if you are 2x as tall you only able to move the same speed... because even though your strides are twice as long... your porportionate strength is 1/2...
It kind of works itself out.
Attacks often rely on quickness... you can move more weight but you arent any more quick you can make a longer stroke/stride it will feel slow making it more easily avoided... the cliche of the slow attack that isnt real when applied to two handed weapons is kind of real for you.
If you are using the same fighting style you used to have... expect penalties to hit to offset bonus damage.
if you are 2x as tall you only able to move the same speed... because even though your strides are twice as long... your porportionate strength is 1/2... It kind of works itself out. Attacks often rely on quickness... you can move more weight but you
[What I mean issimply this: How much genetic similarity is required for two races to look as close to identical as humans do to the rubber-forehead fantasy races?
I mean, the short answer is "quite a lot". But it doesn't follow from that that they can't have genetic differences (in fact, genetic differences are presumably the reason that they have rubber foreheads instead of forehead foreheads).
You're very correct. It doesn't preclude the possibility of genetic differences. But, when you start stacking up the "quite a lot" of your answer with the other genetic similarities, you end up with "really quite a massive lot."
And, if we were to say that orcs were genetically stronger because of their increased size, wouldn't it go beyond a simple +1? Wouldn't a 12 strength orc be stronger than a 12 strength human?
I mean, the short answer is "quite a lot". But it doesn't follow from that that they can't have genetic differences (in fact, genetic differences are presumably the reason that they have rubber foreheads instead of forehead foreheads).[/quote]You're
And, if we were to say that orcs were genetically stronger because of their increased size, wouldn't it go beyond a simple +1? Wouldn't a 12 strength orc be stronger than a 12 strength human?
In general, no. Ability scores are quite abstract, but they're supposed to represent an absolute quality in some sense. If I have a str score of 10, and my seven-foot-tall cousin has a str score of 10 as well, he's in a lower percentile of strength for people of his height, and we should be evenly matched in an arm wrestling contest.
In general, no. Ability scores are quite abstract, but they're supposed to represent an absolute quality in some sense. If I have a str score of 10, and my seven-foot-tall cousin has a str score of 10 as well, he's in a lower percentile of strength
[What I mean issimply this: How much genetic similarity is required for two races to look as close to identical as humans do to the rubber-forehead fantasy races?
I mean, the short answer is "quite a lot". But it doesn't follow from that that they can't have genetic differences (in fact, genetic differences are presumably the reason that they have rubber foreheads instead of forehead foreheads).
You're very correct. It doesn't preclude the possibility of genetic differences. But, when you start stacking up the "quite a lot" of your answer with the other genetic similarities, you end up with "really quite a massive lot."
And, if we were to say that orcs were genetically stronger because of their increased size, wouldn't it go beyond a simple +1? Wouldn't a 12 strength orc be stronger than a 12 strength human?
No. 12 is 12. Orcs are stronger than humans because where the average human has an 11 strength, the average orc has a 12 and a bonus.
I mean, the short answer is "quite a lot". But it doesn't follow from that that they can't have genetic differences (in fact, genetic differences are presumably the reason that they have rubber foreheads instead of forehead foreheads).[/quote]You're
I have yet to see evidence that the average orc is stronger than the average tribal level human.
I mean orcs in the books never get to pull off feats of great strength, and they never out muscle human berserkers.
As far as I can tell Orcs aren't stronger than humans.
As for the seven foot guy with a strength of 10, um no he's still average, he's got more muscle power, probably, but all that extra muscle is dedicated to moving his greater mass at something akin to the same pace as his smaller cousin, and keeping his knees on one piece. Furthermore being tall isn't all that big of an advantage in wrestling. In fact for the really close grappling it works against you in a lot of ways.
I have yet to see evidence that the average orc is stronger than the average tribal level human.I mean orcs in the books never get to pull off feats of great strength, and they never out muscle human berserkers.As far as I can tell Orcs aren't strong
This orc vs human debate is getting a bit old. Neither side is budging, so I think it's safe to just let it go. Personally, I have never thought of orcs as stronger than humans. IMO, they should be very similar to humans as far are ability scores go, but just more savage by culture (and possibly more tempermental from genetics). Fewer rules controlling ability scores manipulation seems like the best starting point for core, then add modules for things like racial ability mods (positive and/or negative).
This orc vs human debate is getting a bit old. Neither side is budging, so I think it's safe to just let it go. Personally, I have never thought of orcs as stronger than humans. IMO, they should be very similar to humans as far are ability scores go,
I have yet to see evidence that the average orc is stronger than the average tribal level human.
I point you to the entirety of D&D.
I mean orcs in the books never get to pull off feats of great strength, and they never out muscle human berserkers.
Forget the books. Read the RULES of EVERY edition.
I played a lot of 1e and 2e, and orcs had 1 HD (d8 hp) and did d8 damage (weapon type), with no damage bonuses for high strength. In fact my playtest of Next ran into trouble the other day when when the party charged some orcs expecting them to be 2e-like, not realizing that orcs went on steroids beginning with 3e and started carrying around giant weapons, and still do to this day.
If you are talking about half-orcs, I remember conversations back in the day trying to come up with some explanation why they were stronger than either their human or orc parent-- some genetic fluke of the hybrid, I guess.
I would prefer an old-style orc who was about as strong as a human, actually (and-- off topic here-- who carried around weapons more suited to the close walls and low ceilings of underground tunnels and caves).
I point you to the entirety of D&D. Forget the books. Read the RULES of EVERY edition. [/quote]I played a lot of 1e and 2e, and orcs had 1 HD (d8 hp) and did d8 damage (weapon type), with no damage bonuses for high strength. In fact my playtest of
I have yet to see evidence that the average orc is stronger than the average tribal level human.
I point you to the entirety of D&D.
I mean orcs in the books never get to pull off feats of great strength, and they never out muscle human berserkers.
Forget the books. Read the RULES of EVERY edition.
I played a lot of 1e and 2e, and orcs had 1 HD (d8 hp) and did d8 damage (weapon type), with no damage bonuses for high strength. In fact my playtest of Next ran into trouble the other day when when the party charged some orcs expecting them to be 2e-like, not realizing that orcs went on steroids beginning with 3e and started carrying around giant weapons, and still do to this day.
If you are talking about half-orcs, I remember conversations back in the day trying to come up with some explanation why they were stronger than either their human or orc parent-- some genetic fluke of the hybrid, I guess.
I would prefer an old-style orc who was about as strong as a human, actually (and-- off topic here-- who carried around weapons more suited to the close walls and low ceilings of underground tunnels and caves).
Interesting. I don't have any of my 1e or 2e stuff anymore, but I thought that in the descriptions it described them as very strong. Been ages, though.
I point you to the entirety of D&D. Forget the books. Read the RULES of EVERY edition. [/quote]I played a lot of 1e and 2e, and orcs had 1 HD (d8 hp) and did d8 damage (weapon type), with no damage bonuses for high strength. In fact my playtest of
Personally, I'm in favor of it. I believe that anything that helps you define your character is a good thing. It lets you embrace or reject your racial tropes, without outright destroying those tropes. Whether an elf chooses to be an archer, or rejects that path in favor of a raging greataxe, either path is preferable to that trope of the elven archer not existing - which is what happens when that alleged fluff lacks mechanical support.
Wait what? So you're saying that without a bonus to dexterity, the elven archer doesn't exist? I don't get it.
If there's no racial bonuses, then the choice of being an elf archer, a dwarf archer or a human archer is entirely on you, the player. People choose an elf because they want to be an elf.
If you include bonuses, then the race choice becomes a min/max tool. Picking elf is like picking "weapon focus (longbow)" as one of your feats. So if your concept is archer, you can either pick a favorable race or you can pick an unfavorable one.
Basically what that does is punish people for playing non-standard tropes. So if you wanted a dwarven sharpshooter, you'd be punished. Where if you're playing the stock elven archer trope, you get rewarded.
I don't think that's a good thing in a game that's supposed to encourage creativitiy.
Wait what? So you're saying that without a bonus to dexterity, the elven archer doesn't exist? I don't get it. If there's no racial bonuses, then the choice of being an elf archer, a dwarf archer or a human archer is entirely on you, the player. Peop
If there's no racial bonuses, then the choice of being an elf archer, a dwarf archer or a human archer is entirely on you, the player. People choose an elf because they want to be an elf.
100% of that applies if there are racial bonuses as well. Bonuses don't force you into a class or archtype. Nor do they cause you to choose an elf if you don't want to be an elf (or stop you if you do want to be an elf).
If you include bonuses, then the race choice becomes a min/max tool. Picking elf is like picking "weapon focus (longbow)" as one of your feats. So if your concept is archer, you can either pick a favorable race or you can pick an unfavorable one.
Only for min-maxers, so this isn't a problem. You shouldn't be trying to force min-maxers to play your way.
Basically what that does is punish people for playing non-standard tropes. So if you wanted a dwarven sharpshooter, you'd be punished. Where if you're playing the stock elven archer trope, you get rewarded.
This is false. Bonuses are not a punishment. So long as the dwarven sharpshooter can work effectively, it's not a punishment for elves to get a bonus and dwarves not to.
100% of that applies if there are racial bonuses as well. Bonuses don't force you into a class or archtype. Nor do they cause you to choose an elf if you don't want to be an elf (or stop you if you do want to be an elf). Only for min-maxers, so thi
Orcs were mostly an invention of Tolkien. Orcs were degenerated men or elves and were larger than goblins but smaller than men. They certainly did not have the upperhand against men in battles and were generally defeated. It was not until Saruman started crossbreeding them and creating the Half-orcs and Uruk-hai that they became truly dangerous.
Half-orcs are therefore larger, stronger, and smarter than orcs and more dangerous.
Orcs were mostly an invention of Tolkien. Orcs were degenerated men or elves and were larger than goblins but smaller than men. They certainly did not have the upperhand against men in battles and were generally defeated. It was not until Saruman
Orcs were mostly an invention of Tolkien. Orcs were degenerated men or elves and were larger than goblins but smaller than men. They certainly did not have the upperhand against men in battles and were generally defeated.
They wiped out the first age Noldo almost entirely. Very few were alive in the third age thanks to orcs.
It was not until Saruman started crossbreeding them and creating the Half-orcs and Uruk-hai that they became truly dangerous.
If that were true, then nothing in Middle Earth could have stood up to them. Their lesser cousins killed greatness that was almost unheard of in Middle Earth in the days that Saruman made his Uruk-Hai.
They wiped out the first age Noldo almost entirely. Very few were alive in the third age thanks to orcs. If that were true, then nothing in Middle Earth could have stood up to them. Their lesser cousins killed greatness that was almost unheard o
I played a lot of 1e and 2e, and orcs had 1 HD (d8 hp) and did d8 damage (weapon type), with no damage bonuses for high strength. In fact my playtest of Next ran into trouble the other day when when the party charged some orcs expecting them to be 2e-like, not realizing that orcs went on steroids beginning with 3e and started carrying around giant weapons, and still do to this day.
Actually, the orcs themselves didn't change too much between 2E and 3E (although I seem to recall their alignment shifted from Lawful Evil to Chaotic Evil). The major mechanical difference was all in the system mechanics.
From what I recall of 2E, most generic NPCs were assumed to have 10s across the board, except where race dictated otherwise (and the only hint of what those stats were came as a product of their +hit/damage/AC, aside from Intelligence which was always listed). So, the average orc could well have had Strength 12, from their base 10 and then +2 racial, but the way strength scores worked was that you wouldn't see that Strength unless someone had 15 or higher. (I'm fairly certain that half-orcs had +1 strength, and half-ogres had +2 strength, but actual orc stats elude me at the moment.)
In going to 3E, the system doubled all previous racial modifiers, to fit in with the new Universal Ability Modifier system. That would have given orcs a base Strength of 14, except 3E also introduced the default NPC array (with a high of 13) since NPCs now had their stats listed, which generally brought their Strength up to 17 (for the warriors). Couple that with the system now incentivizing two-handed weapons for anything with decent Strength, and your generically strong orc from 2E (with no bonuses) turns into a generically strong orc in 3E (with +3 to hit and +4 damage from strength alone). So yeah, blame the UAM for orcs suddenly showing that they were as scary as they were always intended to be.
