As Marandahir and Khift’s threads have demonstrated, we can debate which stat boosts make sense for which races until we’re blue in the face and yet never reach consensus.
Here’s what I think: Stat boosts don’t actually matter much, fluff-wise or crunch-wise. A +2 boost is just a +1 to certain rolls. Fluff-wise, a +1 is hardly noticable in-world -- if it’s noticable at all. Crunchwise, single +1s really don’t matter whatever CharOpers may say.
The only significant impact that stat boosts have is on player psychology: just by their existance, stat boosts heavily encourage players to make certain choices and discourage them from making other choices. Sometimes the encouraged choices make sense according to standard fluff (halfling artsy rogue), and sometimes they don’t (tiefling feylock). But I don’t care about standard fluff; I want my players to play what they want.
I want players to make character choices based on what they want to play without having to worry about losing stat bonuses, however little actual difference those bonuses make. Seeing as how stat boosts don’t matter much balance-wise or fluff-wise, I’d rather let my players decide where to put their boosts than have a set list of which race gets what. ‘Cause ya know what? I don’t care if the dwarven cleric has a Charisma bonus or the halfling barbarian has a Strength bonus; because this is D&D, where a three-foot tall ninja hobbit can stand toe-to-toe with a titan in a fight and an anthropomorphic lizard person can shoot lightning from his arse.
So here’s the deal: Humans get a second +2 stat boost, which they can’t stack with the first one.
Demihumans can put their stat boosts wherever they want, with the following provisos:
Demihumans should have two +1 NAD bonuses. So if the race started with stat boosts to different NAD pairs (dwarf, +2 Con/+2 Wis) but the player switched those stat boosts into the same NAD pair (+2 Str/+2 Con), the PC gets a +1 boost to a second NAD. (I’d got with +1 Will for a dwarf.) If the race started with stat boosts to the same NAD pair (eladrin, +2 Dex/+2 Int) but the player switched those stat boosts into different NAD pairs (+2 Str/+2 Dx), the PC loses whatever racial NAD boost it had. (The +1 Will part of Eladrin Will, in this case.)
Dwarves who switch stat boosts lose access to Dwarven Weapon Training.
Eladrin who switch stat boosts lose access to Eladrin Soldier.
Here’s what I think: Stat boosts don’t actually matter much, fluff-wise or crunch-wise. A +2 boost is just a +1 to certain rolls.
how do you figure? your highest modifier is a +3, the highest is +2. the third highest is only +1 the stat boost, in an optimized build is +25% on your best score, or +33% for your second highest score. or doubling for your third highest
Heck, many dwarve fighters stat with 16 str, 14+2 con, 13+2 wisdom, and 12 dexterity.
The +2 con give dwarves (besides the somewhat artificial preq. for feats) 2 hit points, a FULL healing surge, +1 on temp hp with invigerating strikes (a heap more if they are battleragers) and other secondairy effects (hey, 1 additional damage for hammer rythm)
Crunchwise, single +1s really don’t matter whatever CharOpers may say.
OK, perhaps I am a char-oper. (well, I'm actually a min-maxer, but thats just symentics). However, what gives you more attority then char-opers? Only last thursday, during round 1 of combat:
- our shaman casted a spell, and he got exaclty on the reflex defense of the monster (which was 30) (so, if he didn't have the stat boost, he would have failed)
- 2 PCs later, my eladrin wand wizard was then up, and got a 27 . thanks to the wand wizards power, I upped that to 31. Without eladrin stat boosts I would only have had 26, and wand would only boost it to 29, which again, would have been a miss.
In a combat where you are facing a very difficult enemy (in our case, a solo soldier many levels above ours), the +1's really do make a difference.
So here’s the deal: Humans get a second +2 stat boost, which they can’t stack with the first one.Demihumans can put their stat boosts wherever they want, with the following provisos:
Demihumans should have two +1 NAD bonuses.
didn't you just say yourself, that +1 doesn't really matter? I'm confused :p
comments on rule
I understand what you're doing, but I don't like it.
For one, the stats represent fluff. dragonborn are strong, goliaths are tough, eladrin are smart elves, etc.
