Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 zombiegleemax Sep 24, 2003 13:23:56	We've had an interesting discussion regarding Elves within our role-playing community: namely, under the five or so serious 3rd Ed campaigns we've been playing (as well as the short "let's play around for the evening" adventures), no one has made an Elf. Put another way, no Elves whatsoever have been created in 3rd Ed, and all Elven characters currently playing were made in 2nd Ed. After much deliberation, we believe the reason is quite simple: Elves suck. Now, before you stop reading this post and dismiss it as a ridiculous, opinionated rant, let me explain why we arrived at that conclusion. First and foremost, we establish that in 2nd Edition, most campaigns didn't have a good racial balance. Humans derived no bonuses whatsoever (with the exception of being the only race that could have Paladins), while all other classes had racial traits and stat modifiers that were worth a lot more in 2nd than 3rd Edition: namely, having -1 to your Constitution was pretty much irrelevant, since the HP modifier for Con 7 through 14 was the same: 0. And though the system shock and revivification table had their uses, they were limited enough that the HP modifier was all most players (and DMs) cared about. Only if your Constitution dropped to 6 or lower were you in trouble (-1 HP per level), while at the same time the higher tiers in stats grew almost exponentially- the difference between Dex 15 and 16, for instance, was enormous. Also, humans were only able to dualize into another class, rather than being a multi-class character: and to dualize, you needed a 17+ in all the primary stats of the class you wanted to change to. A clause in the PHB tried to balance the other races in comparison with the human, who had no racial powers or stat modifiers, by stating that the other races had a level limit, beyond which they could not progress in a campaign. If memory serves right, an Elven Wizard could not climb past 12th level, and so on. The explanation was that only humans were quick enough to learn and adapt, that they could rise to really high levels during a campaign. No DM I know ever applied that rule. Taking that into consideration, there were only two reasons which would justify your role-playing as a human: first, if you wanted to be a Paladin, second, if you liked humans. Fortunately, enough players liked humans to ensure that we had a steady supply of the world's dominant, representative race. Even so, we saw a lot of Elves. Not only did they gain 90% magic resistance against most enchantment effects, they also had to-hit bonuses with longsword and longbow, an incredibly useful ability to detect hidden doors, infravision, fantastic racial-specific classes such as the Bladesinger, a nice stat trade-off (your typical Elf had a Con of around 10 and high Dex), and the ability to be multi-class characters. Most 2nd Ed players will know that until Level 10 or so, multi-class characters were quite simply better than single-class ones: on average, they were one level lower in both classes. If your party's wizard was level 8, the wizard/cleric will be 7/7. Then came 3rd Edition. Now, humans did gain bonuses: 1 skill point per level, and an extra starting feat. Each of the other races got bonuses that were more or less equivalent in point value. Not only that, multi-classing was available for everyone. But because some races had better bonuses than others during 2nd Edition, their old bonuses and trade-offs couldn't be imported straight out. For Elves in particular, this means that: * Their 90% chance to resist sleep and enchantment effects was toned down to immunity to sleep and a +2 to Will saves vs. enchantment. * Their +1 Thac0 bonus (equivalent to a +1 attack bonus) when using shortswords, longswords, or bows was changed to Martial Proficiency with either rapiers or longswords, and Martial Proficiency with a type of bow. * Their Infravision (equivalent of Darkvision, more or less) was changed to Low-Light Vision. * Their ability to detect secret doors was changed so that instead of having a flat 16,7% of detecting any secret door they walked casually by, and either a 33,3% or a 50% flat chance of detecting any secret door while actively looking for it (depending on how well-hidden it was), was changed to a +2 to Search checks and an automatic check. * They gained a +2 to Spot and Listen checks. * Their +1 Dex / -1 Con was changed to +2 Dex / -2 Con. Most of these changes are negative. Unless you happen to be an Elven Rogue, the automatic Search check is probably worse than the flat chance. The +2 bonus to Will saves vs. enchantment is laughable compared to its old, 90% magic resistance incarnation- especially taking into consideration that Dwarves gain a +2 bonus to all spells in 3rd Ed, which they inherited fully from 2nd