Having class selection increase ability scores it isn't anything new. AD&D gave warriors a higher strength than any other character class (percentile strength). Therefore, I like the idea of the class granting an increased ability score, but I think that it should also apply to the maximum scores as well. That way it's less likely that the wizard in the group will be as strong as the fighter or barbarian.
If they do have classes increase ability scores they should be sure not to allow multi-class characters access to both. Maybe they can pick one or the other, but that's about it.
Having class selection increase ability scores it isn't anything new. AD&D gave warriors a higher strength than any other character class (percentile strength). Therefore, I like the idea of the class granting an increased ability score, but I think that it should also apply to the maximum scores as well. That way it's less likely that the wizard in the group will be as strong as the fighter or barbarian.
If they do have classes increase ability scores they should be sure not to allow multi-class characters access to both. Maybe they can pick one or the other, but that's about it.
I have to ask why, for both points. A strong wizard gains little - if the dice make him really strong, it's mostly for show. If he stops casting spells to take his robe-wearing, staff-wielding, lowest-hp-in-the-game self into melee, he's not helping himself very much. I'd rather see wizards with some variety than a bunch of cookie-cutter medieval nerds.
As for multiclass characters, I don't think they will have all the resources and power that single-classes will have, even if they have two ability score boosts. Look at the fighter/mage - he wants good numbers in at least 4 ability scores (Str, Dex, Con for melee and Int for casting, plus more depending on the rules)! An extra +1 isn't going to make him awesome.
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves.
Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?
That would give pre-defined "racial modifiers", while at the same time making them ignorable. It'll be there if you want to leverage it, but it can also go away if it's going to screw you over. Alas, even this is more of a power-gamer option, because it will primarily appeal to those who gain much more from Dex than they lose from Str.
And those guys aren't playing elves already (or, uh, did so when statmods were hardcoded)? The players who want to exploit a +2 dex could still do so, while the players who just want a decent elf barb for some reason can also do so.
A fixed +2/-2 just forces (or heavilly encourages) powergaming, or ends up causing lamergaming. (is lamergaming even a thing?)
None of that pigeon holes anything. It might have them lean in certain directions, but definitely not pigeon holing. Even the Dwarf as is in 4e makes excellent non melee characters, as well. 4e doesn't pigeon hole anyone, really. There are definitely races that lean certain ways, but every race is viable at every class.
Pigeon holing is "You're really good at x, but horrible at y." It forces you to always play one kind of character with that race, or be well below par. It's a system mastery thing. Negative stats do just this. You're talking about a -4 penalty overall versus a race that has a bonus. That's a huge incentive to stray away from certain race/class combos that could otherwise be interesting.
This! I've noticed a tendency for some people to think that if they aren't playing the absolute best possible race/class combo, the character sucks. This is just patently false. Any race can play any class well. You don't NEED the +2 in the primary stat in order to be good.
Nope, you don't need it. The -2 actively discourages you from trying that combo, too. As I said, now you're at a -4 from the races that are "supposed to" play that class.
actually, given the examples they have hinted at, with the bonus resting both race and class at an equal ammount, +1, you are effectively only 2 behind what someone that is "supposed" to play a class. starting at 10 if your race is at a negative in the ability you ar at a 9 then the class gives you a +1 so your back to ten. Your race is "supposed" to play the class you start at 11 and the class gives you a +1 to put you at 12. or your race is meant to play the class so you recieve a +2 to the stat or your not meant to play it and your at a 10. funny times IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME. except now I can play an in the middle guy that has neither bonus nor negative to the stat and get a little something to make me better at the class I have chosen.
Which still leaves the negative completely unnecessary. +1 +1 would be fine. Unless every class only depends on one ability score, ever... the -1 will be punishing players for not lining up their stats perfectly. What about your secondary scores? If you have a +1 str -1dex race, and play a class with +1 str... your dex still suffers for no reason at all.
