How Do You Like Your Races?


 The Races in D&DN kind of suck. Humans are overpowered and everything else is kinda boring and shoehorned into various classes due to things like the racial weapon use (bigger dice of damage via racial weapons). 3.5, 4th ed, Pathfinder and even 3.0 all had more interesting races than the current batch.

 Personally I like the +2/+2/-2 format for ability scores that Pathfinder uses. 4th ed used +2/+2 which is also fine but it did make humans suck a bit at least until more splats were released. Humans are also overpowered in Pathfinder and probably 3.5 and they sucked in 2nd ed. I did like the floating ability scores introduced in 4th ed. Putting it togather in my personal game for example using the Elf I use these stats.

+2 Dex, +2 Int or Dex, -2 Con.

 Not sure how one could balance out a human if it was 4th ed style race with no negative. +2 to two ability scores of your choice would be crazy good.

 Star Wars Saga had a nice mix in Races in terms of ability scores. Some reaces got +4 even in one score instead of +2/+2. Some races were over powered and underpowered due to other abilites.

 Encounter powers for races in 4th ed were fine, almost required for Dragonborn and using the old Elf again for example Elven Accuracy was better than say the 3.5 Elf and D&DN as it was a neutral racial ability usable with all classes. I also liked racial feats making certain races better with iconic weapons as oppesed to baking it into the base stats. They tried that in 3.5 but the Dwarf made a better wizard than the Elf.

 In summary I like.

+2/+2/-2 For stats, not to worried if negatives are thrown out though- not worth getting upset about. One of the +2 is "floating" as well.

Somewhat class neutral racial abilites. An elven wizard in 2nd ed for example didn't get much from +1 to hit with swords and bows, same deal with D&DN races (ergo pick a human).

Racial powers. Not to worried either way. I would like to see them there for some races, and I would prefer some over the current setup. Some were better than others in 4th ed though.

 ANyway what do you want/expect form the races?

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

How Do You Like Your Races?

Fast, and with lots of turns. But screw F1, it's boring. The drivers are too careful.

Seriously, though, I like the PF treatment of races. I'm not really in agreement with the overpowered humans line - I'm assuming you're basing that on the extra feat.
Color me flattered.

LIFE CYCLE OF A RULES THREAD

Show
Thank_Dog wrote:

2Chlorobutanal wrote:
I think that if you have to argue to convince others about the clarity of something, it's probably not as objectively clear as you think.

No, what it means is that some people just like to be obtuse.

Extra feat and choice of +2 to any ability score you like make the PF very good. The 3.5 human was a popular choice mechanically, PF added a +2 to any score of your choice. I rewrote the PF races and ported some 4th ed racial feats to PF in an effort to bribe people to play other races.

Overpowered IMHO in PF and weak in 4th ed due to secondary riders. Human got better as 4th ed went along though with its essentials era racial power and adding more at wills to the game as that ability was kind of weak in the PHB era 4th ed.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Meh. I play with some serious number crunchers and very few of them have ever preferred humans. We usually pick races to fit a concept.
Color me flattered.

LIFE CYCLE OF A RULES THREAD

Show
Thank_Dog wrote:

2Chlorobutanal wrote:
I think that if you have to argue to convince others about the clarity of something, it's probably not as objectively clear as you think.

No, what it means is that some people just like to be obtuse.

Like this.

No penalties, no pigeon holing, nothing culture-related, and plenty of optional features to suit every style of play, from encounter powers even to specific weapon bonuses or culturally evocative options as long as they can be exchanged for something else. 4E got the bonuses right, and Pathfinder did racial feature options superbly.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
I like my races without attribute modifiers.  For all the talk on these forums about people wanting to be able to build their style of character, to have options, to negate walls; I see no reason why anyone of those people would support attribute modifiers.  All it does is pigeon-hole.
I actually like race design in D&DN. Weapon traits I treat like a freebie: everyone gets one (except humans, but that's a different problem), so I disregard them for the sake of balance. Are they usually better for martial characters than casters? Well, sure, but since every non-human race gets one, I usually disregard them when building characters unless they're relevant to my class.

I also hate racial ability score penalties. Because while you complain about weapon familiarity shoehorning races into certain classes, racial ability score penalties do it far worse. Elves getting a penalty to Con pretty much locks the race out of excelling at any Con based class. Dwarves with a Cha penalty? Then dwarves will always make subpar bards and sorcerers. I hate that.