Ed. The Martial Proficiency Feats are ridiculous- if you're a fighting class, you already have them, and if not, you're not ever going to use them. And the stat trade-off hurts this time around, because in all respects an elf has 1 HP per level less than an equivalent human. What really mystifies us, however, is the Elven favored class. Take into account that any low-level wizard can achieve insanely high AC by casting Shield and Mage Armor, and you'll find that the +1 AC their Dex bonus provides is almost irrelevant. Their Reflex saving throw progression is horrible, and a +1 won't do you much good to save that fireball. The +1 initiative is nice, but hardly impressive. The wizard uses no ranged weapons- he may make some ranged touch attacks, but very few spells require them. And he has no Class Skills that use Dexterity (none that really matter, in any case). The Wizard doesn't have either Spot, Listen or Search as Class Skills- hence the bonuses are almost irrelevant. The Martial Proficiencies are equally laughable: how many longsword-wielding wizards have you seen? And that -1 HP per level... well, it hurts. Since you gain 1d4 base HP per level, it does make a bit of a difference. In essence, the Elven race has no particular advantage for being wizards. More so, considering that Con is possibly more useful than Dex to a Wizard, they would actually be _worse_ wizards than most other races- so that, yes, a Dwarf Wizard template is _better_ than an Elven Wizard template. He gains Con, which helps, and loses Cha, which doesn't hurt. Looking at the elven bonuses, the only class that can really make any good use of them is the Rogue: he can't use Armor, has good Reflex saving throws, has tons of skills that go by Dex, and might actually find the longsword proficiency useful, not to mention the use he could give to Weapon Finesse. The Rogue takes advantage of that +2 Dex. He also appreciates the +2 to Spot, Listen and Search- all of them class skills, for him. The automatic Search check is great for him- with some four ranks, say a +1 bonus from Intelligence, and the +2 bonus for being an Elf, he already modifies a quite decent +7 (obtainable at Level 1), which gives him a reasonable chance to pass an automatic check. Especially in higher levels, it will most likely be better against most secret doors, than the flat 16,7% of 2nd Ed. Elven Fighter/Rogues could be highly effective. But they're hurt by having something totally unrelated as their favored class Why is it then that elves are supposed to be good wizards? Basically, their "fluff" or race flavor has very little to do with their racial bonuses. That discourages their use. We arrived at two simple solutions, mutually exclusive: 1) As they stand now, Humans make better wizards, because they can buy Spell Focus, Spell Penetration, and other useful feats with their extra feat, whereas Elves gain nothing, really, from their racial bonuses. Hence, make Elves be at least as good Wizards as Humans (and hopefully better than Dwarves). Change their Martial Proficiency feats, which are almost useless, for Arcane Defense: Enchantment and Spell Focus: Enchantment, natural to the race. That gives them a decent +4 to Will saves against enchantments, and a +2 to their enchantment-related spells, which actually makes them good wizards, and makes sense according to their racial profile. or, 2) Forget about Elves making good wizards, and Elven society being magically-oriented. Keep the racial bonuses as they are, but change the martial profiencies to a +1 attack bonus with either shortsword, longsword or rapier and a +1 attack bonus to any one type of bow, like they had in 2nd Ed, and change their favored class to either fighter, ranger, or rogue. Elven society would be a more martial business, its members taught to hunt and fight with sword and arrow. Both respond to different concepts; the first to elves as a magically-attuned people, etc., as per D&D traditional mythos, while the second is a more Tolkien-esque representation of them as stern, arrogant protectors of the forest. Either way, they harmonize the concept and its in-game representation, make Elves worth playing (mechanics-wise) again, and deal with the same amount of 'creation bonuses' the manual gave them- they're simply rationally distributed, this time. I've received comments, after this exposition, that the Dungeon Master can 'fix' all the problems I've pointed out above- and that all the DM has to do is fashion a world in which Elves have gained a cultural advantage in magic- say, by tradition, or by having a magical university better than any other races' own, and so on. My answer is quite simple: the way the D&D 3rd Ed rules were laid out, they shouldn't need to do so. The manual contemplates a decent balance between all races in the core game mechanics- the DM shouldn't need to fashion the