Basically what that does is punish people for playing non-standard tropes. So if you wanted a dwarven sharpshooter, you'd be punished. Where if you're playing the stock elven archer trope, you get rewarded.
I'm not sure that "trope" means what you think it means. A trope is a kind of short-hand, which instantly summons a specific image to mind without having to establish everything from scratch. The elvish archer is a trope, because we all know what to expect - we've seen it a million times, so you don't even need to say how accurate she is. Dwarven archers aren't a trope; at best, they're a subversion, either for not using a gun (dwarves with guns are a trope) or for not being an elf. It's fine if you think that all tropes should die in a fire, but a system can't reasonably support a trope in fluff without mechanics to back it up.
Let's look at the other elf archetype, for example. I'm not sure if you've played much 3E or not, but elves had a favored class of wizard. They also had free proficiency with longbow (completely wasted on anyone who wasn't a spellcaster or a rogue), in addition to their Dex bonus. The iconic 3E wizard, Mialee, was an elf. One of the very few prestige classes in the DMG was an elf-specific arcane/archer hybrid. Elves were supposed to be wizards.
Now, take a guess to how many players (who actually understood the system and how modifiers worked) continued to play and enjoy their elf wizards up until the end. Contrast with the dwarves, who value hard work and were never strongly inclined towards magic; guess how many people played and enjoyed dwarf wizards. If you guessed that dwarf wizards were somehow more popular than elf wizards, then you've probably played a decent amount of 3E. (Halfling wizards were always my favorite; pretty much anything other than an elf, really.) That is what happens when the mechanics don't support the fluff - the fluff stops mattering. You can proclaim loudly how much elves love to be wizards, but if you can't make the game support it, then it's not actually true.
Actually, the orcs themselves didn't change too much between 2E and 3E (although I seem to recall their alignment shifted from Lawful Evil to Chaotic Evil). The major mechanical difference was all in the system mechanics.From what I recall of 2E, mo
Personally, I'm in favor of it. I believe that anything that helps you define your character is a good thing. It lets you embrace or reject your racial tropes, without outright destroying those tropes. Whether an elf chooses to be an archer, or rejects that path in favor of a raging greataxe, either path is preferable to that trope of the elven archer not existing - which is what happens when that alleged fluff lacks mechanical support.
Wait what? So you're saying that without a bonus to dexterity, the elven archer doesn't exist? I don't get it.
If there's no racial bonuses, then the choice of being an elf archer, a dwarf archer or a human archer is entirely on you, the player. People choose an elf because they want to be an elf.
If you include bonuses, then the race choice becomes a min/max tool. Picking elf is like picking "weapon focus (longbow)" as one of your feats. So if your concept is archer, you can either pick a favorable race or you can pick an unfavorable one.
Basically what that does is punish people for playing non-standard tropes. So if you wanted a dwarven sharpshooter, you'd be punished. Where if you're playing the stock elven archer trope, you get rewarded.
I don't think that's a good thing in a game that's supposed to encourage creativitiy.
100% absolutely true.
Wait what? So you're saying that without a bonus to dexterity, the elven archer doesn't exist? I don't get it. If there's no racial bonuses, then the choice of being an elf archer, a dwarf archer or a human archer is entirely on you, the player. Peop
Why playing an elf if it's to play an anorexic human adventurer with pointy ears ? Going totally against the chosen race concept is a radical choice, and radical choices are usually punished by our familiar environments.
An elf is graceful and good with bows, but they don't seems to be as agile as halflings, but the racial adjustment on Dex is the same for the two races. Racial features can handle more easily these kind of specific racial differences.
It goes both ways.Why playing an elf if it's to play an anorexic human adventurer with pointy ears ?Going totally against the chosen race concept is a radical choice, and radical choices are usually punished by our familiar environments.An elf is gra
Orcs were mostly an invention of Tolkien. Orcs were degenerated men or elves and were larger than goblins but smaller than men. They certainly did not have the upperhand against men in battles and were generally defeated.
They wiped out the first age Noldo almost entirely. Very few were alive in the third age thanks to orcs.
It was not until Saruman started crossbreeding them and creating the Half-orcs and Uruk-hai that they became truly dangerous.
If that were true, then nothing in Middle Earth could have stood up to them. Their lesser cousins killed greatness that was almost unheard of in Middle Earth in the days that Saruman made his Uruk-Hai.
Orcs are no match for elves or even men in the Lord of the Rings. In equal numbers men, elves, or dwarves will defeat orcs. Orcs are smaller than men and even occasionally the size of halflings. Frodo and Sam dressed as Orcs to slip into Mordor.
The Noldor elves were not defeated by Orcs. They were defeated by their own kin. Of course, the forces of Morgoth, which included not only orcs but Balrog, had a hand in the fall of the Noldor.
They wiped out the first age Noldo almost entirely. Very few were alive in the third age thanks to orcs. If that were true, then nothing in Middle Earth could have stood up to them. Their lesser cousins killed greatness that was almost unheard o
I mean orcs in the books never get to pull off feats of great strength, and they never out muscle human berserkers.
Forget the books. Read the RULES of EVERY edition.
Why should one forget the books? Aren't the books supposed to be confirmational of the tropes and stereotypes in D&D? I mean, if you can't trust D&D fiction to put forward the flavor that is what D&D is "supposed to be," then there's really no reason for the Str bonus to begin with.
Forget the books. Read the RULES of EVERY edition.[/quote]Why should one forget the books? Aren't the books supposed to be confirmational of the tropes and stereotypes in D&D? I mean, if you can't trust D&D fiction to put forward the flavor that i
Humans add 1 to a score of their choice. Wood elves subtract 1 from every score except Dex. etc.
The mathematically allowed point arrays are exactly the same as presently, but now they're phrased in such a way that it seems like a penalty to play a class that doesn't use your race's favored stat, rather than a bonus when playing a class that does use your race's favored stat. In reality, both systems are the same, and it's no more or less accurate to describe it as a bonus or penalty.
Opportunity cost. A bonus for doing something is a penalty for not doing it. Consider if the point buy character creation scheme looked like this:9 - 0 points10 - 1 points11 - 2 points12 - 3 points13 - 4 points14 - 5 points15 - 7 points16 - 9 point
Now, take a guess to how many players (who actually understood the system and how modifiers worked) continued to play and enjoy their elf wizards up until the end. Contrast with the dwarves, who value hard work and were never strongly inclined towards magic; guess how many people played and enjoyed dwarf wizards. If you guessed that dwarf wizards were somehow more popular than elf wizards, then you've probably played a decent amount of 3E. (Halfling wizards were always my favorite; pretty much anything other than an elf, really.) That is what happens when the mechanics don't support the fluff - the fluff stops mattering. You can proclaim loudly how much elves love to be wizards, but if you can't make the game support it, then it's not actually true.
Why is it important to you that the abudance of class-race combinations played by actual players across thousands of table correspond well with the abundance of those combinations in the handbook?
We have always assumed (never a good thing, I know) that orcs are naturally a bit stronger than humans.
Based on the best information we have right now (the Bestiary entries), they are in the current edition.
Why is it important to you that the abudance of class-race combinations played by actual players across thousands of table correspond well with the abundance of those combinations in the handbook?Based on the best information we have right now (the B
People say orcs are stronger than humans but no one ever acts like it.
I mean let's face it your average 3e human fighter has an str of 14, that puts him on par or slightly above your standard orc warrior. The difference is even more dramatic for barbarians due to the rage boost. The only time an Orc is consistantly stronger than a melee oriented PC is when you hand craft him.
ORcs don't use tactics that make use of their great strength, they don't carry heavy loads on the march, and they don't as a rule wield the massive bows and crossbows their strength would allow. The orc as presented ouside his game stats is lucky if he can wrestle the wizard down.
People say orcs are stronger than humans but no one ever acts like it.I mean let's face it your average 3e human fighter has an str of 14, that puts him on par or slightly above your standard orc warrior. The difference is even more dramatic for barb
People say orcs are stronger than humans but no one ever acts like it.
I mean let's face it your average 3e human fighter has an str of 14, that puts him on par or slightly above your standard orc warrior. The difference is even more dramatic for barbarians due to the rage boost. The only time an Orc is consistantly stronger than a melee oriented PC is when you hand craft him.
That's your standard human adventurer. What does an NPC human fighter (or berserker or whatever) have? I don't know the answer for 3e. In Next though, the "Orc" entry has a str score of 14. The "Human Commoner" entry has a score of 10, and the "Human Berserker" has a score of 12. So in Next, a typical orc is stronger than a typical human.
Adventurers are atypical; there's no use using them to estimate the "standard" or "typical" member of a given race.
That's your standard human adventurer. What does an NPC human fighter (or berserker or whatever) have? I don't know the answer for 3e. In Next though, the "Orc" entry has a str score of 14. The "Human Commoner" entry has a score of 10, and the "H
Why is it important to you that the abundance of class-race combinations played by actual players across thousands of table correspond well with the abundance of those combinations in the handbook?
It's part of the shared experience. One of the things that published D&D settings offer is the ability to have your gameplay stories immediately understandable by anyone else who plays in that setting. "Default D&D world" is not only the most common setting, but it forms the basis for most other settings as well.
If core elves make objectively lousy wizards, under the game rules, then regardless of how commonly elf wizards are depicted within official materials, we players are also going to hear dozens upon dozens of stories - from other players in other groups within the same or slightly-modified settings - where elf wizards are the exception rather than the rule. It makes for a significant disconnect.
That's why I prefer that the core core, classes and races in the PHB 1, maintain consistency between fluff and mechanics. I don't even really care that much how closely it meshes with tradition; I mean, I like elf wizards and dwarf fighters, but if they really play up the dwarf wizard/enchanter angle then I'd be fine as long as it was consistent.
It's part of the shared experience. One of the things that published D&D settings offer is the ability to have your gameplay stories immediately understandable by anyone else who plays in that setting. "Default D&D world" is not only the most commo
I know 3e orcs had +4 str, but that's the only edition that was so, and the lore just doesn't support that. Especially if as the 3e handbook claims, that a +4 represents a doubling of strength.
Even ignoring that +4 equals x2 nonsense the simple fact is that orcs just don't come accross as much if any stronger than a human with a similar background and training. ORcs just tend to be martial and or barbaric in background and thus have high strength form that.
No one writes orcs like they have +4 strength.
I know 3e orcs had +4 str, but that's the only edition that was so, and the lore just doesn't support that. Especially if as the 3e handbook claims, that a +4 represents a doubling of strength.Even ignoring that +4 equals x2 nonsense the simple fact
I know 3e orcs had +4 str, but that's the only edition that was so, and the lore just doesn't support that. Especially if as the 3e handbook claims, that a +4 represents a doubling of strength.
Even ignoring that +4 equals x2 nonsense the simple fact is that orcs just don't come accross as much if any stronger than a human with a similar background and training. ORcs just tend to be martial and or barbaric in background and thus have high strength form that.
No one writes orcs like they have +4 strength.
Well 4th ed gave orcs +2 strength and 1st ed and 2nd gave half Orcs +1 IIRC (its been a while). There is a reasonable expectation that the average Orc is stonger than the average human expressed mechanically in all edtions of D&D.
Well 4th ed gave orcs +2 strength and 1st ed and 2nd gave half Orcs +1 IIRC (its been a while). There is a reasonable expectation that the average Orc is stonger than the average human expressed mechanically in all edtions of D&D.
Well 4th ed gave orcs +2 strength and 1st ed and 2nd gave half Orcs +1 IIRC (its been a while).
According to "The Complete Book of Humanoids", Orcs were +1 Str, -2 Cha. Half-orcs were +1 Str, +1 Con, -2 Cha.
Orcs were also skilled miners, with the equivalent of stonecunning. That's a new one on me.