No it suffers for a quite explicit reason. Your species is predisposed to an abscence of dexterity, like an elephant or a rhino. Having a high dex isn't impossible it's just harder for you due to the limitations of your species. Your frame is built in such a way that dexterity does not come as naturally to you as it would to the average human. Remember thats what this is, it isn't race like we think of it in the real world, these are actual species. Saying every single species should have the same exact baseline capabilities just doesn't make any sense. It's like saying the bunny and the bear should be of equal strength, that the strongest bunny should be as strong as the strongest bear. Notice where that starts to fall off in the making sense category. Yeah the halfling has a +1 to dex and a -1 to strength. Thats because the average halfling's strenth is far less than the average half orc's would be. The average half orc no matter what has a larger muscle mass, than the average halfling, and can pull off greater feats of Strength. Some races may be better at certain classes. That kinda goes hand in hand with them being a completely separate species. Bunnies are good at stealth, elephants are good at crushing things to death, tearing trees down, and swimming. I know which one I would rather have as a rogue. It might be interesting to see the elephant as a rogue, but it should be damn hard for the elephant to pull off because there is no way an elephant could be genetically predisposed to stealth and dexterity, that takes some training and he will have to get over a few limitations his race imposes upon him(My zoological comparisons may be wrong I'm not certain but it services my point).
None of that pigeon holes anything. It might have them lean in certain directions, but definitely not pigeon holing. Even the Dwarf as is in 4e makes excellent non melee characters, as well. 4e doesn't pigeon hole anyone, really. There are definitely races that lean certain ways, but every race is viable at every class.
Pigeon holing is "You're really good at x, but horrible at y." It forces you to always play one kind of character with that race, or be well below par. It's a system mastery thing. Negative stats do just this. You're talking about a -4 penalty overall versus a race that has a bonus. That's a huge incentive to stray away from certain race/class combos that could otherwise be interesting.
This! I've noticed a tendency for some people to think that if they aren't playing the absolute best possible race/class combo, the character sucks. This is just patently false. Any race can play any class well. You don't NEED the +2 in the primary stat in order to be good.
Nope, you don't need it. The -2 actively discourages you from trying that combo, too. As I said, now you're at a -4 from the races that are "supposed to" play that class.
actually, given the examples they have hinted at, with the bonus resting both race and class at an equal ammount, +1, you are effectively only 2 behind what someone that is "supposed" to play a class. starting at 10 if your race is at a negative in the ability you ar at a 9 then the class gives you a +1 so your back to ten. Your race is "supposed" to play the class you start at 11 and the class gives you a +1 to put you at 12. or your race is meant to play the class so you recieve a +2 to the stat or your not meant to play it and your at a 10. funny times IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME. except now I can play an in the middle guy that has neither bonus nor negative to the stat and get a little something to make me better at the class I have chosen.
Which still leaves the negative completely unnecessary. +1 +1 would be fine. Unless every class only depends on one ability score, ever... the -1 will be punishing players for not lining up their stats perfectly. What about your secondary scores? If you have a +1 str -1dex race, and play a class with +1 str... your dex still suffers for no reason at all.
No it suffers for a quite explicit reason. Your species is predisposed to an abscence of dexterity, like an elephant or a rhino. Having a high dex isn't impossible it's just harder for you due to the limitations of your species. Your frame is built in such a way that dexterity does not come as naturally to you as it would to the average human. Remember thats what this is, it isn't race like we think of it in the real world, these are actual species. Saying every single species should have the same exact baseline capabilities just doesn't make any sense. It's like saying the bunny and the bear should be of equal strength, that the strongest bunny should be as strong as the strongest bear. Notice where that starts to fall off in the making sense category. Yeah the halfling has a +1 to dex and a -1 to strength. Thats because the average halfling's strenth is far less than the average half orc's would be. The average half orc no matter what has a larger muscle mass, than the average halfling, and can pull off greater feats of Strength. Some races may be better at certain classes. That kinda goes hand in hand with them being a completely separate species. Bunnies are good at stealth, elephants are good at crushing things to death, tearing trees down, and swimming. I know which one I would rather have as a rogue. It might be interesting to see the elephant as a rogue, but it should be damn hard for the elephant to pull off because there is no way an elephant could be genetically predisposed to stealth and dexterity, that takes some training and he will have to get over a few limitations his race imposes upon him(My zoological comparisons may be wrong I'm not certain but it services my point).