world to balance the races. Hence, the problem isn't that the DM didn't take the time to somehow make Elves good wizards, but that the rules themselves have failed to do so. I've also received other comments along the lines of "Well, anyone who really likes elves will play them anyway. You're just exaggerating." While it is true, I also believe that no one should be penalized for liking a race's features and characteristics. Why should any player who likes having pointy ears and living for ages suffer in terms of game mechanics? I whole-heartedly approve of WotC's decision to balance out the races- my point is that, quite simply, they're not balanced enough, as far as elves go. As for Half-Elves... they're like Elves but receive even more meager bonuses, so that they're effectively (in terms of game mechanics) the worst race in the PHB. I believe the same comment has been made in the Half-Elven Foundation thread- well, it's sad but true. A friend of mine suggested giving them a +1 skill point per level in addition to what they have now, but I haven't considered the matter carefully enough to endorse that.
#2 zombiegleemax Sep 26, 2003 8:45:04	I agree with some aspects of your comments, but I feel that overall elves are a well balanced race as compared to humans, and they do make excellent wizards. I will discuss my view on each of the elven traits, as they relate to a wizard. +2 Dex/-2 Con. Firstly I must note a personal bias. I generally play using point buy ability scores, which make any bonus/penalty numerically beneficial, as it will allow you to replace a 14, 14 pair of abilities, costing 12 pnts, with a 16, 12 pair, worth 14 pnts. As a wizard, while dex is slightly less generally valuable than con, a very high dex is extremely worthwhile if the character is designed to take advantage of it. I consider that having 16 Dex and 12 Con is better than 14 in each. Weapon Proficiencies. Are crucial, especially at low levels. A 1st level specialist wizard has 3 1st level spells, assuming a decent intelligence. This means he has 3 rounds worth of offensive magic at his disposal, if he uses none of his spells for defence or utility. This means if he is to be a useful party asset in more than 1 fight, he must use a weapon. Given his poor hp, missle weapons are the way to go, and here the elf shines. Firstly the dex bonus improves his chances to hit, and secondly he can wield a longbow instead of a light crossbow. The two weapons do the same damage (19-20 x2 is equal to 20 x3), but with the crossbow the wizard is fixed in place if he wants to shoot, while with the bow he can maneuver while still firing. The longsword and rapier are better than the staff or the dagger, and mean that if he is unlucky enough to be forced into hth the elf wizard has a slightly better chance than his human counterpart, but it is the free longbow proficiency combined with the high dex that really helps. Low-light vision. Very useful, especially when on watch in the wilderness or beside a campfire. Sure, not as good as darkvision, but a nice bonus. Spot and listen bonuses. Combined with darkvision and the elven 4 hour trance instead of 8 hour sleep, they make the elf a very useful nightwatchman. Search bonus. For a high Int wizard, this is a valuable ability. With an Int 16, he will have a +5 search chance, which gives him a 25% chance of finding a DC 20 secret door just by walking past. Altogether, the elven abilities make for a very good wizard, but not an overpoweringly good one. Compared to a human, the elf will be more useful in combat, and have a better armor class, while the human will have 1 extra feat, providing, for example, a +1 save DC for some of his spells, and +1 hp per level. Yes, the elf has lost a lot since 2cd ed, but I tthink that goes to make him balanced, as opposed to overwhealmingly better than, a human. Cheers, quetzyl
#3 zombiegleemax Sep 26, 2003 10:32:46	I'm crying large green munchkin with regeneration on this thread. First you seem to only be playing races for their power. Elves in previous editions were overpowered. (Human multiclassing in 1st edition could produce some wonderful results, however. *cough* Bard *cough*). You are now complaining that because they aren't overpowered no one plays them. Secondly you can't see the use of longbows or low light vision to classes without them. (Admittedly the rogue does better than the wizard here) Thirdly the reason for the favoured class is part cultural and part to do with their lifespan- elves have the time to master magic, while humans tend to die after only 70 years or so (usually less). The only race better as wizards qua wizards than the elves are the gnomes (wizards qua adventurers is a different issue entirely), and gnomes have a different and much more fickle mindset meaning that they are less likely to sit down long enough to become wizards.