// this could be fixed if players find fluff for their own 'sub-race', but as the many 4E-sucks threads have pointed out, making fluff up isn't really everyones strongsuit
For two, you don't solve your premisse: "I want players to make character choices based on what they want to play without having to worry about losing stat bonuses, however little actual difference those bonuses make.". I want to play a human that can use second wind as minor action. or a tiefling that can use teleport.
// this could be fixed by taking it to the next level: your race is a word on your character sheet, and you select your own 'package'
For three: what about other stat synnergies? dragonborn, who get CON to healing surge, dwarves, who have synnergies with healing surges, tieflings, who have synnergies with charisma ... etc? you're not creating balance by free choice of stats, but destroying or improving those synnergies ...
// this one isn't eay fixable ...
So here’s the deal: Humans get a second +2 stat boost, which they can’t stack with the first one.Demihumans can put their stat boosts wherever they want, with the following provisos:
Demihumans should have two +1 NAD bonuses.
didn't you just say yourself, that +1 doesn't really matter? I'm confused :p
Yes I did. When I've brought up this idea in the past, losing NAD boost balance was a big complaint. As it's a simple 'problem' to fix, I fixed it.
comments on rule
I understand what you're doing, but I don't like it.
Fair enough. Despite your anecdotal evidence though, I still do. ;)
If you had wanted to play, say a fire genasi wand wizard instead of an eladrin wizard, would you really have begrudged yourself for switching your +2 Str to +2 Dex? Personally, I wouldn't begrudge you for hitting a bit more often because that's what stat boosts are supposed to do.
For one, the stats represent fluff. dragonborn are strong, goliaths are tough, eladrin are smart elves, etc.
// this could be fixed if players find fluff for their own 'sub-race', but as the many 4E-sucks threads have pointed out, making fluff up isn't really everyones strongsuit
Yes, boosts represent fluff that is:
1. Virtually unnoticeable. For example, if I wrote a dragonborn wizard villain for you to fight and its Str was 2 less than published dragonborn monsters while its Int was 2 higher, would you even notice? No. Likewise, my villains won't notice that your goliath rogue is any more dextrous than the PHB says he should be.
2. Irrelevant. As I said in the OP, the only real effect that stat boosts have is to encourage certain combos. There are more eladrin wizards than halfling wizards and so on and so forth. But who cares how many PCs there are of any particular race/class combos? PCs are exceptional, and often abnormal. If my players decide to play a bunch of dwarven arcanists, that doesn't have any effect on normal dwarves: dwarven NPCs will still mostly be fighters and clerics. If players want to play unique abnormal characters, why discourage them?
For two, you don't solve your premisse: "I want players to make character choices based on what they want to play without having to worry about losing stat bonuses, however little actual difference those bonuses make.". I want to play a human that can use second wind as minor action. or a tiefling that can use teleport.// this could be fixed by taking it to the next level: your race is a word on your character sheet, and you select your own 'package'
Emphasis mine. Stat boosts are not noticeable, racial traits and powers are.
For three: what about other stat synnergies? dragonborn, who get CON to healing surge, dwarves, who have synnergies with healing surges, tieflings, who have synnergies with charisma ... etc? you're not creating balance by free choice of stats, but destroying or improving those synnergies ...
// this one isn't eay fixable ...
That's a valid point. Boost swapping does create the possibility of racial synergy loss. Still, I'd rather give my players this extra option than worry about a few lost numbers here and there. If a player values those synergies more than a boost to a primary/secondary stat, s/he's free to stick with the published boosts.
If you had wanted to play, say a fire genasi wand wizard instead of an eladrin wizard, would you really have begrudged yourself for switching your +2 Str to +2 Dex? Personally, I wouldn't begrudge you for hitting a bit more often because that's what stat boosts are supposed to do.
I ask you "what is a fire genasi"? aren't fire genasi's supposed to be strong and smart? When you give the example "say a fire genasi wand wizard" ... then I assume that I take genasi (a strong and smart race), and wand wizard. When I switch Strength and Dexterity, I no longer am strong. I'm no longer a fire genasi. Just like there are no fast tall dwarves with weak health, or elves with no hand-eye coordination.
1. Virtually unnoticeable. For example, if I wrote a dragonborn wizard villain for you to fight and its Str was 2 less than published dragonborn monsters while its Int was 2 higher, would you even notice? No. Likewise, my villains won't notice that your goliath rogue is any more dextrous than the PHB says he should be.