One of the things I liked about 4E was the idea that every race/class combination should be playable. They won't all be optimal, but they should all be able to contribute meaningfully to the party. Now, obviously, 4E failed to deliver on this promise with some races, like the poor Minotaur and it's melee/charging dependent racial traits. But the idea was there in the beginning, and I'd like to see that philosophy brought back for D&DN.

Because some of my favourite characters I've ever played are non-standard race/class combinations. I want to be able to play my Dwarven Rogues or Half-Orc Sorcerers. And the one thing that you can do that punishes those unique combinations more than anything else is ability score penalties.

That said, I'll also say that I like the current model of "+1 to a stat from Race, +1 to a stat from Class" because it puts less pressure on the player to pick a race with an optimal ability bonus, since they know they can also boost their primary stat with their class choice.

And humans.....well, humans are a colossal mess that really need fixing. I'd be fine with them getting a floating +2 to represent their adaptability, but ditch the +1 to everything else and give us some actual racial traits please.
D&D Experience Level: Relatively new First Edition: 4th Known Editions: 4th, 3.5 --- Magic Experience Level: Fairly skilled First Expansion: 7th Edition Play Style: Very Casual
For all the talk on these forums about people wanting to be able to build their style of character, to have options, to negate walls; I see no reason why anyone of those people would support attribute modifiers.  All it does is pigeon-hole.

Not if you have one of these!

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
For humans I'd like to see more actual abilities, less bonus ability scores, feats, and skills, things like being able to use the help action as a minor action (which this games needs to implement, desperately) or a WYTAA action, once per encounter. Some of the old style bonus feats and such can be in there I just think humans tend to have certain distinct aspects beyond just being the middlegrounders.

 For everyone else I gotta go with Zardnaar, except for the ability score penalty thing, if we have to have somethign along those lines though someone came up with an idea a while back that i like: 1st level maximums. Essentially a first level elf cannot place anything higher than a 16 in con, if he places a higher rolled or array stat in con the score drops to 16 and the difference is added to his lowest ability score, if using point buy the elf player cannot purchase past a 16 in con at first level.
The +2 thing in D&DN still makes the human a better choice than the other races in all classes including the ones where XYZ Demihuman gets bonus damage out of a weapon. For classes that do not use a wepaon the human is the no brainer choice form a mechanical PoV.

-2 con may hurt Elves in previous verisons of the game. Right now in effect non humans get -1 to everything. On les hit point per level via a con penalty isn't that big a deal for most classes even frontline fighters. For D&DN all races should probably have a +2 somehting, ditch the +1 humans get on everything else and give them something else to compensate. The that increased damage dice will actually matter.

 4th Ed +2/+2 also pigeonholed races just in a different way and made humans either suck or be sub optiaml mechanically for most of 4th ed existence as they are outclassed by every other race in most classes. No edition really got it 100% right.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

I like my races without attribute modifiers.  For all the talk on these forums about people wanting to be able to build their style of character, to have options, to negate walls; I see no reason why anyone of those people would support attribute modifiers.  All it does is pigeon-hole.


I agree.  I don't care for attribute modifiers.  I don't think D&D is ready to ditch them however, so bonuses only is a fine compromise position for me (that way playing against type makes you sub optimal instead of subpar).  Otherwise I agree with CC, especially about all the options.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

Um actually the weapon/armor thing is worse pigeon holer than the ability score bonuses (not that I couldn't live without those I certainly could see a system where race did not have a direct impact on ability scores). Ability scores, especially power scores like dex or con, are useful to all classes and builds even if only to make saves with.

A dwarven wizard doesn't get a lot of mileage out of axe proficiency and damage boost. Even if he does try to use the axe he's not likely to have the str score to make it worth anything.
Um actually the weapon/armor thing is worse pigeon holer than the ability score bonuses (not that I couldn't live without those I certainly could see a system where race did not have a direct impact on ability scores). Ability scores, especially power scores like dex or con, are useful to all classes and builds even if only to make saves with.

A dwarven wizard doesn't get a lot of mileage out of axe proficiency and damage boost. Even if he does try to use the axe he's not likely to have the str score to make it worth anything.


Actually, under the new general casting rules, they do.  If they stay as proposed.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

The 3.5 Dwarven wizrad got a +2 fort save bonus over an Elven wizard and a nice save bonus vs spells and poison to boot. It was actually the 2nd best wizard race after the human as no core 3.5 PHB race got an intelligence bonus. Wizards had low hit points and fort saves. Dwarf in effect gave them d6 hit dice and a nice fort save bonus. Elves were better rnagers and rogues in 3.5 than wizards.