#4 zombiegleemax Sep 28, 2003 17:37:01	Weapon Proficiencies. Are crucial, especially at low levels. A 1st level specialist wizard has 3 1st level spells, assuming a decent intelligence. This means he has 3 rounds worth of offensive magic at his disposal, if he uses none of his spells for defence or utility. This means if he is to be a useful party asset in more than 1 fight, he must use a weapon. Given his poor hp, missile weapons are the way to go, and here the elf shines. Firstly the dex bonus improves his chances to hit, and secondly he can wield a longbow instead of a light crossbow. The two weapons do the same damage (19-20 x2 is equal to 20 x3), but with the crossbow the wizard is fixed in place if he wants to shoot, while with the bow he can maneuver while still firing. The longsword and rapier are better than the staff or the dagger, and mean that if he is unlucky enough to be forced into hth the elf wizard has a slightly better chance than his human counterpart, but it is the free longbow proficiency combined with the high dex that really helps. But that's only in the case of a wizard. How about fighters, rangers, paladins etc, who get the proficiencies anyway? They lose out on a bonus, just because they get it from another source.
#5 zombiegleemax Sep 30, 2003 22:21:25	To discuss some of the replies: +2 Dex/-2 Con. Firstly I must note a personal bias. I generally play using point buy ability scores, which make any bonus/penalty numerically beneficial, as it will allow you to replace a 14, 14 pair of abilities, costing 12 pnts, with a 16, 12 pair, worth 14 pnts. As a wizard, while dex is slightly less generally valuable than con, a very high dex is extremely worthwhile if the character is designed to take advantage of it. I consider that having 16 Dex and 12 Con is better than 14 in each. Fair enough- we use the 4d6, take out the lowest die method. That means the +2/-2 trade-off is not quite so beneficial. Weapon Proficiencies. Are crucial, especially at low levels. A 1st level specialist wizard has 3 1st level spells, assuming a decent intelligence. This means he has 3 rounds worth of offensive magic at his disposal, if he uses none of his spells for defence or utility. This means if he is to be a useful party asset in more than 1 fight, he must use a weapon. Given his poor hp, missile weapons are the way to go, and here the elf shines. Firstly the dex bonus improves his chances to hit, and secondly he can wield a longbow instead of a light crossbow. The two weapons do the same damage (19-20 x2 is equal to 20 x3), but with the crossbow the wizard is fixed in place if he wants to shoot, while with the bow he can maneuver while still firing. The longsword and rapier are better than the staff or the dagger, and mean that if he is unlucky enough to be forced into hth the elf wizard has a slightly better chance than his human counterpart, but it is the free longbow proficiency combined with the high dex that really helps. The difference between a quarterstaff and a longsword or rapier is minimal enough, for a wizard, that it's not really worth discussing. As for the bow proficiency, it is a valid point- with the following comments: (1) It is only useful in low levels. The wizard's base attack is horrible, and any situation that pushes him so far that he runs out of spells is not likely to be resolved by a wizard shooting arrows past the first two or three levels, at most. (2) The issue isn't finding a use for the proficiency- it's comparing it to the alternative. Weapon Proficiency: Bow is a whole racial feat, that most classes will find useless, and the favored class will find somewhat useful during its low levels. Forgive me, but that is a sorry trade. Low-light vision. Very useful, especially when on watch in the wilderness or beside a campfire. Sure, not as good as darkvision, but a nice bonus. Spot and listen bonuses. Combined with darkvision and the elven 4 hour trance instead of 8 hour sleep, they make the elf a very useful nightwatchman. A nice bonus, to be sure, but again it is the alternative that's relevant. Dwarves and most monsters, and many of the non-core races, have Darkvision- Elves simply have Low-light. As for the efficient watchmen issue- remember, an elven _wizard_ still has to rest a full 8 hours to memorize, so you can't expect him to be a particularly assiduous guard at night. Certainly, the spot, listen, low-light vision (not Darkvision) and trance are quite useful for some classes- such as the rogue, or ranger- but not the wizard, in this context. Search bonus. For a high Int wizard, this is a valuable ability. With an Int 16, he will have a +5 search chance, which gives him a 25% chance of finding a DC 20 secret door just by walking past. Again, a