/skills; -1 AC (Non-Heavy/Non-Dex Primary); -1 Riders.
Wis? -1 Wis checks/skills; -1 AC (Warden); -1 Riders.
Cha? -1 Cha checks/skills; -1 AC (Sorc); -1 Riders.
My mind boggles as to when being one point off (mostly in power riders) from other party members - not even in attack rolls, or likely, defenses - began to make you no longer "competitive and equal to the other characters in the group".
This is why it's entirely possible that this errata will actually happen. It's the "easiest" form of optimization, and people will feel like they're missing something unless they picked the "correct" race. Since almost everyone who first plays the game starts it at level 1, that +1 to stuff can be seen as the difference when your attack bonus is +5 or +6. Whether or not it actually makes a huge difference is irrelevant to the feeling of the average non-scrutinous player.
My mind boggles as to when being one point off (mostly in power riders) from other party members - not even in attack rolls, or likely, defenses - began to make you no longer "competitive and equal to the other characters in the group".
This is why it's entirely possible that this errata will actually happen. It's the "easiest" form of optimization, and people will feel like they're missing something unless they picked the "correct" race. Since almost everyone who first plays the game starts it at level 1, that +1 to stuff can be seen as the difference when your attack bonus is +5 or +6. Whether or not it actually makes a huge difference is irrelevant to the feeling of the average non-scrutinous player.
Basically this.
Its the same reason I don't play Shifters. Thier lack of racial traits makes me feel empty, and actually kinda makes it hard for me to roleplay them. (It could just be simple roleplay traits like "Your a shapeshifter!" and possibly an immunity to a single werecreature disease.)
Giving Eladrin, Dwarves and other classic races multi-ability score options would help keep these common races, well, common.
QFT
eladrin: dex, int or cha
elf: dex, wis or int
drow: dex, cha or wis