According to "The Complete Book of Humanoids", Orcs were +1 Str, -2 Cha. Half-orcs were +1 Str, +1 Con, -2 Cha. Orcs were also skilled miners, with the equivalent of stonecunning. That's a new one on me.
Even when they do win fights with humans they do so through overwhelming numbers, even against humans who don't have better tools or tactics (barbarian tribes for example).
The simple fact is that ability score changes, especially big dramatic ones, among the huamnoid races, just aren't as well supported in the literatue as people claim.
I severly doubt that orcs having or not having +4 str, or +2 str, or +1 str is at all related to their portrayal in the lore.
Then why does no one write them stronger?Even when they do win fights with humans they do so through overwhelming numbers, even against humans who don't have better tools or tactics (barbarian tribes for example).The simple fact is that ability score
Orcs are tradiitonally depicted as stupid and the like and Fr material at least they do appear to be strong. Not massively strong but yeah.
THe average ORc and Goblin is also as smart as a human except maybe in 3rd ed where Goblins at least are as smart as an average human. I lean towards Warcraft 2 Goblins who have primitive airships and the like, possibly explosives as well.
Orcs are tradiitonally depicted as stupid and the like and Fr material at least they do appear to be strong. Not massively strong but yeah.THe average ORc and Goblin is also as smart as a human except maybe in 3rd ed where Goblins at least are as sma
Opportunity cost. A bonus for doing something is a penalty for not doing it.
No it isn't. A penalty is a negative from the neutral position. A bonus is not a negative from the neutral position, it's a positive.
The mathematically allowed point arrays are exactly the same as presently, but now they're phrased in such a way that it seems like a penalty to play a class that doesn't use your race's favored stat, rather than a bonus when playing a class that does use your race's favored stat. In reality, both systems are the same, and it's no more or less accurate to describe it as a bonus or penalty.
If it feels like a penalty to someone, that's their personal issue. It can only be an actual penalty if there is a negative from the neutral position.
Opportunity cost. A bonus for doing something is a penalty for not doing it.[/quote]No it isn't. A penalty is a negative from the neutral position. A bonus is not a negative from the neutral position, it's a positive.If it feels like a penalty to s
I mean let's face it your average 3e human fighter has an str of 14, that puts him on par or slightly above your standard orc warrior. The difference is even more dramatic for barbarians due to the rage boost. The only time an Orc is consistantly stronger than a melee oriented PC is when you hand craft him.
You average human fighter is an exceptional human, not an average one. As a race, humans have a 10-11 strength. As a race, orcs are stronger. You can't compare human exceptions to the average orc and say, "Aha! See, stronger than orcs." Not an actually prove anything anyway.
ORcs don't use tactics that make use of their great strength, they don't carry heavy loads on the march, and they don't as a rule wield the massive bows and crossbows their strength would allow.
Says who? Please don't assume things about games outside your own.
You average human fighter is an exceptional human, not an average one. As a race, humans have a 10-11 strength. As a race, orcs are stronger. You can't compare human exceptions to the average orc and say, "Aha! See, stronger than orcs." Not an a
I think this is where 4e took a different view. It took the view that an average orc is a warrior with stats appropriate for a warrior rather than setting them as a baseline orc citizen. I think I prefer a baseline approach since some of the 4e stats seemed totally arbitrary. Mind you , some of the 5e bestiary stats look a bit off to me with insect intelligence swinging from 1 - 3 without any real explanation. Having a clear set baseline examples for each stat, similar to to the sample DCs should help designers be more consistent. Didn't early editions have something like this:
1 Insect 2 Animal 3 Self aware but largely instinctual 4-6 Semi intelligent or mentally handicapped 7-9 Low intelligence 10-11 Average 12-13 Very Intelligent 14-15 Highly intelligent 16-17 Exceptionally Intelligent 18-19 Genius 20-21 Atonishing Genius
We could have a guidance table like that for each stat running up to 30 I suppose. I still can't work out why they think zombies should have average intelligence, especially if movie zombies are actually based on ghouls so that animated zombies are based on voodoo zombies with almost no brains at all.
I think this is where 4e took a different view. It took the view that an average orc is a warrior with stats appropriate for a warrior rather than setting them as a baseline orc citizen. I think I prefer a baseline approach since some of the 4e sta
There is a reasonable expectation that the average Orc is stonger than the average human expressed mechanically in all edtions of D&D.
In 1e there was not evidence for them being stronger... just damage very similar to that of anyone using longsword. 4e seems to agree by a couple of points.
In 1e there was not evidence for them being stronger... just damage very similar to that of anyone using longsword. 4e seems to agree by a couple of points.
I'm not assuming with my orcs, I read a lot of FR novels and orcs just aren't depicted as being that strong. Most literature I've found regarding orcs either glosses over this supposed strength or fails to portray it entirely.
I'm not assuming with my orcs, I read a lot of FR novels and orcs just aren't depicted as being that strong. Most literature I've found regarding orcs either glosses over this supposed strength or fails to portray it entirely.
If core elves make objectively lousy wizards, under the game rules, then regardless of how commonly elf wizards are depicted within official materials, we players are also going to hear dozens upon dozens of stories - from other players in other groups within the same or slightly-modified settings - where elf wizards are the exception rather than the rule. It makes for a significant disconnect.
This is a straw man. Removing racial bonuses wouldn't make elves lousy wizards (or archers, or whatever elves are supposed to be good at in your mind). They'd be about as good as everyone else. If you want an elven archer/wizard/whatever, you could absolutely make one with no feelings that you'd be better off with another race. And people that don't want to be a part of your "shared experience" could make class-race combinations that they want to make without feeling like they'd be better off with another race.
If it feels like a penalty to someone, that's their personal issue. It can only be an actual penalty if there is a negative from the neutral position.
What does "from the neutral position" mean, exactly? Someone with no race at all? There are no privileged reference frames. Dwarfs have a dex penalty compared to wood elves, who have an int penalty compared to high elves, who have a cha penalty compared to stout halflings. Everyone has an all-stats penalty compared to humans.
The thing we're really discussing in this thread is the difference in stats between different races, so it doesn't matter how you phrase it; if one race has the ability to get a higher score in a specific stat than a second race, the second race is less good at classes that use that as their primary stat. The difference between the two descriptions is rhetorical, not objective.
This is a straw man. Removing racial bonuses wouldn't make elves lousy wizards (or archers, or whatever elves are supposed to be good at in your mind). They'd be about as good as everyone else. If you want an elven archer/wizard/whatever, you could a
If you want an elven archer/wizard/whatever, you could absolutely make one with no feelings that you'd be better off with another race. And people that don't want to be a part of your "shared experience" could make class-race combinations that they want to make without feeling like they'd be better off with another race.
That's the thing, though. I like tropes because they make for a stronger shared experience, and I think it's more important for the game to encourage such things rather than encouraging people to always break the mold. I mean, breaking the mold is great, too, but it really helps for that mold to exist in the first place.
Imagine you're talking about your most recent character: Spoiler:Show
So I'm playing this wizard. What race is it? I went with elf this time, for the extra spell (or whatever). Always a good choice. Personally, I prefer humans, because of the extra feat (or whatever).
So I'm playing this wizard. What race is it? Actually, I went with dwarf. That's an ... interesting choice. Dwarves aren't really the best wizards, after all. Yeah, I just had this great idea for a character, and the stat penalty doesn't hurt too as much as you'd expect. I make up for it with more axes. Cool.
Contrast, without mechanical re-inforcement. Spoiler:Show
So I'm playing this wizard. Oh, wizards are cool. Don't you want to hear what race it is? Oh, is it a big part of the character? Race doesn't really mean much these days.
And I fully get that a lot of people like that third story, especially if it goes off into a more in-depth character discussion. I just happen to disagree with those people. I think that either of the first two stories is preferable to the third, because it creates a greater sense of community between players.
That's the thing, though. I like tropes because they make for a stronger shared experience, and I think it's more important for the game to encourage such things rather than encouraging people to always break the mold. I mean, breaking the mold is
Race being a big part of the character is not coming from ability scores. 3rd edition had racial bonuses and penalties to ability scores and people would go whole delves without race being important or coming up at all. In fact more than once I've had 3e players forget the race composition of the party, or even their own race. It's why I eventually just started playing changelings so whenever someone forgot my race and just blurted out something, it wouldn't matter.
4e made race important by giving them features and abilities that mattered even at higher levels of the game. Very few people forgot they had fey step or dragons breath, or even dillieatante or the dwarven ability to second wind as a minor action.
Race being a big part of the character is not coming from ability scores. 3rd edition had racial bonuses and penalties to ability scores and people would go whole delves without race being important or coming up at all. In fact more than once I've ha
I really cant see how the sense of community is helped by having optimal race/class combos. And I dont really think the mold that you speak of gives a sense of realism or coherence. If anything, my immersion breaks if almost every elven PC is a wizard.
The only mold we need is given by the background and lore. I dont need racial stats to make my dwarven wizard feel unique.
I really cant see how the sense of community is helped by having optimal race/class combos. And I dont really think the mold that you speak of gives a sense of realism or coherence. If anything, my immersion breaks if almost every elven PC is a wiza
If you want an elven archer/wizard/whatever, you could absolutely make one with no feelings that you'd be better off with another race. And people that don't want to be a part of your "shared experience" could make class-race combinations that they want to make without feeling like they'd be better off with another race.
That's the thing, though. I like tropes because they make for a stronger shared experience, and I think it's more important for the game to encourage such things rather than encouraging people to always break the mold. I mean, breaking the mold is great, too, but it really helps for that mold to exist in the first place.
Imagine you're talking about your most recent character: Spoiler:Show
So I'm playing this wizard. What race is it? I went with elf this time, for the extra spell (or whatever). Always a good choice. Personally, I prefer humans, because of the extra feat (or whatever).
So I'm playing this wizard. What race is it? Actually, I went with dwarf. That's an ... interesting choice. Dwarves aren't really the best wizards, after all. Yeah, I just had this great idea for a character, and the stat penalty doesn't hurt too as much as you'd expect. I make up for it with more axes. Cool.
Contrast, without mechanical re-inforcement. Spoiler:Show
So I'm playing this wizard. Oh, wizards are cool. Don't you want to hear what race it is? Oh, is it a big part of the character? Race doesn't really mean much these days.
And I fully get that a lot of people like that third story, especially if it goes off into a more in-depth character discussion. I just happen to disagree with those people. I think that either of the first two stories is preferable to the third, because it creates a greater sense of community between players.
In my original post, I explicitly do not suggest making race not matter or not be a big part of a character. I suggest a system where instead of races just being stacked from best to worst in terms of suitability for a class or role, they bring meaningfully different things to the table. That's better than any of your scenarios.
That's the thing, though. I like tropes because they make for a stronger shared experience, and I think it's more important for the game to encourage such things rather than encouraging people to always break the mold. I mean, breaking the mold is
Dwarf druids. Dwarves traditionally have all the stats to be exceptional druids, far better than elves and better then half-elves in all editions, but does it makes sense ?
Dwarves are a race focused on heavy construction and civilization with heavy family bounds. Some druids would target the dwarf race as one of the worst Nature's enemy. But racial adjustments to stats encourage dwarves to choose the druid's path.
Racial/cultural features (as they are the same in D&D) for dwarves would favor combat and support, and not support blindly everything. And a dwarf druid would still be interesting for bringing combat and support feature to the druid class.
Dwarf druids.Dwarves traditionally have all the stats to be exceptional druids, far better than elves and better then half-elves in all editions, but does it makes sense ?Dwarves are a race focused on heavy construction and civilization with heavy fa
Dwarven druids would most likely have a different focus than say elven or human druids. They would still want to preserve "nature", but considering that their racial affinity is earth, that doesn't necessarily mean that they will be tending the local forests like the iconic druids would. Perhaps they make sure the wildlife isn't unduly disturbed by the local mining/construction efforts, etc.