nice bonus- but far more useful for a rogue than a wizard, given the skill system. And purchased at what cost? Darkvision, maybe? Or a +2 to one of his class skills, like Spellcraft or Knowledge: Arcana, that would be infinitely more useful? Altogether, the elven abilities make for a very good wizard, but not an overpoweringly good one. Compared to a human, the elf will be more useful in combat, and have a better armor class, while the human will have 1 extra feat, providing, for example, a +1 save DC for some of his spells, and +1 hp per level. The elven abilities make for a mediocre wizard: he is no better than any other core race at wizardry, and his abilities are focused for a rogue. The elven wizard will be more useful in combat during very low levels, and as I pointed out before, the ability to use Shield and/or Mage Armor makes the 1 extra AC point from the +2 Dex practically irrelevant. Certainly, it has some more value when you have only 3 level 1 spell slots- but again, you're simply pointing out that the elven wizard has a minor edge in very low levels, in those aspects. As for the human's extra feat- we play 3.0, so the +1 save DC is a +2, which is a pretty big difference. He could also buy toughness, to have (following your 14 Con example) a grand total of 9 HP at Level 1. Or, he could even decide to buy the Weapon Proficiency: Bow with it if he felt like it. The way the elf's racial abilities are structured, a Human is at least equal, or better. The Dwarf is a better wizard, for Christ's sake. I'm crying large green munchkin with regeneration on this thread. First you seem to only be playing races for their power. Elves in previous editions were overpowered. (Human multiclassing in 1st edition could produce some wonderful results, however. *cough* Bard *cough*). You are now complaining that because they aren't overpowered no one plays them. I referred at first to their being overpowered, and if you'll read the closing statement of my post, I'm actually in favour of racial balancing. Again, I don't believe those who like humans should have penalties in their character sheet simply because of what amounts to aesthetic and cultural taste. Besides, having balanced races minimizes nasty glances from the players beside you, thinking "there goes the min/maxer again..." And, what I am complaining about is that Elves are under powered, which is the reason no one (in my group) has made any new ones. Put simply, their bonuses are in all the wrong places, so much so that it's a bit comical for a PC Elf to be haughty and claim how Elves are superior to everything else to walk under the sun- they're not even level with humans in their favored class, for crying out loud. I like elves, and I like wizards- but I simply don't feel like playing an elven wizard the way WotC has profiled them in the manual. A Grey Elf, maybe. And quite frankly, I'm discussing racial balance. Much though I may decry that the Dwarf is a better wizard, I will never play a dwarven wizard. I like a race for its cultural and aesthetical background, but the minimum I ask is that the PHB respects that when they define the racial template. Secondly you can't see the use of longbows or low light vision to classes without them. (Admittedly the rogue does better than the wizard here) Again, it's not that I don't see the use- I simply think the use is far too limited for the cost. Low-light vision is nice, but you don't have Spot as a Class skill. Add to that the ridiculously high Spot DCs for many situations, and your low-light vision and +2 to Spot will still be worse than the Rogue's. Of course, a Rogue with low-light vision is another matter. So, then- why wizard as favored class? Or why the +2 to Spot instead of Knowledge: Arcana, which, given their long lifespans, would make perfect sense for a magically-oriented race? Thirdly the reason for the favoured class is part cultural and part to do with their lifespan- elves have the time to master magic, while humans tend to die after only 70 years or so (usually less). The only race better as wizards qua wizards than the elves are the gnomes (wizards qua adventurers is a different issue entirely), and gnomes have a different and much more fickle mindset meaning that they are less likely to sit down long enough to become wizards. What does that have to do with racial balance? How exactly is it comforting to know that, if only you weren't an adventurer, the age issue would be relevant? Having culture dictate your favored class is fine- appropriate, really. But it should be reflected somewhere in the PHB! That's what racial balance is all about, and is what I'm arguing about. In any case- thanks for replying and showing an interest in discussing the issue.