I disagree, as that is IMO an extremely shortsighted, and non realistical point of view: The +2 to a stat is more then a mear +2: its a stat that will receive a base value.
To use your example, what would be the strength of a DEX/INT fire genasi wizard? Lets see ...
- 16 and 14 ... INT and DEX for obvious reasons,
- 13 ... third CON for fort, hp & healing surges,
- 12 ... fourth CHA for will defense (and spell focus at paragon level)
- 11 ... fifth ... STR (or worse, wisdom, dumping the 10 in strength.
What was once a stong and smart race, has now trouble lifting his backpack (figure of speach of course).
So I hope you'll agree that there is a huge difference between the old fire genasi (who's example stats could be 18/12/11/16/10/13 (tactical warlord)) and the new fire genasi who's stats could be 11/13/16/18/10/12 (wizard). One is strong and smart, the other is feeble.
(Or the Goliath Rogue? STR 16+2, DEX 14+2, WIS 13+2 CON 12.)
2. Irrelevant. As I said in the OP, the only real effect that stat boosts have is to encourage certain combos. There are more eladrin wizards than halfling wizards and so on and so forth. But who cares how many PCs there are of any particular race/class combos? PCs are exceptional, and often abnormal. If my players decide to play a bunch of dwarven arcanists, that doesn't have any effect on normal dwarves: dwarven NPCs will still mostly be fighters and clerics. If players want to play unique abnormal characters, why discourage them?
I have the same deal. but thats were (homebrew) racial feats come into play.
- Moradins Flame: dwarves get +1 to attack and damage using fire spells
...
Emphasis mine. Stat boosts are not noticeable, racial traits and powers are.
as explained above. they are, by the simple act of taking logical decisions in making your character, the lack of stat boost become highly visible.
... also, you realize that all fighters will now be dwarves, right? (dwarf was already a 5-star option for fighter, because of their extreme toughness - even though they lacked the attack skills) ... this little balance issue just got plummeted, as now STR/CON dwarves are available (who cares about +1 on OA, if you can have +1 to all attacks and damages).
An other problem with all this: shoudn't an eladrin wizard be better then a goliath wizard? Shoudn't a elfen archer-ranger be better then a dwarf archer ranger?
I ask you "what is a fire genasi"? aren't fire genasi's supposed to be strong and smart? When you give the example "say a fire genasi wand wizard" ... then I assume that I take genasi (a strong and smart race), and wand wizard. When I switch Strength and Dexterity, I no longer am strong. I'm no longer a fire genasi. Just like there are no fast tall dwarves with weak health, or elves with no hand-eye coordination.
So if I create a fire genasi like:
S 12 (10 + 2 racial), C 13, D 14, I 18 (16 + 2 racial), W 11, Ch 12
or worse use customized scores for:
S 10 (8 + 2 racial), C 13, D 16, I 18 (16 + 2 racial), W 10, Ch 11
Are they no longer fire genasi because they are not strong? Just because you get a stat bonus in it doesn't mean it has to be a good stat.
Personally I don't like the idea but I don't have players who worry about racial stat bonuses matching their class so it not needed for me.
So if I create a fire genasi like:
S 12 (10 + 2 racial), C 13, D 14, I 18 (16 + 2 racial), W 11, Ch 12
or worse use customized scores for:
S 10 (8 + 2 racial), C 13, D 16, I 18 (16 + 2 racial), W 10, Ch 11
actually, If I were to make a fire genasi wand wizard, I'dd go
Str 15, Con 11, Dex 14, Int 18, Wis 10, Cha 12
Prefering 1 fort defense over 2 hp & 1 healing surge
Are they no longer fire genasi because they are not strong? Just because you get a stat bonus in it doesn't mean it has to be a good stat.
which is very true, but fact is that, with +2STR/+2INT, people will more likely play fire genasis who are strong & smart, (though I don't know the class, swordmage comes to mind). Which means, fire genasis will more and more be strong&smart.
BTW, I still think that the problem isn't fixed, only shifted
original problem:
- want to play raceX/class Y.
- but racial stats aren't good.
- solution: fix racial stats.
current problem
- want to play raceX/class Y.
- but racial abilities aren't good.