 As to its racial weapon thing yeah the Dwarf wizard missed out and its one reaosn why I'm not a fan of weapon abilities as a racial package in any edition. I liked 4th eds system in that regard along with its racial feats.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

General casting rules? Is my copy glitched cause I can't find where those matter to the subject of axes.

Also why is the dwarven wizard (who already needs three good scores Int-dex-con) wasting points on str enough to use that hammer?
I liked AD&D: bonuses and penalties where appropriate, with racial limits to prevent things like pixies from having more than 13 strength.

I hate it when a system tries to be politically correct and ignores the penalties that should be obvious just by looking at something.  No, halflings can't be as strong as orcs, because they have less than a quarter of the mass. To claim otherwise is insulting.

The metagame is not the game.

General casting rules? Is my copy glitched cause I can't find where those matter to the subject of axes.

Also why is the dwarven wizard (who already needs three good scores Int-dex-con) wasting points on str enough to use that hammer?


Sorry.  I read that wrong.  I thought you mentioned armor for some reason.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

I hate it when a system tries to be politically correct and ignores the penalties that should be obvious just by looking at something.  No, halflings can't be as strong as orcs, because they have less than a quarter of the mass. To claim otherwise is insulting.

This is a fantasy game. My Halfling can have as much Strength as I want. If you don't want your Halfling to have that much Strength, then don't give you Halfling that much Strength. What's insulting (besides the ever-lazy "politically correct" argument) is not wanting other people to play what they want just because you don't like it.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
I did, remembered that applied to only half the dwarven population, and changed it to the axe thing.

Also checked the latest packet, wizards can only cast non-somatic spells in armor, pretty big hit.
I did, remembered that applied to only half the dwarven population, and changed it to the axe thing.


Good.  I thought I was seeing things for a moment.

Also checked the latest packet, wizards can only cast non-somatic spells in armor, pretty big hit.


I meant the general caster stuff mentioned in the new L&L Class Design Concepts article.  Specifically this: "Finally, we will add rules for casting spells while in armor. The rule will simply be that if you are proficient with a type of armor, you can cast spells while wearing it. Otherwise, the armor interferes with your ability to cast."

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

That sounds nice, but I'll wait till i see the wizard in the next packet before I celebrate. 
This is a fantasy game. My Halfling can have as much Strength as I want. If you don't want your Halfling to have that much Strength, then don't give you Halfling that much Strength. What's insulting (besides the ever-lazy "politically correct" argument) is not wanting other people to play what they want just because you don't like it.

Of course your Halfling can have as much Strength as you want.  You can make any house rules you feel like, and anyone to tell you otherwise is a bully.

I'm just advocating for the base game, with default presentation, to be something that would reasonably make sense to new players.  They're the life-blood of the industry, after all.  The default rules, presented in the book, should follow from what any reasonable person would expect based on the descriptions.

If the book describes halflings as three feet tall and not especially stout, any reasonable person would expect that type of a character to be less strong than your average human.

The metagame is not the game.

This is a fantasy game. My Halfling can have as much Strength as I want. If you don't want your Halfling to have that much Strength, then don't give you Halfling that much Strength. What's insulting (besides the ever-lazy "politically correct" argument) is not wanting other people to play what they want just because you don't like it.

Of course your Halfling can have as much Strength as you want.  You can make any house rules you feel like, and anyone to tell you otherwise is a bully.

I'm just advocating for the base game, with default presentation, to be something that would reasonably make sense to new players.  They're the life-blood of the industry, after all.  The default rules, presented in the book, should follow from what any reasonable person would expect based on the descriptions.

If the book describes halflings as three feet tall and not especially stout, any reasonable person would expect that type of a character to be less strong than your average human.



I might be able to get behind you on halflings, but not so much on pixies.  Supernatural creatures have never had their strength inherently limited by their mass.  That being said, I'm certainly not against OPTIONAL attribute maximums.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

Of course your Halfling can have as much Strength as you want.  You can make any house rules you feel like...

Resorting to house rules does not a good argument make. Seriously, the argument of "You can do what you want but my way should be the way stuff works for real." is getting old around these forums. The argument that newer players will expect it is bull; I've taught at least three new groups how to play 4E, and not a single player ever bothered to care that small races didn't have their Strength scores penalized.