That absence doesn't need to be a negative. Again, the negative is already there in the fact that you don't have a bonus while other races do. Anything more is salt in the wound.
None of that pigeon holes anything. It might have them lean in certain directions, but definitely not pigeon holing. Even the Dwarf as is in 4e makes excellent non melee characters, as well. 4e doesn't pigeon hole anyone, really. There are definitely races that lean certain ways, but every race is viable at every class.
Pigeon holing is "You're really good at x, but horrible at y." It forces you to always play one kind of character with that race, or be well below par. It's a system mastery thing. Negative stats do just this. You're talking about a -4 penalty overall versus a race that has a bonus. That's a huge incentive to stray away from certain race/class combos that could otherwise be interesting.
This! I've noticed a tendency for some people to think that if they aren't playing the absolute best possible race/class combo, the character sucks. This is just patently false. Any race can play any class well. You don't NEED the +2 in the primary stat in order to be good.
Nope, you don't need it. The -2 actively discourages you from trying that combo, too. As I said, now you're at a -4 from the races that are "supposed to" play that class.
actually, given the examples they have hinted at, with the bonus resting both race and class at an equal ammount, +1, you are effectively only 2 behind what someone that is "supposed" to play a class. starting at 10 if your race is at a negative in the ability you ar at a 9 then the class gives you a +1 so your back to ten. Your race is "supposed" to play the class you start at 11 and the class gives you a +1 to put you at 12. or your race is meant to play the class so you recieve a +2 to the stat or your not meant to play it and your at a 10. funny times IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME. except now I can play an in the middle guy that has neither bonus nor negative to the stat and get a little something to make me better at the class I have chosen.
Which still leaves the negative completely unnecessary. +1 +1 would be fine. Unless every class only depends on one ability score, ever... the -1 will be punishing players for not lining up their stats perfectly. What about your secondary scores? If you have a +1 str -1dex race, and play a class with +1 str... your dex still suffers for no reason at all.
No it suffers for a quite explicit reason. Your species is predisposed to an abscence of dexterity, like an elephant or a rhino. Having a high dex isn't impossible it's just harder for you due to the limitations of your species. Your frame is built in such a way that dexterity does not come as naturally to you as it would to the average human. Remember thats what this is, it isn't race like we think of it in the real world, these are actual species. Saying every single species should have the same exact baseline capabilities just doesn't make any sense. It's like saying the bunny and the bear should be of equal strength, that the strongest bunny should be as strong as the strongest bear. Notice where that starts to fall off in the making sense category. Yeah the halfling has a +1 to dex and a -1 to strength. Thats because the average halfling's strenth is far less than the average half orc's would be. The average half orc no matter what has a larger muscle mass, than the average halfling, and can pull off greater feats of Strength. Some races may be better at certain classes. That kinda goes hand in hand with them being a completely separate species. Bunnies are good at stealth, elephants are good at crushing things to death, tearing trees down, and swimming. I know which one I would rather have as a rogue. It might be interesting to see the elephant as a rogue, but it should be damn hard for the elephant to pull off because there is no way an elephant could be genetically predisposed to stealth and dexterity, that takes some training and he will have to get over a few limitations his race imposes upon him(My zoological comparisons may be wrong I'm not certain but it services my point).
That absence doesn't need to be a negative. Again, the negative is already there in the fact that you don't have a bonus while other races do. Anything more is salt in the wound.
But absence of maluses bring just two levels of maximum. Let's say halfling, human and half orc strenth. Everyone imagining the three races will think human possible strenth being better than halfling, and half orc maximum strenth greater than human. But just with bonus this can't be done. You will just have par ability and a couple of races with grater ability. And no place for those who do suck in that ability. Hope people understand this horribly-said thing.