Whats the use of new-dragonborn wand wizards? breathweapon? give me a break. new-elfs are waaaay better: they can reroll an attack roll once.
inferlock shifters? regeneration for a ranged temp hp cannon? seriously?
If you had wanted to play, say a fire genasi wand wizard instead of an eladrin wizard, would you really have begrudged yourself for switching your +2 Str to +2 Dex? Personally, I wouldn't begrudge you for hitting a bit more often because that's what stat boosts are supposed to do.
I ask you "what is a fire genasi"? aren't fire genasi's supposed to be strong and smart? When you give the example "say a fire genasi wand wizard" ... then I assume that I take genasi (a strong and smart race), and wand wizard. When I switch Strength and Dexterity, I no longer am strong. I'm no longer a fire genasi. Just like there are no fast tall dwarves with weak health, or elves with no hand-eye coordination.
If D&D were a realistic game, I'd agree with you wholeheartedly. But for D&D to be realistic, noticeably strong races would have to have at least a +8ish Str bonus; ditto for other stats. I'm not interested in dissecting exactly what a +2 stat boost represents, but as I said it's so small as to be unnoticeable and irrelevant in-game.
1. Virtually unnoticeable. For example, if I wrote a dragonborn wizard villain for you to fight and its Str was 2 less than published dragonborn monsters while its Int was 2 higher, would you even notice? No. Likewise, my villains won't notice that your goliath rogue is any more dextrous than the PHB says he should be.
I disagree, as that is IMO an extremely shortsighted, and non realistical point of view: The +2 to a stat is more then a mear +2: its a stat that will receive a base value.
Correct, and that base value is much more important than the stat boost. A +2 Str boost doesn't make a strong genasi, for example, it encourages players to play strong genasi. And that's a very important distinction.
So I hope you'll agree that there is a huge difference between the old fire genasi (who's example stats could be 18/12/11/16/10/13 (tactical warlord)) and the new fire genasi who's stats could be 11/13/16/18/10/12 (wizard). One is strong and smart, the other is feeble.
Yes, there is a significant difference between an 18 Str genasi and an 11 Str genasi. That difference exists because you assigned one a higher base Str score than the other; not because one has a +7 racial boost. Those measly +2 boosts you did have only encouraged you to assign your base points differently, based on the two classes you chose.
2. Irrelevant. As I said in the OP, the only real effect that stat boosts have is to encourage certain combos. There are more eladrin wizards than halfling wizards and so on and so forth. But who cares how many PCs there are of any particular race/class combos? PCs are exceptional, and often abnormal. If my players decide to play a bunch of dwarven arcanists, that doesn't have any effect on normal dwarves: dwarven NPCs will still mostly be fighters and clerics. If players want to play unique abnormal characters, why discourage them?
I have the same deal. but thats were (homebrew) racial feats come into play.- Moradins Flame: dwarves get +1 to attack and damage using fire spells
So, the PC would get the effects of having a +2 Int boost for only some of his spells? And he'd have to blow a feat to get it?
If you were willing to homebrew up balanced feats for whatever concept a player might think up, it'd be a step up from RAW. But don't you think it's a whole lot simpler to just switch a stat boost at first level and be done with it?
Emphasis mine. Stat boosts are not noticeable, racial traits and powers are.
as explained above. they are, by the simple act of taking logical decisions in making your character, the lack of stat boost become highly visible.
It looks like we're going to have to agree to disagree. As I see it, racial boosts have no significant impact in and of themselves. They just encourage you to spend your base points in certain ways, which are the significant part of this equation.
... also, you realize that all fighters will now be dwarves, right? (dwarf was already a 5-star option for fighter, because of their extreme toughness - even though they lacked the attack skills) ... this little balance issue just got plummeted, as now STR/CON dwarves are available (who cares about +1 on OA, if you can have +1 to all attacks and damages).
Yes, this makes dwarves a strong pick for the fighter, as they are under RAW. IME, it's not a big deal. I've never seen anyone say "ZOMG, I can get +2 Str dwarffighter?! Is leet, why anything else?!" Dwarves are durable fighters, eladrin are teleporty fighters, halflings are nimble fighters, and so on. Some combos might be stronger than others, but at least nobody feels screwed by the raw math.