If the book describes halflings as three feet tall and not especially stout, any reasonable person would expect that type of a character to be less strong than your average human.

They always have been, even in 4E. In every edition that I've played where Halflings haven't gotten a Strength penalty, Humans have at least had the option of getting a Strength bonus, meaning that Halflngs were indeed on average less strong than Humans.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Of course your Halfling can have as much Strength as you want.  You can make any house rules you feel like...

Resorting to house rules does not a good argument make. Seriously, the argument of "You can do what you want but my way should be the way stuff works for real." is getting old around these forums. The argument that newer players will expect it is bull; I've taught at least three new groups how to play 4E, and not a single player ever bothered to care that small races didn't have their Strength scores penalized.

If the book describes halflings as three feet tall and not especially stout, any reasonable person would expect that type of a character to be less strong than your average human.

They always have been, even in 4E. In every edition that I've played where Halflings haven't gotten a Strength penalty, Humans have at least had the option of getting a Strength bonus, meaning that Halflngs were indeed on average less strong than Humans.


And yet, you're using the very same argument!
How so?

 
Like this.

No penalties, no pigeon holing, nothing culture-related, and plenty of optional features to suit every style of play, from encounter powers even to specific weapon bonuses or culturally evocative options as long as they can be exchanged for something else. 4E got the bonuses right, and Pathfinder did racial feature options superbly.



You want to get rid of the longsword!  I'd ragequit the game...  Seriously, that is an important part of being an elf.
The 3.5 Dwarven wizrad got a +2 fort save bonus over an Elven wizard and a nice save bonus vs spells and poison to boot. It was actually the 2nd best wizard race after the human as no core 3.5 PHB race got an intelligence bonus. Wizards had low hit points and fort saves. Dwarf in effect gave them d6 hit dice and a nice fort save bonus. Elves were better rnagers and rogues in 3.5 than wizards.

 As to its racial weapon thing yeah the Dwarf wizard missed out and its one reaosn why I'm not a fan of weapon abilities as a racial package in any edition. I liked 4th eds system in that regard along with its racial feats.



You're the first person that actually pointed this out besides me (well, at least from what I've read).  I like you... 
And yet, you're using the very same argument!

Uh, no? I'm saying that the default should be a form that we can both use to create the characters that we each want to create without requiring any house rules. By having no penalties, I can select to have my Halfling be a competant Barbarian just like I want by putting a high score in Strength, and you can have your Halfling by a feeble weakling just like you want by putting a low score in Strength. We can both play exactly what we want, and there's no house-ruling required.

You want to get rid of the longsword! I'd ragequit the game... Seriously, that is an important part of being an elf.

No, you're totally missing the point. I would just put the longsword stuff as part of an optional feature, just like the bow stuff, not remove it. It could even be the same feature, it doesn't matter. The point is just to remove it as a requirement for all Elves because it's (a) very class/role-specific and (b) a cultural feature that has no place pretending to be innate. I just forgot about longswords.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
And yet, you're using the very same argument!

Uh, no? I'm saying that the default should be a form that we can both use to create the characters that we each want to create without requiring any house rules. By having no penalties, I can select to have my Halfling be a competant Barbarian just like I want by putting a high score in Strength, and you can have your Halfling by a feeble weakling just like you want by putting a low score in Strength. We can both play exactly what we want, and there's no house-ruling required.

You want to get rid of the longsword! I'd ragequit the game... Seriously, that is an important part of being an elf.

No, you're totally missing the point. I would just put the longsword stuff as part of an optional feature, just like the bow stuff, not remove it. It could even be the same feature, it doesn't matter. The point is just to remove it as a requirement for all Elves because it's (a) very class/role-specific and (b) a cultural feature that has no place pretending to be innate. I just forgot about longswords.



You forgot longswords!  That's just...  wrong...  And insensitive to elves...
To be honest, you are the first person I have ever seen care about Elves and longswords. They're always overshadowed by bows, in my experience. I didn't even notice that the current playtest packet included them until I went to check just now. I had also completely forgotten that they got them back in 3.5 until I also went to check just now. I was hoping to come back and say "What? Longswords aren't important to Elves at all. They don't get anything with them now, only Eladrin got them in 4E, and they didn't get them in 3E!" but it looks like I've just been the one overlooking them this whole time.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Elves with longswords were better in 2nd ed!!!