#6 nghtsngr Oct 01, 2003 10:45:43	But that's only in the case of a wizard. How about fighters, rangers, paladins etc, who get the proficiencies anyway? They lose out on a bonus, just because they get it from another source. The bonus is implemented to point out that every elf is proficient in certain weapons. Sure, this bonus isn't as useful to a fighter class, but they are the exception! An elven rogue can sneak attack with a weapon that does 1d8! An elven cleric can wield a longbow! An elven commoner can wield a bow and sword! Every member of an elven community is more then able to mount the walls with bow in hand and sword ready to defend their homeland. The elven ranger will make good use of the bonus to dex (since they are only in light armor) and the bonus to spot and listen checks (since rangers invariable end up scouting the way for ambush). An elven fighter is likely the only low-level fighter that will keep his feet after the orc shaman casts sleep on the party. And the traditionally low intelligence and wisdom of fighters is not as big a hindrance to their ability to avoid being surprised. (Again, spot and listen checks.)
#7 zombiegleemax Oct 02, 2003 1:57:51	But that's only in the case of a wizard. How about fighters, rangers, paladins etc, who get the proficiencies anyway? They lose out on a bonus, just because they get it from another source. While the Barbarians, fighter, rangers, and paladins get this anyway, other classes do not. Clerics, Druids, Bards, Rouges, Sorcerers, wizards, commoners, aristocrats, and experts all don't have this. Note I used NPC classes too, good DMs will understand why.:D (even so, you could just consider it a nice novelty if the above isn't enough) Besides, Elves really are meant to be multiclass characters. 2e set that up for them, 3e just had to find a means to do it. They gave them the favored class wizard for a reason, just like all races except humans and half-elves. ____________________________________________________ On another note I say that Half-elves don't suck, at least in the way you play them. In 3.0 they were designed to be an "Urban Elf", one that you could write a story behind. They could be any class, have any bonus languages, and made good go-betweens. They didn't suck in the dungeon either. I'd gladly take Lowlight vision as a feat if it wasn't a racial trait. 3.5 sets them up as great characters of many classes. They gain bonuses to diplomacy (A VITAL SKILL IN MOST CAMPAIGNS) and Gather info (another nice skill)... NOW FOR THE RANT! Class skills are meant to be there so that the class always has access to those given skills. Race has nothing to do with why you take a given skill (unless you are a complete MIN/MAXer), class has to do with it. Some races are just good at certain things that have nothing to do with their class. Besides, any bonus to listen, search, and spot will help any class out. Also, WIZARDS DON"T NEED HP, they shouldn't be charging into melee any way. Dex is what they need, it is both good for dodging a blow and getting out of the way of a ranged touch attack. If a wizard is lacking HP in combat, he should never have been in that combat. Elves epitomize what it means to be an adventuring wizard. If you can't see that, then you should keep playing the Half-Orc Barbarian.