An other problem with all this: shoudn't an eladrin wizard be better then a goliath wizard? Shoudn't a elfen archer-ranger be better then a dwarf archer ranger?
Shouldn't my character die after falling a mile? Shouldn't serious wounds take more than 6 hours to heal? Shouldn't dungeon monsters have as good a chance to notice PCs as PCs have of noticing the monsters? (They don't, according to the DMG.) In a realistic world, yes.
But D&D is a game of absurdities that exist for the sake of fun and balance. Again, in a realistic game Elves would be noticeably better archers, because they would have a noticeable bonus to Dex. But the designers have decided over the years that fun and balance is more important than realism, so they kept racial boosts at measly minimums -- just enough to encourage traditional race/class combos, but not enough to make a significant difference in actual play.
So if it's all about fun and balance, why not go all the way?
It looks like we're going to have to agree to disagree
OK, but I still would like to understand your train of thought.
to structure my arguments:
(point 1)
With your change, people make a int 18 wizards instead of int 16 wizards.
why make the change? that +1 is unnoticeable and irrelevant. (your own words)
(point 2)
genasi get +2 strength --> people will play classes that synnergize with strength --> genasi PCs will have high strength (much more then +2)
(conclusion)
Without your change, genasi PCs are notably stronger then ... lets say, eladrin PCs. Which is good, as they match the flavor of genasi (or dragonborn, or half-orc, or goliath, etc)
With your change they loose that ... for something you find unnoticeable and irrelevant.
Where is it your train of thought deviates from mine?
Yes, this makes dwarves a strong pick for the fighter, as they are under RAW. IME, it's not a big deal.
I don't think you get it. dwarves are already a very strong pick for fighters (one of the best) - and that's without the +2 strength.
Shouldn't my character die after falling a mile?
Shouldn't serious wounds take more than 6 hours to heal?
- not really. people are known to have survived terminal velocity (which is the max falling speed)
- yes, but PCs don't get serious wounds (HP is virtual. I know, it sucks)
Either way, this argument I don't like. its saying
> isn't that wrong?
> maybe, but this (something irrelevant) is also wrong, so that doesn't matter.
So if it's all about fun and balance, why not go all the way?
wheres the fun in knowing that my goliath is equally strong as your halfling? that's not fun, that's plain odd.
Heck, why not illiminiate stats completely? everyone gets attack equal to their level, 12+level to defenses, etc ... that is balance;
If +1 boosts are really completely irrelevant, even when they are applied throughout defenses, skills and possibly both attack and damage as attribute boosts are, then pray tell... what exactly is the point of having magic items in the game?
All magic items really do is give you a +1 boost somewhere. Yet I don't know too many players who'd toss out that +1 or +2 sword and decide to just use the regular one you bought at character creation stating that there is absolutely no meaningful difference between the weapons.
The same can be true of boots that give you a small bonus to jump or acrobatics or gloves that give you a small bonus to thievery or whatever... obviously these bonuses MEAN something or no one would bother buying the items to get the bonuses.
Yet the difference between starting character attribute benefits can have a larger effect on the character's performance in the game than these magic items. So obviously they are not completely irrelevant... at least not in low levels, maybe once you get to level 20 and you are getting so many various boosts from so many different sources and all your attributes have a +10 bonus to them anyway that 1-2 point difference does not make a meaningful impact, but from level 1 to level 10, having the right attribute boosts is absolutely essential.
If +1 boosts are really completely irrelevant, even when they are applied throughout defenses, skills and possibly both attack and damage as attribute boosts are, then pray tell... what exactly is the point of having magic items in the game?All magic items really do is give you a +1 boost somewhere. Yet I don't know too many players who'd toss out that +1 or +2 sword and decide to just use the regular one you bought at character creation stating that there is absolutely no meaningful difference between the weapons.
They are somewhat irrelevant in that if character A gets a +1 weapon, character B can still make valuable contributions in combat without one. The problem the original poster has is that his players only play races that get bonuses to abilities used by their class.
Oh and Cube your comment about eliminating abilities is kinda planned for the new Gamma World. You still have abilities and they are randomly rolled but abilities used by your powers are boosted to 18. So everyone gets a +4 to hit base (unless they are using the daily random mutations/tech which might use another ability).