Dwarven druids would most likely have a different focus than say elven or human druids. They would still want to preserve "nature", but considering that their racial affinity is earth, that doesn't necessarily mean that they will be tending the local
Imagine you're talking about your most recent character: Spoiler:Show
So I'm playing this wizard. What race is it? I went with elf this time, for the extra spell (or whatever). Always a good choice. Personally, I prefer humans, because of the extra feat (or whatever).
So I'm playing this wizard. What race is it? Actually, I went with dwarf. That's an ... interesting choice. Dwarves aren't really the best wizards, after all. Yeah, I just had this great idea for a character, and the stat penalty doesn't hurt too as much as you'd expect. I make up for it with more axes. Cool.
Contrast, without mechanical re-inforcement. Spoiler:Show
So I'm playing this wizard. Oh, wizards are cool. Don't you want to hear what race it is? Oh, is it a big part of the character? Race doesn't really mean much these days.
And I fully get that a lot of people like that third story, especially if it goes off into a more in-depth character discussion. I just happen to disagree with those people. I think that either of the first two stories is preferable to the third, because it creates a greater sense of community between players.
Ironically that's actually the exact reason why I feel it's a good idea to remove racial modifiers, because I don't think it's a good thing to include race as a min/max tool. You should pick an elf because you want that to be part of your character's story, not because of the 1337 modifiers you got out of it. We already have feats for chooseable min/max tools, do we need to include race too?
Why can't race just be for roleplaying?
Ironically that's actually the exact reason why I feel it's a good idea to remove racial modifiers, because I don't think it's a good thing to include race as a min/max tool. You should pick an elf because you want that to be part of your character's
With a 20 max on ability scores, racial bonuses become obsolete at high level.
Might as well make them obsolete at low levels for consistency.
Use racial abilities to encourage stereotypes such as Elf Wizards, Halfling rogues, and Dwarf Fighters.
Dwarves do more damage with axes and hammers. Elves gain 1 extra spell of their highest level for spellcasters. Halflings can hide more easily due to their small size.
Humans are smarter, stronger, and more agile than any other race anyway.
My personal preference for humans would be for them to have one extra skill and an improved skill die by one step. Example, when others of the same level use a 1d6 die, humans would roll a 1d8.
With a 20 max on ability scores, racial bonuses become obsolete at high level.Might as well make them obsolete at low levels for consistency. Use racial abilities to encourage stereotypes such as Elf Wizards, Halfling rogues, and Dwarf Fighters.Dwarv
HAving the weapon abiliteis and gear/class dependent stuf be a built in racial ability is bad. Did no one else here actually play 3e? DId no one else notice how much those abilities sucked?
GIve each race neat, thematic features that will function regardless of gear and class.
NO, just stop.HAving the weapon abiliteis and gear/class dependent stuf be a built in racial ability is bad. Did no one else here actually play 3e? DId no one else notice how much those abilities sucked?GIve each race neat, thematic features that wil
GIve each race neat, thematic features that will function regardless of gear and class.
Personally I liked a lot of the 4E racial abilities for that.
Elven accuracy, dragonborn breath or dwarven resilience for instance were pretty good regarldess of what class you were.
Personally I liked a lot of the 4E racial abilities for that. Elven accuracy, dragonborn breath or dwarven resilience for instance were pretty good regarldess of what class you were.
Dwarf druids. Dwarves traditionally have all the stats to be exceptional druids, far better than elves and better then half-elves in all editions, but does it makes sense ?
Well, considering that dwarves are frequently described as having an innate connect to earth and stone (you know; natural things), then yes, Dwarven Druids make perfect sense.
Even if that were not the case, it does not matter, because the DM/game setting can say 'dwarven druids are uncommon' for whatever reason is desired.
Well, considering that dwarves are frequently described as having an innate connect to earth and stone (you know; natural things), then yes, Dwarven Druids make perfect sense.Even if that were not the case, it does not matter, because the DM/game set
Ironically that's actually the exact reason why I feel it's a good idea to remove racial modifiers, because I don't think it's a good thing to include race as a min/max tool. You should pick an elf because you want that to be part of your character's story, not because of the 1337 modifiers you got out of it. We already have feats for chooseable min/max tools, do we need to include race too?
GIve each race neat, thematic features that will function regardless of gear and class.
This. There is no need to mechanically enforce stereotypes about what kind of classes each race needs to be. If your campaign's world has a lot of dwarf warriors, your DM can describe the shining ranks of dwarf soldiers if the players visit Dwarven Metropolis XXXX. There's no need to make your players feel like they should be playing into those stereotypes if they don't want to. Adventurers aren't supposed to stereotypical, they're supposed to be unusual.
This. There is no need to mechanically enforce stereotypes about what kind of classes each race needs to be. If your campaign's world has a lot of dwarf warriors, your DM can describe the shining ranks of dwarf soldiers if the players visit Dwarven
GIve each race neat, thematic features that will function regardless of gear and class.
This. There is no need to mechanically enforce stereotypes about what kind of classes each race needs to be. If your campaign's world has a lot of dwarf warriors, your DM can describe the shining ranks of dwarf soldiers if the players visit Dwarven Metropolis XXXX. There's no need to make your players feel like they should be playing into those stereotypes if they don't want to. Adventurers aren't supposed to stereotypical, they're supposed to be unusual.
This message, too.
What is and isn't a stereotype will vary significantly from setting to setting, and they do not need to be enforced mechanically. It's purely a flavor consideration. For example, orcs have a very strong druidic tradition in Eberron, and the two major elven flavors are 'militaristic ancestor-spirit worshipping guerilla raiders' and 'necromantic ancestor-spirit worshipping priests'; not so much elsewhere. This doesn't need to be reflected in statistical adjustments, or even in racial abilities in general.
Honestly, codifying such stereotypes into the game seems as silly as saying 'Dwarves take a -1 penalty to all rolls if they are cleanshaven'.
This. There is no need to mechanically enforce stereotypes about what kind of classes each race needs to be. If your campaign's world has a lot of dwarf warriors, your DM can describe the shining ranks of dwarf soldiers if the players visit Dwarven
With a 20 max on ability scores, racial bonuses become obsolete at high level.
Might as well make them obsolete at low levels for consistency.
Use racial abilities to encourage stereotypes such as Elf Wizards, Halfling rogues, and Dwarf Fighters.
Dwarves do more damage with axes and hammers. Elves gain 1 extra spell of their highest level for spellcasters. Halflings can hide more easily due to their small size.
Humans are smarter, stronger, and more agile than any other race anyway.
My personal preference for humans would be for them to have one extra skill and an improved skill die by one step. Example, when others of the same level use a 1d6 die, humans would roll a 1d8.
The 1 extra average damage is quickly buried under things like martial damage dice. +1 damage is virtually nothing in D&DN and wasn''t even that great in 3.5/4th.
The 1 extra average damage is quickly buried under things like martial damage dice. +1 damage is virtually nothing in D&DN and wasn''t even that great in 3.5/4th.
GIve each race neat, thematic features that will function regardless of gear and class.
This. There is no need to mechanically enforce stereotypes about what kind of classes each race needs to be. If your campaign's world has a lot of dwarf warriors, your DM can describe the shining ranks of dwarf soldiers if the players visit Dwarven Metropolis XXXX. There's no need to make your players feel like they should be playing into those stereotypes if they don't want to. Adventurers aren't supposed to stereotypical, they're supposed to be unusual.
I'd like to add my voice to this too. Compared to an evocative ability that is usable regardless of class and gear, +/- sucks. Now, some people like bonuses and penalties that can fade into the background, and that's fine. I don't. I think it's boring as all get out. But, in the interest of fairness and fun for all, give us both and a rule that lets us pick which one to use. Either you pick racial attribute mods and racial gear abilities; or you get to pick some cool flexibile thing that benefits you regardless of class and gear.
Personally I liked a lot of the 4E racial abilities for that. Elven accuracy, dragonborn breath or dwarven resilience for instance were pretty good regarldess of what class you were.[/quote]This. There is no need to mechanically enforce stereotypes
Adventurers aren't supposed to be stereotypical, they're supposed to be unusual.
That goes back to the very, very old question of whether NPCs use the same racial abilities as PCs. I have much less of an issue with there being a disconnect between fluff and crunch if it's only PCs who are different, but I'm not going to play a game that uses different rules for NPCs in the first place so that's kind of a self-defeating problem.
That goes back to the very, very old question of whether NPCs use the same racial abilities as PCs. I have much less of an issue with there being a disconnect between fluff and crunch if it's only PCs who are different, but I'm not going to play a g
That goes back to the very, very old question of whether NPCs use the same racial abilities as PCs. I have much less of an issue with there being a disconnect between fluff and crunch if it's only PCs who are different, but I'm not going to play a game that uses different rules for NPCs in the first place so that's kind of a self-defeating problem.
Do you actually mean racial abilities (e.g. Elven Accuracy from 4e) or do you mean racial ability scores? If the former, I don't see any reason why they wouldn't, other than to simplify combat. If the latter, NPCs aren't built the same way as PCs. There's no point-buy nor rolling of stats. The question doesn't really make sense; you could say they get a racial bonus to an ability score, but what exactly are you adding that bonus to?
Do you actually mean racial abilities (e.g. Elven Accuracy from 4e) or do you mean racial ability scores? If the former, I don't see any reason why they wouldn't, other than to simplify combat. If the latter, NPCs aren't built the same way as PCs.
Orcs were mostly an invention of Tolkien. Orcs were degenerated men or elves and were larger than goblins but smaller than men. They certainly did not have the upperhand against men in battles and were generally defeated. It was not until Saruman started crossbreeding them and creating the Half-orcs and Uruk-hai that they became truly dangerous.
Half-orcs are therefore larger, stronger, and smarter than orcs and more dangerous.
Orcs were elves corrupted by Melkor before the beginning of the First Age. Goblin = Orc. There is no difference though there is a small amount of contextual evidence to support the fact that goblins might have been slightly smaller or weaker orcs. This is Tolkien retconning to make The Hobbit fit better as a prequel to LotR. Orcs were equal in stature to men or elves, but due to being bow legged, and of hunched posture appeared to be slightly shorter. Saruman did not breed the first Uruk-hai. That is an invention of the movies for simplicity sake. Sauron began breeding them several hundred tears before Saruman had any orcs in his employ (III 2475 during the reign of Steward Denethor I, and were the main force that sacked Osgiliath at that time).
There is no evodence to support your statement about half-orcs in LotR. They were bred by Saruman. We know very little about them, but there may have been one or two in Bree when the four hobbits met up with Strider. The more man-like among them were called Goblin-men.
Orcs were elves corrupted by Melkor before the beginning of the First Age. Goblin = Orc. There is no difference though there is a small amount of contextual evidence to support the fact that goblins might have been slightly smaller or weaker orcs.
NPCs aren't built the same way as PCs. There's no point-buy nor rolling of stats. The question doesn't really make sense; you could say they get a racial bonus to an ability score, but what exactly are you adding that bonus to?
I suppose there are some assumptions that I've been making, when I haven't seen the rules actually written down since... probably 2E or so.
The basic idea, though, is that NPC populations in general follow the same 3d6 distribution as for PCs - then, they settle into society as befits their stats. The average strength of a population of humans or dwarves or elves would be 10-11, but the average strength of an orc or half-orc would be +1 to +4 higher than that (depending on edition). In either case, the ones on the low end of the spectrum (a strength 3 human or a strength 7 orc) would represent the non-combatants or un-fit adults (the artists, shopkeep, or town drunk, depending on what other stats they might have), while the stronger ones (strength 15-18 human, or strength 19-22 orc) would be the ones in strength-dependent professions (blacksmith, farmer, warrior, etc).
As a matter of practice, you can just say that someone has stats appropriate for their job - it doesn't matter whether someone is genetically pre-disposed to have strength 13, and that's why they became a fisherman, or whether someone trained to be a fisherman and grew into having strength 13 - but a halfling fisherman is going to have less strength than a human fisherman, who will have less strength than an orc fisherman. Individuals will vary, of course, but it sets the trends, which is important to world-building.