#8 thugpoetry Oct 25, 2003 12:25:34	On Topic: If memory serves right, an Elven Wizard could not climb past 12th level, and so on. The explanation was that only humans were quick enough to learn and adapt, that they could rise to really high levels during a campaign. No DM I know ever applied that rule The DM's that I played under in 2ed certainly enforced that rule. So I never made an elven character back then. Granted, I only had two serious characters, but each went where only humans could go. Alas that I was young enough to not see the joys of multi-classing in 2ed. I'd think that if you could have the main advantage of being a human in 2ed, as well as all of the joys that came from being an elf, then they would certainly seem absurdly underpowered in 3ed. At low levels, the +1 is basically irrelevant? I'd be willing to grant that it would be irrelevant at mid to high levels, but at low levels? Especially first level, where your wizard might not want to burn the majority of his spells for the day for one encounter? That +1 with my 3ed Elven Wizard saved my bacon. Of course, it was the difference between 12 and 13, cause I like Dex. But ...I digress. A wizard of any level probably shouldn't be charging into melee, true. However, that ranger with his longbow doesn't really care how far you are from the front line, he'll shoot you regardless. I used the rapier as a wizard. Why? ‘Cause he was an elf, and could do that if he HAD to. It wasn't about optimizing the character, it was about the character himself. The coolness factor was subjective, but enjoyable to me. What's the point of the favored class? I've never multiclassed, so I can't speak from experience. I would think that a duelist style character with just a level or two in Wizard for M.Armor/Shield/Prestidigitation wouldn't be too bad to play. But a sorcerer would probably make better mechanical sense, wouldn't it? To sum it all up: With mid to high levels, I tend to agree more with your points. At the extreme low levels, though, the bonuses are worthwhile.
#9 zombiegleemax Feb 14, 2004 21:47:59	How about this: Elf as-is exept: +2 Dex, -2 Str In addition to proficiency with the elf weapons they get a +1 bonus to attack/dmg rolls if using said weapons.
#10 zombiegleemax Feb 19, 2004 23:51:35	Better still, why not simply change the Elf's favoured class to Bard? Think about it: -Dexterity affects many Bard skills -Listen is a class skill -Chaotic bent of the bard is appealing to the elf's chaotic nature -Save versus enchantment useful if the bard encounters another bard. -Elven culture values music and entertainment -Arcane magic also well-liked by elves There is little reason, culturally or statistically, why the Elven Favoured class shouldn't be bard.
#11 zombiegleemax Feb 29, 2004 6:55:59	By and large, I must say I find the favored class ability rather dubious. Who gets the bonus? A character who has that class, and one or more other classes, AND who does not have an even distribution of levels in these classes. This means, considering only two classes, that you can get away from the XP penalty when a) you have one class to high levels, and want a second class, or b) you start up as one class, then choose to advance another higher. So if you have favored class, wizard, does that in any way mean you are a better wizard? Hardly. It makes you better at being everything BUT a wizard. To top it off, a few levels of wizard is a poor investment as soon as you get up a little bit in experience. After all, a 15th level fighter is not going to gain very much for being able to cast a few level 1 spells, especially considering the wealth of magic items he could be carrying by then. So, the character who really stands to gain something for that favoured class is the one who has a few levels of other classes, and a lot of wizard. However, this is not very impressive either. A high level wizard likely gains the most from another wizard level, not one or two rogue levels. (Whee, +1d6 extra damage when stabbing with my dagger sure makes death spell pale...) In short, it's not the elf that's problematic, it's the idea of favored class.
#12 zombiegleemax Mar 03, 2004 11:37:23	Well, although you might think the elves should get Bard as favoured class, consider that Bards do not multiclass very often - for a reason: They are already considered to be jacks-of-all-trades. I think you could argue for wizard, sorcerer, bard, rogue, ranger or even druid as favoured class for elves. I would side with ranger or sorcerer - seeing elves as more chaotic and charismatic than organized and intelligent.