(point 1)
With your change, people make a int 18 wizards instead of int 16 wizards.
why make the change? that +1 is unnoticeable and irrelevant. (your own words)
I make the change so that players don't feel bad about losing a +2 boost, even if it is insignificant. It encourages my players to play whatever combo they want.
(point 2)
genasi get +2 strength --> people will play classes that synnergize with strength --> genasi PCs will have high strength (much more then +2)
I agree; I just don't see the need in encouraging strong genasi -- weaker genasi might be unusual within the game world, but PCs are unusual by definition.
(conclusion)
Without your change, genasi PCs are notably stronger then ... lets say, eladrin PCs. Which is good, as they match the flavor of genasi (or dragonborn, or half-orc, or goliath, etc)
With your change they loose that ... for something you find unnoticeable and irrelevant.
Where is it your train of thought deviates from mine?
The difference is that you're over there focussing on tradition and the status quo: "In order for the game to make sense, there should be more burly genasi PCs than not!"
While I'm over here, singing cumbaya, hugging trees and focussing on the players: "In order to make players feel free to play what they want to play, stat boosts need to float. Down with tradition, don't let the man keep you down!"
Yes, this makes dwarves a strong pick for the fighter, as they are under RAW. IME, it's not a big deal.
I don't think you get it. dwarves are already a very strong pick for fighters (one of the best) - and that's without the +2 strength.
I get it; you're imagining that players would make too many dwarven fighters under my rule. IME, it doesn't happen that way. Dwarves have fantastic durability, but it's not a simple numeric boost that the average player can/will compare to the neat stuff that other races get. You may think that dwarven durability is the greatest racial trait a fighter can have, but to most players it's apples and oranges.
Shouldn't my character die after falling a mile?
Shouldn't serious wounds take more than 6 hours to heal?
- not really. people are known to have survived terminal velocity (which is the max falling speed)
- yes, but PCs don't get serious wounds (HP is virtual. I know, it sucks)
Either way, this argument I don't like. its saying
> isn't that wrong?
> maybe, but this (something irrelevant) is also wrong, so that doesn't matter.
So if it's all about fun and balance, why not go all the way?
wheres the fun in knowing that my goliath is equally strong as your halfling? that's not fun, that's plain odd.
My point is that D&D is an absurdly unrealistic game, so I find the correlation between stat boosts and realism tenuous at best. A halfling with goliath strength isn't any odder than half the stuff that goes on in the game.
Heck, why not illiminiate stats completely? everyone gets attack equal to their level, 12+level to defenses, etc ... that is balance;
And leave racial skill bonuses, traits and powers as the only difference between races? Doesn't sound bad to me. And as an added bonus, we wouldn't have to deal with the Expertise problem.
If +1 boosts are really completely irrelevant, even when they are applied throughout defenses, skills and possibly both attack and damage as attribute boosts are, then pray tell... what exactly is the point of having magic items in the game?
To create a Diablo-level dependance on them.
/snark
Yet the difference between starting character attribute benefits can have a larger effect on the character's performance in the game than these magic items. So obviously they are not completely irrelevant... at least not in low levels, maybe once you get to level 20 and you are getting so many various boosts from so many different sources and all your attributes have a +10 bonus to them anyway that 1-2 point difference does not make a meaningful impact, but from level 1 to level 10, having the right attribute boosts is absolutely essential.
Again, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with all this magic talk but whether 1st or 30th level, a single +1 bonus isn't going to make or break a PC. But it will encourage players to do whatever gives them that bonus.
It's one thing to say, "I don't need an 18. A 16 is perfectly adequate". But if you say that, you'd better not also be saying "you know, I don't think expertise is all that big a deal, I'll wait a while before picking it up" or "you know, I really like battle axes more than longswords", or even, I think "I'll play a controller who focuses on ice spells" (hello fortitude defense!). You might even find yourself saying "I can't play this mod, there are too many soldiers".
There may not seem to be that much difference between +7 & +8 attack bonus, but there's a large one between +5 and +8. And that +8 is made up one +1 at a time.
I agree; I just don't see the need in encouraging strong genasi -- weaker genasi might be unusual within the game world, but PCs are unusual by definition.