I suppose there are some assumptions that I've been making, when I haven't seen the rules actually written down since... probably 2E or so.The basic idea, though, is that NPC populations in general follow the same 3d6 distribution as for PCs - then,
The basic idea, though, is that NPC populations in general follow the same 3d6 distribution as for PCs - then, they settle into society as befits their stats. The average strength of a population of humans or dwarves or elves would be 10-11, but the average strength of an orc or half-orc would be +1 to +4 higher than that (depending on edition). In either case, the ones on the low end of the spectrum (a strength 3 human or a strength 7 orc) would represent the non-combatants or un-fit adults (the artists, shopkeep, or town drunk, depending on what other stats they might have), while the stronger ones (strength 15-18 human, or strength 19-22 orc) would be the ones in strength-dependent professions (blacksmith, farmer, warrior, etc).
As a matter of practice, you can just say that someone has stats appropriate for their job - it doesn't matter whether someone is genetically pre-disposed to have strength 13, and that's why they became a fisherman, or whether someone trained to be a fisherman and grew into having strength 13 - but a halfling fisherman is going to have less strength than a human fisherman, who will have less strength than an orc fisherman. Individuals will vary, of course, but it sets the trends, which is important to world-building.
I doubt that the NPC creation rules will be that granular. But at the same time, I don't see any reason that they wouldn't support that level of granularity, if you want to stat out your fishermen in what you deem a race-appropriate manner.
I doubt that the NPC creation rules will be that granular. But at the same time, I don't see any reason that they wouldn't support that level of granularity, if you want to stat out your fishermen in what you deem a race-appropriate manner.
I'd say the best way to do things is have NPCs be created by point buy (but with less points than PCs).
An NPC Orc has more points in strength. An NPC elf has more points in Dex. An NPC human is more balanced overall. Thus the average elf is more dexterous than an human and the average Orc is stronger than a human. For PCs who are the exception rather than the rule, a human can be just as strong as an Orc or just as dexterous as an elf.
Remove ability score bonuses and give cool racial abilities instead.
I'd say the best way to do things is have NPCs be created by point buy (but with less points than PCs). An NPC Orc has more points in strength. An NPC elf has more points in Dex. An NPC human is more balanced overall. Thus the average elf is more dex
What I'd do: Create a merits & flaws system where you create basic character traits by point buy and make properties of races merits or flaws. In the description of races you add "any member of that race has this merits and flaws: ..." and "members of this race typically but not necessarily have..." (merits that are typically reserved for special races can also be free - allow humans to take flame breath and other "dragon traits" and already you made a dragon disciple possible only by feats)
My basic reason is that you want to give control to the players. If you feel being pushed into on option, it's not really an option (yeah, there's RP but we're talking about the system here and the system should not penalize RP)
Also, it can be quite a big deal: If one wants to play a dwarven sorcerer specialized on enchantment, he will suck. The -2 compared to a halfling sorcerer counts since it's a -2 on his most important kind of rolls.
I think the OP has a point. Stat bonuses may have a place, but they tend to force players to choose between "the character I wanna play" and "the obvious powergaming choice". To me, that's an unfortunate and unnecessary situation
+1 While I place roleplaying high I want to build my characters effective in D&D. While one could argue that some combinations should be discouraged (dwarven bard) I don't see why the system has to do that and why some stylish combinations are also discouraged (elven fighter in 3.5 - dex builds are typically not that good and -con sucks. I think that's why elven subraces where introduced in the first place)
and once again i bring the question, where do you think this bonus carrying capacity comes from? BEING STRONGER
Yeah basically. Thing is, neither chance to hit nor damage come from actual strength, you need only enough strength to use your weapon properly. The term "strength" used as stat is more than actual strength. What he wants is a character who is good at carrying stuff but not better in fighting than a human warrior. (in medieval times, the guys with the most strength would be archers btw - longbows start at 100 lbs)
So... You're in favor of discarding about 1/3 of what makes a character? Class, race, stats. Arrange them in whichever order you prefer, but each one SHOULD be an important aspect of the character you're portraying.
I'd say the character is what makes a character. Not his labels. You can of course choose to play typical "elven" traits like being wise and resolved. As for the game part, class and race are both stats as far as I am concerned.
On the subjects of strength, mass and size are as important as strength in opening doors and carrying things. I can never believe the movies with a 60 lb ten year old boy who knocks out a large adult male with a punch.
It means everything if you expect a large chunk of the D&D playerbase want it. Give your potential customers what thye want. 4th ed tried to be different, it was good at what it was designed to do and here we are playtesting.
Nah, that's what you do when you produce mainstream stuff like pop music. For writing systems I think that you can apply what goes for writing books: produce stuff you like and hope that many people have the same taste. You cannot write good stuff without liking it. As a result, a forum like this works like "People provide ideas and the designers take what they like" (which means that one should never argue with tradition - brainstorming is good even if most of the ideas won't be used)
4th ed faled because it alienated the playerbase not because it was a bad system.
I bought it thinking "yeah new system", read it, thought "I like unified defense mechanisms and surges sound interesting" and then I came to "classes". I think it was a bad system. Also I really like to test systems of all kind, would be hard to alienate me. Usually innovative stuff tends to be a revolution. If I want 3.5 I play 3.5.
point is that If you put side by side(with the same ability array) 2 PC's or/and NPC's, I expect that elven archer is better at archery from human archer and orc barbarian has mightier swing than a human barbarian.
You do? Look at 3.5. If humans have a free +2 and you take an elven and a human archer, both will have maximized DEX. The difference will be that the elf might be more intelligent (but not necessarily since for an archer you will most likely prioritize con before int), that the human has a feat more and that the elf resists sleep spells. If the elf will always be a better archer, I'd hate to play a human one. If he'd be different but equal it'd to (the elf being able to run around in trees and maybe even weave some spells, the human more tough and courageous perhaps)
I disagree with this. Just because a race is a bit better at a class than other races does not make those other races bad. Those other classes are GOOD. It's just that the one race is a little bit better.
If some people gimp the game themselves by only picking the absolute best race, then it's on them that their particular game is hurt via reduced diversity and originality. My group and many other groups like mine don't do that and our game is not hurt at all in those areas.
Thing is, WHY should a system do so? I have no problem to play a suboptimal character but why should the system say "one option is clearly worse, not just different but worse in any detail"? The system is there to make characters equal, it's artificial in it's nature.
People don't fear the orcs because they carry a heavy backpack. ACTUALLY being stronger is why they fear an individual orc.
People fear orcs because they are ruthless. LotR-orcs for example are not particular strong (the regular snaga tend to be worse in anything compared to a human) yet feared. If someone has no problem with killing whole villages you fear him, no matter how strong he is.
Also, people fear vikings the same way. Why should a northman viking be weaker than an orc?
If you make the mechanics such that one race is clearly preferred for each class, then you hurt the game by reducing diversity and originality.
Players like to break stereotypes. Setting up ability score bonuses to reinforce stereotypes is frustrating.
Tropes (elven archers, orcish barbarians) exist for a reason. Personally, and I know there are others who share this view, but I like to see the system explain why those things exist.
kezzek wrote about how players break stereotypes. You are talking about populations
Elves like bows (and halflings throw stones) because they are naturally dextrous, and good at ranged attacks. The most powerful wizards are frequently old (in a system where you can gain twenty levels in a month) because people gain +Int and +Wis with age.
Nah, wizards are old because learning awesome stuff like magic tends to take a while. NPCs don't get their 20 levels in a month and thus players tend to have young lvl 20 wizards
The alternative is that elves are not naturally better archers - they have no meaningful way to express this in game terms - and so elves like bows because.... they're eccentric? More reasonably, if they don't have +Dex, then elves don't have any particular affinity for bows. (At which point, are they even identifiable as elves anymore? The high elves aren't especially talented with magic, either, under this paradigm.)
So you say, since europeans tend to be humans of the same kind, it was an oddity that the english used longbows far more often than other nations because they are not naturally better archers? There's stuff like culture, great engineers, natural ressources and the kind of terrain your homeland is made of. As for elves, I don't know when bows became something especially "elven" - in LotR, elves just tend to be more awesome on the whole (in the legendary game Angband which compares a lot to D&D, elves just get tons of boni which is balanced by making them level more slowly)
I have yet to see evidence that the average orc is stronger than the average tribal level human.
I point you to the entirety of D&D.
Then do so. Can't tell me that it's as easy as "if you generate characters by the standard rules, orcs get a bonus and humans don't, so every human settlement has 10 as average strength, from the merchant city that relies on mercenaries to the raiding northmen"
What I'd do:Create a merits & flaws system where you create basic character traits by point buy and make properties of races merits or flaws. In the description of races you add "any member of that race has this merits and flaws: ..." and "members of
Tropes (elven archers, orcish barbarians) exist for a reason. Personally, and I know there are others who share this view, but I like to see the system explain why those things exist.
kezzek wrote about how players break stereotypes. You are talking about populations
Everything I say is written from the perspective that PCs and NPCs follow the same rules, and thus have the same mechanical encouragement behind their behaviors. A game which treats PCs differently from NPCs is repugnant to what I see as the point of playing such games, and thus beyond consideration.
Elves like bows (and halflings throw stones) because they are naturally dextrous, and good at ranged attacks. The most powerful wizards are frequently old (in a system where you can gain twenty levels in a month) because people gain +Int and +Wis with age.
Nah, wizards are old because learning awesome stuff like magic tends to take a while. NPCs don't get their 20 levels in a month and thus players tend to have young lvl 20 wizards
Except it doesn't take time to gain levels. If it takes an NPC years to game levels, it's because they adventure much less frequently than PCs, and if that was the case then high-level fighters would be as likely as high-level wizards to be very old.
The alternative is that elves are not naturally better archers - they have no meaningful way to express this in game terms - and so elves like bows because.... they're eccentric? More reasonably, if they don't have +Dex, then elves don't have any particular affinity for bows. (At which point, are they even identifiable as elves anymore? The high elves aren't especially talented with magic, either, under this paradigm.)
So you say, since europeans tend to be humans of the same kind, it was an oddity that the english used longbows far more often than other nations because they are not naturally better archers?
Actually, I would say that Europeans are not humans of the same kind. If I were to translate medieval Europe into the d20 system, I would state that the English do have a mechanical incentive to use the longbow - at the very least, they would gain free longbow proficiency, but I would probably also give them +2 Dex to represent their superior training and the physical effects of constant practice with a ranged weapon. One of the faults of the system is that I could not give them +2 Strength to represent their use of the stronger bow, because +Strength would just incentivize their use of two-handed weapons instead.
kezzek wrote about how players break stereotypes. You are talking about populations[/quote]Everything I say is written from the perspective that PCs and NPCs follow the same rules, and thus have the same mechanical encouragement behind their behavior
PCs and NPCs should not follow the same mechanical model because the occupy entirely different design space and purpose within the game. The PCs are the protagonists; the NPCs are at most supporting cast, more likely neutrals to antagonists. Plus, since the DM has to juggle many more NPCs than each player does PCs (typically, the player only has 1 to deal with), the NPCs need to be simpler.
Furthermore, NPCs fill the needs of plot. If the plot requires a 300 year old elf to be 1st level, then he is, assuming NPCs even have classes and levels (not a requirement, not necessarily even desirable). If he needs to be able to do something to further the plot, he can. I recall someone early on in 4e's life complaining about how vampires or succubi (can't recall which) couldn't permanently mind-control townsfolk. The response: "Of course they can. They're NPCs; they can do whatever you need them to do."
PCs and NPCs should not follow the same mechanical model because the occupy entirely different design space and purpose within the game. The PCs are the protagonists; the NPCs are at most supporting cast, more likely neutrals to antagonists. Plus,
I want (and I think what most people want) are races that are mechanically different and interesting. They want a mechanical difference between an orc and an elf, and one that fits the flavor of that race as well.
I don't want (and what I think most people don't want) are stat bonuses that players pick that have a race tied to them. A player should never go "oh, why am I a -insert race here-? Because they get a +2 to this and a +2 to that and I needed that for my character.".