#13 zombiegleemax Mar 04, 2004 11:23:45	Arcane Trickster Eldritch Knight Spellsword Mystic Theurge Prestige Bard Bladesinger (Complete Warrior version) It's classes like these that benefit from favoured class: Wizard. Characters who want to cast and do something else and that can get the two abilities to synergise, but that don't necessarily want the pre-requisite levels balanced. Favoured classes do work- but not for everything.
#14 zombiegleemax Mar 10, 2004 16:04:24	How bout switching low light to darkvision? It is the only thing I see as less balanced. I disagree with just about every other argument you had. Not getting hit matters to a sorceror, hit points wont make a big difference. The Weapons are all good for a sorceror or cleric or rogue or wizard. The +2 spot is great for all classes (this doesnt compare with humans, but as an elf you get many other benefits) The +2 will save and immunity isnt great for a sorceror (whos main save is will) but for a fighter, rogue, or barbarian (who get mindraped all the time) it is a godsend. Also, the bonus to reflex is nice for a fighter or barbarian(fortitude save as the main one doesnt need more bonus) rangers or paladins get fortitude and willpower, reflex is the only one lacking. You also forgot weapon finesse. As a ranger or rogue, throw on weapon finesse and you can usually get a +4 to hit with bows AND rapiers. with your higher dex and to hit score 2 handed weapon style rules. BUT the most important part of being an elf (though as a powergamer you might not care) is that THEY PRACTICALLY LIVE FOREVER! So yes, a human could take dodge OR combat reflexes OR Strong will OR weapon proficiency martial OR alertness.... but an elf already has these 5 feats compared to the humans bonus skills and bonus feat (2 if you count the human as having toughness over the elf) The only reason i would say the human is balanced is it has a choice of feats to take while the elf is stuck with the 5 its granted racially
#15 Chiba_Monkey Mar 12, 2004 14:59:01	I don't know about you, but I've always been a big fan of elves that have nothing whatsoever to do with what stat modifiers are given to them. I agree that no DM I ever knew in 2nd ed ever enforced the level limit. Humans were pretty useless in 2nd ed. I've played in a group once that was made up of no less than SEVEN elves! . . . and a halfling. I'm sorry that your players are more concerned with playing overpowered races than with roleplaying a nigh-ageless being with rich culture. Weapon proficiencies make a lot of sense. Elves live a long time, and are very proud of their skills in swordsmanship and archery. It makes sense that every elf knows how to use them. And they're a big deal to an elven wizard at 1st level. I play an elven wizard in a game that just started recently (I'm level 3 now), and my longbow has allowed me to dish out decent damage (and my +2 Dex improves my aim) without wasting my valuable spells (My character’s somewhat ethnocentric, if not conceited. He dislikes "wasting" his spells unless he needs to). However, I do disagree with the concept of favored classes. In my game world, I've gone back to the simple expedient of "Certain races cannot be certain classes". An elven paladin makes no sense to me. Elves are chaotic, elven gods are chaotic. Paladins must obey the 1 step alignment rule. Likewise, gnomes and halflings dislike the kind of "vanguard" mentality that paladins tend towards. I only allow humans, dwarves, and 1/2 elves to be paladins. On the subject of 1/2 elves,they got hosed, big time in 3.0. I told my characters that if they made a 1/2 elf they had to decide which parent they were raised by. Raised by Humans? They get the extra skill points. Raised by elves? They get the weapon proficiency. I like that 3.5 boosted them somewhat. And don't knock the Gather Information skill. Sometimes a good Gather Info check can save your party a lot of wandering around. It's one of those skills that people only seem to take if a PrC requires it, and even then they never use it. Oh, and on my "not every race can be every class" thing. I ALWAYS am willing to make an exception in the interest of fun, story, and roleplaying. If a player can come to me with a well-thought out character concept and background for a 1/2 orc paladin, I'll allow it.