I think I disagree with you on that. PCs are the paragon of their kind* ... at least in 4E.
in 4E (correct me if I'm wrong), there are no slow wood elves, or prone-to-illness dwarves, or goliaths who can't even lift their own backback, or dumb high elves,
*: yes, being the paragon of ones kind indeed means that they are unusual, but you're using 'ususual' in a different way (hyperboling, PCs are unusual, so I should be able to play a fluorecent dwarf)
The difference is that you're over there focussing on tradition and the status quo: "In order for the game to make sense, there should be more burly genasi PCs than not!"
While I'm over here, singing cumbaya, hugging trees and focussing on the players: "In order to make players feel free to play what they want to play, stat boosts need to float. Down with tradition, don't let the man keep you down!"
LOL. (something very uncommon on the internet: a good use of the hyperbole argument)
((leaving the dwarf point in the middle. its midnight here, and I need to get up early in the morning)
The original point of WotC was to make races equally good at most classes (dragonborn are good at almost any PHB class, with the exception of wizard). He had +2 Str (good for classes who required strength), +2 charisma (good for classes who required charisma), synnergies with consitution, a breath weapon for other melee classes, etc.
What you've done is ripped races into 2 pieces: their stats and their abilities.
- While old dragonborn were good at almost anything, they are now only equally good in almost all races, but fantatistic with classes who require consistution.
- Same for dwarves: they make OK classes for everything, but great second wind users
- Same for tieflings: they make meh classes for everything, but great for charisma classes (actually, IIRC their ability synergizes with their charisma boost, so they make worse characters if they don't have that charisma)
- ...
IMO: All you did was push the line*, and probably broke a few things while doing it (tieflings lose power (because IIRC their racial feature synergizes with charisma), while dwarves, dragonborn & eladrin get power)
(* the old line was "excells at things that synnegize with stat or abilities"; the new line is "excells at things that synnergizes with stats")
It's not that any single +1 is that important, it's that each lost +1 makes all the other +1's that much more important.
It's one thing to say, "I don't need an 18. A 16 is perfectly adequate". But if you say that, you'd better not also be saying "you know, I don't think expertise is all that big a deal, I'll wait a while before picking it up" or "you know, I really like battle axes more than longswords", or even, I think "I'll play a controller who focuses on ice spells" (hello fortitude defense!). You might even find yourself saying "I can't play this mod, there are too many soldiers".
There may not seem to be that much difference between +7 & +8 attack bonus, but there's a large one between +5 and +8. And that +8 is made up one +1 at a time.
To be blunt, is there a point you're trying to make? We all know and accept this; are you saying that floating bonuses make it too easy to get the +1 that broke the camel's back?
I agree; I just don't see the need in encouraging strong genasi -- weaker genasi might be unusual within the game world, but PCs are unusual by definition.
I think I disagree with you on that. PCs are the paragon of their kind* ... at least in 4E.
in 4E (correct me if I'm wrong), there are no slow wood elves, or prone-to-illness dwarves, or goliaths who can't even lift their own backback, or dumb high elves,
*: yes, being the paragon of ones kind indeed means that they are unusual, but you're using 'ususual' in a different way (hyperboling, PCs are unusual, so I should be able to play a fluorecent dwarf).
Maybe it's because the Dragonlance Chronicles are the only D&D novels that I remember pleasantly, but I'm okay with 'awesomely different' and 'humorously different.' To my mind, humor and absurdity go hand-in-hand with not only DL but generic D&D. The very rules are absurd from a realistic PoV, and often humorous to boot.
The original point of WotC was to make races equally good at most classes (dragonborn are good at almost any PHB class, with the exception of wizard). He had +2 Str (good for classes who required strength), +2 charisma (good for classes who required charisma), synnergies with consitution, a breath weapon for other melee classes, etc.
What you've done is ripped races into 2 pieces: their stats and their abilities.
- While old dragonborn were good at almost anything, they are now only equally good in almost all races, but fantatistic with classes who require consistution.
- Same for dwarves: they make OK classes for everything, but great second wind users
- Same for tieflings: they make meh classes for everything, but great for charisma classes (actually, IIRC their ability synergizes with their charisma boost, so they make worse characters if they don't have that charisma)
- ....
You're right; my rule does shift optimization around a bit. I just don't see it as a problem. Optimal choices exist in RAW and they exist by my rules; it's just that some optimal choices are now over there rather than over there.