If you disagree with this, I don't understand you and I doubt you could explain yourself to me in a way that I would understand (but feel free to try).
Everything I say is written from the perspective that PCs and NPCs follow the same rules, and thus have the same mechanical encouragement behind their behaviors. A game which treats PCs differently from NPCs is repugnant to what I see as the point of playing such games, and thus beyond consideration.
This is hard to say without being rude; note that I am not actively trying to be offensive, but what I'm about to say may rile some tempers. Sorry. I am saying it because it is easily percieved and probably one of those pink elephants that nobody else wants to talk about.
Players and NPCs using the same rules has been shown to be a faulted mechanic that only a singular edition of D&D used. No video games have ever tried doing it, and outside of 3.5 and games built off of 3.5, I cannot immediately recall table-top RPGs that have done it - and with good reason. More importantly, this is not how DDN is currently designed, so you weighing in on that idea using this faulted information really doesn't do much. I mean, it's great that you have that opinion, but... Moreover, it makes you look like somebody that will play 3.5, a remake of 3.5, and only that one single game - any other game you won't bother with. It makes you look like an 3.5 edition warrior grongard.
I want (and I think what most people want) are races that are mechanically different and interesting. They want a mechanical difference between an orc and an elf, and one that fits the flavor of that race as well. I don't want (and what I think most
The PCs are the protagonists; the NPCs are at most supporting cast, more likely neutrals to antagonists. Plus, since the DM has to juggle many more NPCs than each player does PCs (typically, the player only has 1 to deal with), the NPCs need to be simpler.
That's meta-game stuff, though. There's no difference between PCs and NPCs within the game world, and since the rules only describe the objective reality of the game world, they must use the same rules.
I mean, you could give them different rules, if you forgo the concept of an objective reality, but that doesn't make for a game worth playing (IMO). That is the single reason I didn't buy into 4E. If they make that same design choice for Next, then I won't buy into that edition either. Right now, I think they're trying to have it both ways by leaving the option to make NPCs completely arbitrary, but if that assumption inflitrates too deeply into core design then they'll alienate a good chunk of the 3E player-base.
That's meta-game stuff, though. There's no difference between PCs and NPCs within the game world, and since the rules only describe the objective reality of the game world, they must use the same rules.I mean, you could give them different rules, if
Thing is, WHY should a system do so? I have no problem to play a suboptimal character but why should the system say "one option is clearly worse, not just different but worse in any detail"? The system is there to make characters equal, it's artificial in it's nature.
The PCs are the protagonists; the NPCs are at most supporting cast, more likely neutrals to antagonists. Plus, since the DM has to juggle many more NPCs than each player does PCs (typically, the player only has 1 to deal with), the NPCs need to be simpler.
That's meta-game stuff, though. There's no difference between PCs and NPCs within the game world, and since the rules only describe the objective reality of the game world, they must use the same rules.
I mean, you could give them different rules, if you forgo the concept of an objective reality, but that doesn't make for a game worth playing (IMO). That is the single reason I didn't buy into 4E. If they make that same design choice for Next, then I won't buy into that edition either. Right now, I think they're trying to have it both ways by leaving the option to make NPCs completely arbitrary, but if that assumption inflitrates too deeply into core design then they'll alienate a good chunk of the 3E player-base.
I explained how to use PC rules but have Orcs be stronger than humans and elves be more dexerous. Point buy. A typical orc NPC spends more points on strength and less on int. A typical elf NPC spends more points on dex and less on con. Humans NPCs spread their points around more or less evenly.
That's meta-game stuff, though. There's no difference between PCs and NPCs within the game world, and since the rules only describe the objective reality of the game world, they must use the same rules.I mean, you could give them different rules, if
The PCs are the protagonists; the NPCs are at most supporting cast, more likely neutrals to antagonists. Plus, since the DM has to juggle many more NPCs than each player does PCs (typically, the player only has 1 to deal with), the NPCs need to be simpler.
That's meta-game stuff, though. There's no difference between PCs and NPCs within the game world, and since the rules only describe the objective reality of the game world, they must use the same rules.
I mean, you could give them different rules, if you forgo the concept of an objective reality, but that doesn't make for a game worth playing (IMO). That is the single reason I didn't buy into 4E. If they make that same design choice for Next, then I won't buy into that edition either. Right now, I think they're trying to have it both ways by leaving the option to make NPCs completely arbitrary, but if that assumption inflitrates too deeply into core design then they'll alienate a good chunk of the 3E player-base.
Within the objective reality of the game world, nobody can see the NPCs sheet, so nobody knows that the NPCs operate differently. If you assume that someone can look at someone else and know their game statistics, then yes, there is a problem here. If you remember that they can't, there is no problem.
That's meta-game stuff, though. There's no difference between PCs and NPCs within the game world, and since the rules only describe the objective reality of the game world, they must use the same rules.I mean, you could give them different rules, if
Players and NPCs using the same rules has been shown to be a faulted mechanic that only a singular edition of D&D used. No video games have ever tried doing it, and outside of 3.5 and games built off of 3.5, I cannot immediately recall table-top RPGs that have done it - and with good reason.
GURPS does it. I think the Basic Roleplaying system does it. Shadowrun mostly does it (with a few small exception for areas that the rules didn't cover, like cyber-zombies). More importantly, AD&D at least left the possibility open; they didn't show a lot of the system math behind NPCs, but they could describe a Gish as a fighter 4 / mage 4 so we know they're at least using the same classes.
Within the objective reality of the game world, nobody can see the NPCs sheet, so nobody knows that the NPCs operate differently. If you assume that someone can look at someone else and know their game statistics, then yes, there is a problem here. If you remember that they can't, there is no problem.
Just to use 4E as an example, because it was the most egregious, you have things like encounter/daily powers compared to re-charge powers. If the city is attacked by an colossal ice titan which is only weak to fire, and you gather every spellcaster around to throw as much fire at it as possible, then you have PCs who expend their dailies and encounters and then at-will spam, but you also have NPCs who at-will spam but also have larger spells going off every 3-6 rounds.
I know, the situation is kind of contrived, but it's a minor exaggeration to demonstrate a point. PCs require downtime to rest, while NPCs regain their powers over time whether or not they rest. PCs can drink half a dozen healing potions in a day, if they want to, while an NPC of roughly equal measure in every other way just... can't. There's no justification for this, and we're expected to just pretend that these differences don't exist. Pretending that something isn't the case does not make it so.
GURPS does it. I think the Basic Roleplaying system does it. Shadowrun mostly does it (with a few small exception for areas that the rules didn't cover, like cyber-zombies). More importantly, AD&D at least left the possibility open; they didn't sh
Just to use 4E as an example, because it was the most egregious, you have things like encounter/daily powers compared to re-charge powers. If the city is attacked by an colossal ice titan which is only weak to fire, and you gather every spellcaster around to throw as much fire at it as possible, then you have PCs who expend their dailies and encounters and then at-will spam, but you also have NPCs who at-will spam but also have larger spells going off every 3-6 rounds.
Or not, because the DM could simply build the NPCs to not have recharge powers. Or not even stat them at all.
Or not, because the DM could simply build the NPCs to not have recharge powers. Or not even stat them at all.
Just to use 4E as an example, because it was the most egregious, you have things like encounter/daily powers compared to re-charge powers.
For most power-using NPCs (aka "monsters"), there is no functional difference between daily and encounter powers. Their entire lifetimes are almost always a single encounter.
For most power-using NPCs (aka "monsters"), there is no functional difference between daily and encounter powers. Their entire lifetimes are almost always a single encounter.
Or not, because the DM could simply build the NPCs to not have recharge powers. Or not even stat them at all.
Everything has stats, merely because it exists within an objective reality. If NPCs are statted in such a way that they are identical to PCs, in every way that is observable from an in-universe standpoint, then they are effectively using PC rules for our purposes.
For most power-using NPCs (aka "monsters"), there is no functional difference between daily and encounter powers. Their entire lifetimes are almost always a single encounter.
There's no real debate on that point, nor would I argue that re-charge powers are a bad way of implementing what they were trying to use them for. I'm just saying that the assumptions which shaped their decision - that players would care more about an interesting fight than that the underlying reality remains consistent - failed to hold true for a substantial fraction of their desired player-base (i.e. 3E fans).
I have no opinion on using re-charge to limit monster-specific powers, anymore than I disliked the old 3E dragons with their "wait 1d4+1 rounds between breathing fire" rule. It's only inconsistency between similar powers (spells or maneuvers) which are at issue.
Everything has stats, merely because it exists within an objective reality. If NPCs are statted in such a way that they are identical to PCs, in every way that is observable from an in-universe standpoint, then they are effectively using PC rules fo
I know, the situation is kind of contrived, but it's a minor exaggeration to demonstrate a point.
It's contrived enough to miss the point entirely - and it's a spectacular exaggeration on "how not to DM". Good job on that.
Everything has stats, merely because it exists within an objective reality.
I'm sorry you think that way, and it must be a tremendous strain to DM that way. In the meantime, let me fill you in on a big GMing secret.
Not everything has to have stats.
I know! This must seem like blasphemy to you! But it's true. When the players are driving by a field in their cart and they see an arrow come out of the woods and stick right into the farmer they were watching plow his fields just then? That farmer? Doesn't have to have stats. The bandit in the woods? Doesn't have to have stats. The carriage driver? Doesn't have to make a skill check to pilot the carriage.
You can actually just say "this makes sense in the way the story is told" and it works wonderfully. You can actually just discribe to the players how they are on their way in a carriage (and not roll to see if the carriage driver can do his job), watching a farmer (and not make a perception check to see if they can see the farmer), and suddenly out of the woods, a bandit arrow! (and not make an attack roll that could miss and make the entire scene far less dramatic).
I know you don't see it that way, but it works well (in fact better) and most if not all GMs seem to be finding that to be entirely easier than rolling up a level 2 commoner just to kill it.
Do you stat the noble the players talk to when they find out there are goblins in the hills a few miles outside of town? Do you make survival checks for those goblins on a daily basis? Do you make skill checks for the town noble to rule his town? If your campaign were to have a war being fought, do you stat out all the knights and warriors and make attack rolls and damage rolls to see who won every battle?
No, you don't (or if you do, how do you have that much time to put together a session?!). Because Dungeons and Dragons is about telling a story (about killing things and looting the bodies). Because the rules exist to determine the outcome of player actions, not to determine to the GM if a merchant in a city the players will never visit made a good profession roll that week or not.
It's contrived enough to miss the point entirely - and it's a spectacular exaggeration on "how not to DM". Good job on that.I'm sorry you think that way, and it must be a tremendous strain to DM that way. In the meantime, let me fill you in on a big
You can actually just say "this makes sense in the way the story is told" and it works wonderfully. You can actually just describe to the players how they are on their way in a carriage (and not roll to see if the carriage driver can do his job), watching a farmer (and not make a perception check to see if they can see the farmer), and suddenly out of the woods, a bandit arrow! (and not make an attack roll that could miss and make the entire scene far less dramatic).
If the system is doing its job, then I shouldn't need to roll for obvious checks. The carriage driver has enough of a bonus to his check, and the DC is low enough, that he can't possibly fail it. Same with the perception check for the PCs to notice the farmer - they would succeed on a 1, so there's no need to roll. No edition thus far has been silly enough as to suggest that a 1 is an automatic failure on a skill check.
A major benefit of having a consistent system is that you don't need to roll up a level 2 commoner, because you should be able to picture that commoner in your head already. That goes back to my point about the fisherman with 14 strength - because we know what strength means and because we can form that image of the fisherman in our mind, we don't need to roll for stats. You don't need to make survival checks for every goblin in the forest, because you know that they can sustain themselves unless there's a storm coming through or some other circumstances that prevent them from just taking 10.
A well-built system allows you to skip right to the conclusion, because it logically follows from what we would expect anyway. If we must skip to the conclusion we want, because the system fails to get us to our reasonable outcome, then that's a sign of a weak system.