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

To be honest, you are the first person I have ever seen care about Elves and longswords. They're always overshadowed by bows, in my experience. I didn't even notice that the current playtest packet included them until I went to check just now. I had also completely forgotten that they got them back in 3.5 until I also went to check just now. I was hoping to come back and say "What? Longswords aren't important to Elves at all. They don't get anything with them now, only Eladrin got them in 4E, and they didn't get them in 3E!" but it looks like I've just been the one overlooking them this whole time.



They didn't get them in 3e? 

"Weapon Proficiency: Elves receive the Martial Eapon Proficiency feats for the longsword, rapier, longbow (including composite longbow) and shortbow (including composite shortbow) as bonus feats.  Elves esteem the arts of swordplay and archery..."

That isn't in my PHB for 3e, right?   
Huh? No, I mean that's what I was hoping to come back here and say, but then I looked it up and realized that I had just been overlooking it this whole time.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
And yet, you're using the very same argument!

Uh, no? I'm saying that the default should be a form that we can both use to create the characters that we each want to create without requiring any house rules. By having no penalties, I can select to have my Halfling be a competant Barbarian just like I want by putting a high score in Strength, and you can have your Halfling by a feeble weakling just like you want by putting a low score in Strength. We can both play exactly what we want, and there's no house-ruling required.


Yes, you are. The other poster was discussing racial limits as RAW, the way they were in older editions. You want your way to be default and racial limits as house-ruling. It is the same argument.
I like the (eventual) heavy modularization of races in Pathfinder. (In the "things can be swapped in and out" sense of the term, not the D&DN "this game will be everything to everybody" sense.) It allows for building in a huge number of classic and novel elements for races without making race a source of just jillions of random bonuses.

I also generally like 4e's strategy of fewer more high-impact benefits, rather than a large number of lower-impact benefits. Not even counting things like languages and favored class, 3.5 Gnomes have over a dozen modifiers, and one of them, Small size, is actually a big package of modifiers. This is true of all abilities, but I think racial abilities need to pay special attention to their complexity:splashiness ratio. An example of going a little bit too far off of the map with that sort of thing is Stonecunning; Stonecunning is actually four related abilities, and they're all really minor. (Please not that I'm not saying that stonecunning is useless, just the abilities are very minor.) It's a very fine-grained ability. (It's my experience that most player/DM combos go on sprees of remembering that Stonecunning is a thing and applying it all over the place and then just kind of forgetting about it for a while.)
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
God I hated Ability score penalties. Made about as much sense in a FRPG as penalties based on Gender. Actually, the way they are now in D&DN isn't that bad. Sure specific bonuses do make better combinations for certain classes, but I never saw that as a bad thing.

Also humans in 4E were bad?! Really? Funny thing is most of the Char_Ops boards listed the race as good for any class
Would it be so truly bad if we completely dropped ability score adjustments from races? They wreak havoc on point buy systems, especially when we are using the (score/2-5) mechanic. I truly wish they would make the odd scores more relevant, but I doubt that is possible anymore in this edition.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
The other poster was discussing racial limits as RAW, the way they were in older editions. You want your way to be default and racial limits as house-ruling. It is the same argument.

It is not the same argument at all, because I'm not imposing any limits or any style on anybody. I'm asking that everybody be able to play however they prefer to play by default. Both of us could play our own ways. If you don't understand the difference between "The default should be limited to how I want to play" and "The default should be more open so we can all play what we want to play", then I don't know what else to tell you.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
God I hated Ability score penalties. Made about as much sense in a FRPG as penalties based on Gender. Actually, the way they are now in D&DN isn't that bad. Sure specific bonuses do make better combinations for certain classes, but I never saw that as a bad thing. Also humans in 4E were bad?! Really? Funny thing is most of the Char_Ops boards listed the race as good for any class




 Human sucked when 4th ed came out. They got better as more feats and at will were added to the game and essentials gave them a racial power. They were good at everythign but rarely the best. Elves and Dragonborn were the best races when the 4th ed PHB came out.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

 Human sucked when 4th ed came out. They got better as more feats and at will were added to the game and essentials gave them a racial power. They were good at everythign but rarely the best. Elves and Dragonborn were the best races when the 4th ed PHB came out.



"not being the best"  "sucks". Moreover, in actuality, you're quite wrong.

Humans  were the best race for controllers since release, and remained that way up until around the release of PHB3. Even then they were always ranked #2 race for any other class in Charop by virtue of having a spare feat for Expertise/NAD protection (or multiclass before expertise).
Sign In to post comments