This said, the books are, and always were, just guidelines. They are not the be all and end all rules that people like to make them out to be. Errata shows that they can and do need changes, and more often than not, game balance trumps game story.*
The races there no more reflect every example of their species, than the human stats represents every human you'll meet while walking down the street. That would be akin to trying to convince me that Stephan Hawking, and Brock Lesner are identical. I can sit here and call to mind dozens of examples in written lore, where characters don't fit the perfect mold the rules try to lay out for them.
I think ability often dictates ones life choices, but racial stats in 4e don't always support this notion. The argument that anyone playing a Fire Genasi will pick a class that is strong is inherently flawed, as it implies you know the position and mindset of every player in the world. I for one don't look at the Genasi and see a strong/ intelligent character. I see a race built mechanically to support a class that was designed for a mechanical game. The race was designed with optimization in mind, not story. All one has to do is go back to 3.x to see that racial stats were all over the place, even within subspecies, thus proving that every member of a race was not in fact identical.
I for one am a person who often makes a stat with a bonus in it, the dump stat for that character. It means I don't take a penalty sure, but it's also possibly one of my least needed attributes depending on story. A Fire Genasi with 10 str is not a bad thing, nor am I making a poor choice when it comes to fluff. Imagination is the limit, and one only has to look around, as I said before, to see variation everywhere. Why on earth would anyone assume that only Humans are so diverse in our attributes? Or are the rules trying to tell me that 100% of all the races are always walking around with attempted 18's in every stat they get a +2 to?
-RW
P.S. I'd also like to point out how monsters who used to have ECL and LA, are now PC races, often LOSING things that made their race strong, in favour of what the players wanted to be able to play. *cough* Drow *cough*.
*All of this is assuming something outside RPGA.
The races there no more reflect every example of their species, than the human stats represents every human you'll meet while walking down the street. That would be akin to trying to convince me that Stephan Hawking, and Brock Lesner are identical. I can sit her and call to mind dozens of examples in written lore, where characters don't fit the perfect mold the rules try to lay out for them.
All one has to do is go back to 3.x to see that racial stats were all over the place, even within subspecies, thus proving that every member of a race was not in fact identical.
Imagination is the limit, and one only has to look around, as I said before, to see variation everywhere. Why on earth would anyone assume that only Humans are so diverse in our attributes? Or are the rules trying to tell me that 100% of all the races are always walking around with attempted 18's in every stat they get a +2 to?
-RW
P.S. I'd also like to point out how monsters who used to have ECL and LA, are now PC races, often LOSING things that made their race strong, in favour of what the players wanted to be able to play. *cough* Drow *cough*.
Well said! Racial boosts and abilities are historically inconsistent in many cases -- correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember tieflings had a Cha bonus in 2e, a Cha penalty in 3e and now they're back to having a Cha boost. I realize that past editions are in some ways entirely different games, but they demonstrate why I see no problem with swapping stat boosts around willy-nilly.
I hope they improve your game.
*: by lack of better word (english isn't my native language)
So long as everyone realizes there isn't a be all and end all answer to questions such as "what is a Fire Genasi?" then there really isn't much of an issue. I'd just recommend steering away from making claims as to what something is "supposed" to be, based solely on one edition of a game.
-RW
It's not that any single +1 is that important, it's that each lost +1 makes all the other +1's that much more important.
It's one thing to say, "I don't need an 18. A 16 is perfectly adequate". But if you say that, you'd better not also be saying "you know, I don't think expertise is all that big a deal, I'll wait a while before picking it up" or "you know, I really like battle axes more than longswords", or even, I think "I'll play a controller who focuses on ice spells" (hello fortitude defense!). You might even find yourself saying "I can't play this mod, there are too many soldiers".
There may not seem to be that much difference between +7 & +8 attack bonus, but there's a large one between +5 and +8. And that +8 is made up one +1 at a time.
To be blunt, is there a point you're trying to make? We all know and accept this; are you saying that floating bonuses make it too easy to get the +1 that broke the camel's back?
Perhaps I wasn't clear. My point was in response to an earlier remark that 16's were a viable starting stat. Sure they are...if you make sure to optimize elsewhere.