If the system is doing its job, then I shouldn't need to roll for obvious checks. The carriage driver has enough of a bonus to his check, and the DC is low enough, that he can't possibly fail it. Same with the perception check for the PCs to notice
Tropes (elven archers, orcish barbarians) exist for a reason. Personally, and I know there are others who share this view, but I like to see the system explain why those things exist.
kezzek wrote about how players break stereotypes. You are talking about populations
Everything I say is written from the perspective that PCs and NPCs follow the same rules, and thus have the same mechanical encouragement behind their behaviors. A game which treats PCs differently from NPCs is repugnant to what I see as the point of playing such games, and thus beyond consideration.
But most NPCs are entirely different in their nature as PCs are. You cannot expect a bunch of armed peasants to be comparable to a trained swordsman who is reckless enough to prefer the life of a free adventurer to a regular income. Even important NPCs like an evil lieutenant cannot be truly compared to the PCs. That said, I see no reason to make NPC generation different from PC generation. I'd still leave everything open and make stuff like "elves tend to be dextrous" nothing but a remark about statistics in that world that the DM considers when creating NPCs. But let's come back to the argument about populations and individuals. See, your argument is that elves use bows because they tend to be good at that for some reason and let's say that for elves this is a high average dexterity. There will be tropes or stereotypes or whatever of the elven archer, yes. But now why shouldn't there be that one elf that stands out because he prefers to don heavy armor and an axe for what he trained all his life? Isn't such an exception what makes for the heroes we know from tales and literature? Why should one want to penalize/discourage such a character?
Except it doesn't take time to gain levels. If it takes an NPC years to game levels, it's because they adventure much less frequently than PCs, and if that was the case then high-level fighters would be as likely as high-level wizards to be very old.
I disagree. In my opinion, PCs level way faster than most NPCs because they have more potential to begin with. Experience is still an artificial thing - if you are a craven at heart, you will never be a great fighter, no matter how often you adventure or how many people you kill. Take a warband of soldiers that have been into battle several times. Surely some of them will have learned much about fighting and got much better (several levels more) since battle woke their potential. But everyone? Even someone who survived the thicket of fight who killed several foes is not necesarrily better at fighting after that. Also, try to explain other things that are artificial that we tend to tolerate by convenience all the time like skills - the NPC mechanic who has the NPC class expert doesn't level as fast as the rogue. Took the rogue only several months to become a master of lockpicking. And it's not like as if the NPC mechanic did sleep through all his years of practice.
Actually, I would say that Europeans are not humans of the same kind. If I were to translate medieval Europe into the d20 system, I would state that the English do have a mechanical incentive to use the longbow - at the very least, they would gain free longbow proficiency, but I would probably also give them +2 Dex to represent their superior training and the physical effects of constant practice with a ranged weapon. One of the faults of the system is that I could not give them +2 Strength to represent their use of the stronger bow, because +Strength would just incentivize their use of two-handed weapons instead.
But then again you would have reversed the causation! You began with "elves are dextrous thus good archers" and now you go to "englishmen are good archers thus we give them more dexterity" and you do so - it's not in the genes of the englishmen to be archers as you say yourself: You write "to represent their superior training and..." - know what? The longbowmen have this training. The generic englishman does not. If an orc infant from a parallel universe is teleported to an english court and the english king decides to let him be trained as a longbowman, would he get the +2 DEX? By your argument I'd say he would. Now we have a situation where using the stats for orcs make no sense for that special character - take a system with removed stats and you're done. Again, this english orc is an exceptional person - just as most of the PCs tend to be.
That's meta-game stuff, though. There's no difference between PCs and NPCs within the game world, and since the rules only describe the objective reality of the game world, they must use the same rules.
Yes, the system for a game is meta-game. But if you need an in-game explanation, think of chosen heroes, champions of the gods or something like that. After all, games tend to be much more like a book than like real world occurences. Realisticaly, heroes should die very fast by some chance like an arrow astray or a bad flu, just as the other people in that world. Also, the rules do NOT describe the objective reality. They are models of reality that simplify things for convenience and tend to enable a more "heroic" play - in the reality of that world you die when a spear impales you, in the system you loose some HP that are there to make things more statistically even
Thing is, WHY should a system do so? I have no problem to play a suboptimal character but why should the system say "one option is clearly worse, not just different but worse in any detail"? The system is there to make characters equal, it's artificial in it's nature.
So that choices matter.
They do. If I choose to play an orc, this has influence on how I play my character. But I don't see why it has to have mechanical influence (/different stats).
Or not, because the DM could simply build the NPCs to not have recharge powers. Or not even stat them at all.
Everything has stats, merely because it exists within an objective reality. If NPCs are statted in such a way that they are identical to PCs, in every way that is observable from an in-universe standpoint, then they are effectively using PC rules for our purposes.
What are my stats? I can go to a gym to test how much weight I can lift and I can take an IQ-test but that's at most a correlation to my fighting prowess or my ability to lead a company. Add some more stats like a test I did corresponding to company managing activities and there's still a difference in my ability to perform different tasks in that field. Stats are artificial in their nature, simplifications. So basically things have only stats if you measured them or in the case of a DM if he wrote them down (or thought about them).
Also, give gods stats and the players will find a way to kill them. Even if they don't know the stats.
About your example of NPCs fighting giants, yes, that is a situation for which the NPC-system might be ill-designed. Not a weakness of different stat gens though.
kezzek wrote about how players break stereotypes. You are talking about populations[/quote]Everything I say is written from the perspective that PCs and NPCs follow the same rules, and thus have the same mechanical encouragement behind their behavior
Just to use 4E as an example, because it was the most egregious, you have things like encounter/daily powers compared to re-charge powers.
For most power-using NPCs (aka "monsters"), there is no functional difference between daily and encounter powers. Their entire lifetimes are almost always a single encounter.
Yeah, there's a very good reason why different mechanics are a good idea, and that's because PC and NPC are on different power schedules. The NPC wizard with 3 1st level spells per day has no reason to ever try to conserve them as a PC would. He is in a life-or-death battle agaisnt the PCs and needs to go all out. The PC wizard on the other may have to worry about the battle after this one, and has to conserve his magic.
This creates an innate balance problem where NPC casters are flat out better than PC casters, because they can afford to go nova all the time. He actually doesn't play like a PC would, despite having the same stats, because he has one battle per day that he has to survive, and that's it.
Setting them to a different power schedule actually makes them play out more similar to as if they were a PC. So if you give him 1 or 2 1st level spells to cast for the encounter instead of his full 3, he now plays similar to how the PC wizard would play.
This is especially important to help balance encounters, otherwise you need a separate method of rating the challenge rating of each PC class, depending on if it's baed on dailies or at-wills.
For most power-using NPCs (aka "monsters"), there is no functional difference between daily and encounter powers. Their entire lifetimes are almost always a single encounter.[/quote]Yeah, there's a very good reason why different mechanics are a good
Keep race difference for NPCs. Scrap it for players.
Size bonuses and racial special-things would still do the trick -- without pidgeonholing anyone.
AND most orcs won't be wizards, because most orcs are NPCs who on average suffer loss of intelligence and charisma or whatever.
Keep race difference for NPCs.Scrap it for players.Size bonuses and racial special-things would still do the trick -- without pidgeonholing anyone.AND most orcs won't be wizards, because most orcs are NPCs who on average suffer loss of intelligence a
Same here. If you don't get rid of them in their entirety, at least make it so only part of your stat bonuses come from your race - part of it can come from background, class, theme, whatever.
Yeah, I'm down. [/quote]Same here. Get rid of them.[/quote]Same here. If you don't get rid of them in their entirety, at least make it so only part of your stat bonuses come from your race - part of it can come from background, class, theme, whateve
Since making this thread, I've had a chance to hear some more 13th Age details, and they actually do something that's fairly elegant in regards to stat bonuses. Specifically, every race and every class gives you your choice of two stat bonuses - you choose one from your race and one from your class. However, you can't choose the same bonus for both, and I believe that classes always offer the primary stat for that class as one of the options. This cleaves right through many of the issues that racial stat bonuses have while still maintaining a very D&D spirit and remaining relatively simple. ("Solves issue, maintains a very D&D spirit, remains relatively simple, all more elegantly than you thought possible" is something that powerfully suffuses 13th Age across the board.)
I do still like my OP idea - your race influences how you do class X rather than just how well you do class X - but it's admittedly far more complicated.
Since making this thread, I've had a chance to hear some more 13th Age details, and they actually do something that's fairly elegant in regards to stat bonuses. Specifically, every race and every class gives you your choice of two stat bonuses - you
Same here. If you don't get rid of them in their entirety, at least make it so only part of your stat bonuses come from your race - part of it can come from background, class, theme, whatever.
As it is in 5th Ed.
Yeah, I'm down. [/quote]Same here. Get rid of them.[/quote]Same here. If you don't get rid of them in their entirety, at least make it so only part of your stat bonuses come from your race - part of it can come from background, class, theme, whateve
You cannot expect a bunch of armed peasants to be comparable to a trained swordsman who is reckless enough to prefer the life of a free adventurer to a regular income.
I expect that they should be comparable - that they are expressed using the same language, that you literally can compare them - and that the trained swordsman is better along the appropriate metrics.
But now why shouldn't there be that one elf that stands out because he prefers to don heavy armor and an axe for what he trained all his life? Isn't such an exception what makes for the heroes we know from tales and literature? Why should one want to penalize/discourage such a character?
In my opinion, PCs level way faster than most NPCs because they have more potential to begin with.
If you write the rules to describe only the ones who break that mold, and try to apply those rules to generate the population, then they will not lead to that mold having been formed in the first place. If they want PCs to use the same rules as NPCs, then the rules should be written to support that. If not - if PCs are inherently special - then they should declare that up front, because it's not the sort of thing that can be easily solved at the modular level.
Took the rogue only several months to become a master of lockpicking. And it's not like as if the NPC mechanic did sleep through all his years of practice.
I agree. This is one area where I've always felt that the 3E rules did a poor job of representing an otherwise-consistent world. The AD&D system of Non-Weapon Proficiencies - where you are trained and can perform basic tasks with no check, but otherwise your entire potential is measured by the relevant ability score - did a much better job of de-coupling skills from combat level.
The longbowmen have this training. The generic englishman does not.
I was under the impression that there was a royal decree that all able-bodied men would practice archery, which is as close as you can get to real-life enforcement of a bonus weapon proficiency. And, if you practice archery, you will develop better hand-eye coordination than if you did not - so that makes sense for them to get +Dex on a national level.
But if you need an in-game explanation, think of chosen heroes, champions of the gods or something like that.
If the rules exist only to represent heroes and champions, then I have zero interest whatsoever in playing that game. This was a major issue with 4E which alienated 3E players. Personally, I would say that it was the reason why I have no interest in that game - because that assumption was so fundamental and pervasive that it became unfeasible to correct it with house rules.
What are my stats?
So the world is comprised two realities: the map, and the territory. The territory is everything that actually exists - your brain cells, muscle tissue, etc; the map is how you view that reality - your ability to lift weight, your ability to solve problems, etc. The map of you can be written as a character sheet with some very large number of stats on it, and the more individual stats you write down, the more accurately that map will conform to the territory. You have stats, which correspond to the objective reality.
In the game world, we have the same dichotomy. There are the actual characters - the Aragorns and Batmans - and there are also their maps - the character sheets you would use to quantify their abilities. That D&D onlyuses six basic stats (along with classes and levels, trained skills, etc) does not mean that the underlying realities of their worlds are any less objective. It just means that our map of that reality is simpler.
I expect that they should be comparable - that they are expressed using the same language, that you literally can compare them - and that the trained swordsman is better along the appropriate metrics. If you write the rules to describe only the ones
I was under the impression that there was a royal decree that all able-bodied men would practice archery, which is as close as you can get to real-life enforcement of a bonus weapon proficiency. And, if you practice archery, you willdevelop better hand-eye coordination than if you did not - so that makes sense for them to get +Dex on a national level.