But absence of maluses bring just two levels of maximum. Let's say halfling, human and half orc strenth. Everyone imagining the three races will think human possible strenth being better than halfling, and half orc maximum strenth greater than human. But just with bonus this can't be done.
Sure it can. It was done in 4E. Just take a look at the Goliath, Human, and Gnome. The Goliath has a Strength bonus, the Human has the option of taking a Strength bonus, and the Gnome does not have the option of taking a Strength bonus. This means that Goliaths are on average stronger than Humans, who are on average stronger than Gnomes. At the same time, Gnomes have a maximum Strength two lower than that of Goliaths or Humans, and while Humans can reach the same maximum Strength as Goliaths, there's a much higher opportunity cost associated with doing so. I see no problem here.
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!
But absence of maluses bring just two levels of maximum. Let's say halfling, human and half orc strenth. Everyone imagining the three races will think human possible strenth being better than halfling, and half orc maximum strenth greater than human. But just with bonus this can't be done.
Sure it can. It was done in 4E. Just take a look at the Goliath, Human, and Gnome. The Goliath has a Strength bonus, the Human has the option of taking a Strength bonus, and the Gnome does not have the option of taking a Strength bonus. This means that Goliaths are on average stronger than Humans, who are on average stronger than Gnomes. At the same time, Gnomes have a maximum Strength two lower than that of Goliaths or Humans, and while Humans can reach the same maximum Strength as Goliaths, there's a much higher opportunity cost associated with doing so. I see no problem here.
Not only that, but the strength based Goliath has a race trait of having a special bonuses when jumping and climbing, as well as their power that allows them to resist damage. Most races with better Strength have some other show of their physical power beyond just stats. This is, really, the way to do it.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- )
Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right. fun quotesShow
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?
But absence of maluses bring just two levels of maximum. Let's say halfling, human and half orc strenth. Everyone imagining the three races will think human possible strenth being better than halfling, and half orc maximum strenth greater than human. But just with bonus this can't be done.
Sure it can. It was done in 4E. Just take a look at the Goliath, Human, and Gnome. The Goliath has a Strength bonus, the Human has the option of taking a Strength bonus, and the Gnome does not have the option of taking a Strength bonus. This means that Goliaths are on average stronger than Humans, who are on average stronger than Gnomes. At the same time, Gnomes have a maximum Strength two lower than that of Goliaths or Humans, and while Humans can reach the same maximum Strength as Goliaths, there's a much higher opportunity cost associated with doing so. I see no problem here.
Write elf instead of human. What happens now? And this is a serius question, I know almost nothing of 4e rules.
First off, I liked the idea that came with 4e with only having bonuses. This I believe should stay. However, as a middle ground between that and those that want a malus I propose the following.
Racial bonus to a +1. Class bonus to +1.
The first bonus represents racial aptitude. The second is training. So at the start of your adventuring career, a half-orc fighter who is naturally strong (+1 str) and has been training with heavy weapons and armor his whole life to that point (+1 str) is stronger than the charming (+1 cha) human that has also been training his whole life as a fighter (+1 str), which in turn is stronger than the elf (+1 dex) wizard (+1 int).
We have to think that these scores represent the start of your career, where you know enough to stay alive, but you are by no means a seasoned expert. Over time with stat increases by level these spreads will get wider, which if you think about it, as the fighter keeps wearing heavy armor and swinging heavy swords he will get stronger. The wizards constant studying and research on the arcane arts make them more intelligent and so on. I just don't believe it should be such a large gap from the beginning.
I propose the 1 because it's a decent bonus, and if you really wanted to game it you could have your point buy with an odd numbered stat to get that extra +1, but it's not overpowering (this is assuming that the 2 ability points = 1 mod). This also doesn't really hurt someone who wants to play that charming fighter, or half-orc wizard, or what have you.
With this I see people able to play what they want without gimping themselves badly at the table. The most fun I've ever had with characters (both as a player and a dm) were those that didn't fit the mold. It's funny when the highly intelligent half-orc acts like an oafish brute and then when his enemies let down their guard thinking him as such he blows them up with a fireball. It may only work once, but sometimes it only has to.
