Community

I think that race can and should be at least as important as class, I really like the idea of a set of racial feats the have some synergy with the combat mechanics and evolve over the life of the character. So something like a bonus to your bow ablates because you are an Elf, or a bonus with hammers for a dwarf etcetera. (And no I am not suggesting that racial be melee only just that melee bonuses are not specifically excluded).  I would love to see additional racial bonuses added as you level so some sort of additional racial bonus at level 5, 10, 15 etcetera.

May 3, 2012 -- 9:43AM, Lord_Daxl wrote:

How great or how little two characters differ because of their race should be in the hands of the player and the group, and to enable that the system should not have dozens of niche options for individual races.

What's the point of having a race like the halfling, which is "small, nimble and cunning", if small, nimble and cunning is completely irrelevant?  Why have a big hulking brute race like the half-orc, if being a big hulking brute doesn't mean anything?  Furthermore, if you want to play a big hulking brute style fighter, why in the world are you picking a halfing?

I'm probably going to regret responding to somebody who takes a single sentence of my post and removes it from all context in order to blatantly twist its meaning in a manner I can't help but suspect is intentional, but here goes…

What's the point of having a race like the halfling, which is "small, nimble and cunning", if small, nimble and cunning is completely irrelevant?

I'm sure there must be a term for this kind of dishonest phrasing, but I'm not sure what it is. So starting with:

Q: "What is the point of a halfling?"
A: "So that players who want to play halfling characters can do so."

Q: "What is the point of a halfling if he is not small, nimble, and cunning?"
A: "Those are all relative terms that describe halfling PCs to widely varying degrees. Halflings have a particular flavor which they retain even if the player wants to play a halfling who is large for his race, strong and tough, and dense. In fact in 4e there are options that deliberately enable this character, and the halfing receives ability score bonuses more conducive to toughness than to cunning (+2 CON instead of +2 INT). The very fact that you imagine halflings are cunning despite no mechanical encouragement for such a character is evidence for why that support is unnecessary. Further when we talk about racial options we are talking about the available choices used to build individuals. A given party can easily have a more cunning or nimble half-orc than the party's halfling sorcerer. That does not mean that half-orcs are, as a rule, more cunning and nimble than halflings in that setting."

Q: "If the extent to which characters vary due to their race is primarily a flavorful description, doesn't that mean that small, cunning, and nimble are meaningless?"
A: "No. Those statisitcs should still be represented mechanically, just as they are in every edition. But it should be possible to create a human who is equally cunning or nimble as a halfling with minimal mechanical sacrifice (just as it is in 4e). It should be possible to create a halfling who is not nimble or cunning with minimal mechanical sacrifice (just as it is in 4e). There is absolutely nothing in my post to indicate that I want to eliminate the mechanical expression of nimbleness, cleverness, or smallness. If that was what I intended, I would have said so."

Next sentence:

 Why have a big hulking brute race like the half-orc, if being a big hulking brute doesn't mean anything?

Q: "Why have a race like the half-orc?"
A: "So that players who wish to play half-orcs have options to do so."

Q: "Why describe half orcs as big, hulking brutes?"
A: "Because it provides flavor and distinction to the race through description. There is no need to require orc PCs to be big hulking brutes in order to convey that desciption. Describing half-orcs as big hulking brutes will be sufficient to draw the attention of players who are interested in playing such a character without requiring significant mechanical penalties or rewards for doing so. In addition players who want to play exceptional half-orcs will be more enabled to do so." 

Q: "If half-orc PCs are not mechanically rewarded for playing big hulking brutes, or half-orc PCs who play against type penalized, doesn't that mean that being a big hulking brute is meaningless mechanically?" 
A: "No. You can build your +4 STR, -1 CHA fighter just the same as always, and see mechanical fallout from those choices. Hulking and brutish should be mechanically represented just like always." 

Next sentence:

Furthermore, if you want to play a big hulking brute style fighter, why in the world are you picking a halfing?

Q: "Shouldn't people who want to play against racial type be banned or at least significantly discouraged from doing so because it doesn't align with my personal preferences for how those races are depicted?"
A: "No. Your personal preferences are your personal preferences. If you don't want to play a big hulking halfling, don't build one. I don't understand why this is a difficult concept for people on this board but it seems to come up again and again. If some particular race/class combo doesn't make sense to you, don't play that character. Your problem is now solved and you can move onto something else. You're welcome."