Not really. They would have a higher Dex than people from other cultures, but all that time spent practicing the bow would leave less time for doing other activities that might improve other ability scores. In short, their improved Dex would be represented by where their starting ability score array went, not by some kind of innate genetic bonus.
Not really. They would have a higher Dex than people from other cultures, but all that time spent practicing the bow would leave less time for doing other activities that might improve other ability scores. In short, their improved Dex would be rep
If you write the rules to describe only the ones who break that mold, and try to apply those rules to generate the population, then they will not lead to that mold having been formed in the first place. If they want PCs to use the same rules as NPCs, then the rules should be written to support that. If not - if PCs are inherently special - then they should declare that up front, because it's not the sort of thing that can be easily solved at the modular level.
Sure it can. I mean, you can make NPCs that are like PCs in 4E pretty easily. If you want you can give them fighter powers and do all the math, or you can use the default NPC system.
It's very easy to add a module after the fact that lets you create NPCs as PCs, in fact all it really takes is a way to rate thier EXP.
It's a bad idea to have suhc a system be a default however, and 3E showed us why. Making NPCs was a colossal pain in the ass in 3E and most people don't want to spend an hour designing a high level NPC that lasts for a single battle (and may well die before even taking an action). A typical enemy NPC just isn't worth that level of commitment, and thus a simple 4E-style system is better.
Sure it can. I mean, you can make NPCs that are like PCs in 4E pretty easily. If you want you can give them fighter powers and do all the math, or you can use the default NPC system. It's very easy to add a module after the fact that lets you create
If you write the rules to describe only the ones who break that mold, and try to apply those rules to generate the population, then they will not lead to that mold having been formed in the first place. If they want PCs to use the same rules as NPCs, then the rules should be written to support that. If not - if PCs are inherently special - then they should declare that up front, because it's not the sort of thing that can be easily solved at the modular level.
Sure it can. I mean, you can make NPCs that are like PCs in 4E pretty easily. If you want you can give them fighter powers and do all the math, or you can use the default NPC system.
It's very easy to add a module after the fact that lets you create NPCs as PCs, in fact all it really takes is a way to rate thier EXP.
It's a bad idea to have suhc a system be a default however, and 3E showed us why. Making NPCs was a colossal pain in the ass in 3E and most people don't want to spend an hour designing a high level NPC that lasts for a single battle (and may well die before even taking an action). A typical enemy NPC just isn't worth that level of commitment, and thus a simple 4E-style system is better.
Well said.
Sure it can. I mean, you can make NPCs that are like PCs in 4E pretty easily. If you want you can give them fighter powers and do all the math, or you can use the default NPC system. It's very easy to add a module after the fact that lets you create
I agree. This is one area where I've always felt that the 3E rules did a poor job of representing an otherwise-consistent world. The AD&D system of Non-Weapon Proficiencies - where you are trained and can perform basic tasks with no check, but otherwise your entire potential is measured by the relevant ability score - did a much better job of de-coupling skills from combat level.
Hmm I don't know - I agree with you on the 3E issue but just abilities as relevance... I'm used to TDE and WoD in which there are skills and one can start high in these (in WoD easily at maximum in one skill, in TDE you start at least as a professional if you are one)
I was under the impression that there was a royal decree that all able-bodied men would practice archery, which is as close as you can get to real-life enforcement of a bonus weapon proficiency. And, if you practice archery, you will develop better hand-eye coordination than if you did not - so that makes sense for them to get +Dex on a national level.
I'm not that versed on the background but really everyone? Every peasant? If so, yeah, replace the english archers with another nation with speciality like ancient greek pikemen. The thing about nature and nurture stays - does a bonus represent a nature (genes) or a nurture (culture in this context)? Imho it shouldn't do both since again, there are exceptions
If the rules exist only to represent heroes and champions, then I have zero interest whatsoever in playing that game. This was a major issue with 4E which alienated 3E players. Personally, I would say that it was the reason why I have no interest in that game - because that assumption was so fundamental and pervasive that it became unfeasible to correct it with house rules.
D&D tends to be high fantasy but yeah, I somewhat prefer low fantasy. As for 4E, wasn't my issue with it. But ok, let's scale that down. Let's talk about Panache, the little something that separates legends from common men. People who are not really much smarter or stronger but driven by something. In low fantasy, that's what makes a hero. Again, the person is an exception who does not simply take the part he is assumed to. In essence: Strong-willed people that become low fantasy heroes tend to be different somewhat by definition (not quite since they do not have to be in any case)
So the world is comprised two realities: the map, and the territory. The territory is everything that actually exists - your brain cells, muscle tissue, etc; the map is how you view that reality - your ability to lift weight, your ability to solve problems, etc. The map of you can be written as a character sheet with some very large number of stats on it, and the more individual stats you write down, the more accurately that map will conform to the territory. You have stats, which correspond to the objective reality.
K, got your concept. So let's go back to NPCs using the same stats but different rules than PCs that you objected to. Let's pick a situation with NPC characters that defend a town. Apply PCs rules and stats and maybe a week later the siege is resolved with dice. Bundle them as mobs or use entirely different rules (let's say the rules of a tabletop) and only go back to normal rules when the PCs are concerned directly and it can be done in an evening. Basically, at this point we haven't changed what you call territory but what kind of mapping we use for convenience. I see no reason why the DM might not say "I don't care about stats, I describe how they fire some encouter abilities without thinking if it represents the usual AEDU-system" - the AEDU-system and any other system is not territory after all but a crude map at best (I'd say that a mage can choose to levitate while studying without having a corresponding power or stat or rule - as long as it doesn't hurt any balance or logic, style stuff should go freely. In your terms, it's simply something our current map is not representing yet.)
Hmm I don't know - I agree with you on the 3E issue but just abilities as relevance...I'm used to TDE and WoD in which there are skills and one can start high in these (in WoD easily at maximum in one skill, in TDE you start at least as a professiona
Sure it can. I mean, you can make NPCs that are like PCs in 4E pretty easily. If you want you can give them fighter powers and do all the math, or you can use the default NPC system.
It's actually quite a bit of work, for much the same reason you dislike creating a spellcaster NPC in 3E - lots of choices for every level, and there's no simple alternative like just giving them "warrior" levels because that class doesn't exist anymore - they need all of those encounter and daily powers, which means they have to be selected and tracked, and in the end you wind up with something with insufficient attack and defense numbers unless you give them all of the magic items that the PCs need in order to "keep up with the monsters"; that's not even going into the issues with NPCs who have PC-equivalent healing surges.
I'm not saying that it's impossible; merely that it is not easy, and the system is not designed for it.
The thing about nature and nurture stays - does a bonus represent a nature (genes) or a nurture (culture in this context)? Imho it shouldn't do both since again, there are exceptions.
The more modern view is that all racial features should only represent fundamental characteristics of that creature (nature), specifically to cover situations where an elf could be raised by dwarves and wouldn't grow up to practice archery (any more than an Englishman raised in France would be subject to that royal decree). The thing is, going back to the guiding principles of D&D, race and culture are assumed to be the same thing... and if you're playing an exception, then run it by the DM, because the DM is empowered by the players to change those rules where they don't make sense (and the designers know that the DM has this power).
I'm not saying that they can't explicitly change that for 5E, but it goes against the established convention and thus we cannot use previous editions as a guideline for such.
In your terms, it's simply something our current map is not representing yet.
I'm definitely open to leaving more things undefined, especially where a more accurate map would lead to an unplayable game. That's where I would simplify my 3E spellcasting NPC by saying that most of his lower-level spell slots were spent on things that aren't relevant and are unlikely to come up. The down side to that is where people see anything that is open to interpretation and just dismiss it as "DM fiat".
My only real issue is where they try to use two conflicting maps to describe the same phenomenon. We get that there are intermediate magics that fall somewhere between at-will and daily-use, but to say that some characters have an Encounter power that refreshes when you take a short rest, and others have a Re-charge power which may or may not refresh every 6 seconds, it creates confusion as to the true nature of the territory.
It's like the old saying, "a person with a watch knows what time it is; a person with two watches is never sure." I do not care nearly as much as to what the time actually is, so long as we have consistent information around which to plan.
It's actually quite a bit of work, for much the same reason you dislike creating a spellcaster NPC in 3E - lots of choices for every level, and there's no simple alternative like just giving them "warrior" levels because that class doesn't exist anym
It's actually quite a bit of work, for much the same reason you dislike creating a spellcaster NPC in 3E - lots of choices for every level, and there's no simple alternative like just giving them "warrior" levels because that class doesn't exist anymore - they need all of those encounter and daily powers, which means they have to be selected and tracked, and in the end you wind up with something with insufficient attack and defense numbers unless you give them all of the magic items that the PCs need in order to "keep up with the monsters"; that's not even going into the issues with NPCs who have PC-equivalent healing surges.
I'm not saying that it's impossible; merely that it is not easy, and the system is not designed for it.
Well yeah, it is a lot of work doing monsters as PCs. But lets face it, PCs are a lot of work to create, so if you're using an optional system to design monsters that way, well, that's a natural consequence, unless you actually just want to make PCs really simple, which would involve stripping them down a lot.
I'm definitely open to leaving more things undefined, especially where a more accurate map would lead to an unplayable game. That's where I would simplify my 3E spellcasting NPC by saying that most of his lower-level spell slots were spent on things that aren't relevant and are unlikely to come up. The down side to that is where people see anything that is open to interpretation and just dismiss it as "DM fiat".
Ultimately that's sort of the style of any separate NPC system. For instance in 4E, a lot of the stuff like rituals and things like that are just assumed. Like the NPC necromancer animates undead through some manner of DM fiat, and the lich that charms the town works the same way. I dont' particularly see a big problem with that, because it's an obvious compromise to make things simpler. So you only really put down spells that are particularly relevant, and eliminate ones that aren't.
My only real issue is where they try to use two conflicting maps to describe the same phenomenon. We get that there are intermediate magics that fall somewhere between at-will and daily-use, but to say that some characters have an Encounter power that refreshes when you take a short rest, and others have a Re-charge power which may or may not refresh every 6 seconds, it creates confusion as to the true nature of the territory.
It's like the old saying, "a person with a watch knows what time it is; a person with two watches is never sure." I do not care nearly as much as to what the time actually is, so long as we have consistent information around which to plan.
Well the problem is that ultimately in D&D verse, there are competing explanations for any phenomenon. There are tons of classes with similar abilities and spell lists. Monsters get spell-like abilities with no consistent model for how often they can be used. That is, when you see a fireball, you aren't really sure of how many more fireballs the caster has behind it, or even how much damage that fireball does in the case of the scaling pre-4E fireballs.
Having consistent information isn't really something you ever had in D&D. Short of actually looking at an NPC statblock, you really don't know a hell of a lot about the NPC's casting method, or can't draw any conlcusions about what it can or can't do.
Well yeah, it is a lot of work doing monsters as PCs. But lets face it, PCs are a lot of work to create, so if you're using an optional system to design monsters that way, well, that's a natural consequence, unless you actually just want to make PCs
But lets face it, PCs are a lot of work to create, so if you're using an optional system to design monsters that way, well, that's a natural consequence, unless you actually just want to make PCs really simple, which would involve stripping them down a lot.
One thing that AD&D had going for it was that making any character, whether PC or NPC, was really pretty simple. It took longer if you wanted to fill out the spellbook of an NPC wizard, which could occasionally be a major hassle, but I would be all in favor of limiting the number of spells known to something like the 4E model.
Well the problem is that ultimately in D&D verse, there are competing explanations for any phenomenon. There are tons of classes with similar abilities and spell lists. Monsters get spell-like abilities with no consistent model for how often they can be used. That is, when you see a fireball, you aren't really sure of how many more fireballs the caster has behind it, or even how much damage that fireball does in the case of the scaling pre-4E fireballs.
Monsters are their own thing, and no PC should have any expectation for growing up to become a unicorn. Likewise, if we're not going to go into any details on how the necromancer animates the dead, then that's fine - we have limited page count, and we can say that it's not important because it's unlikely that any PC is ever going to do it (and when they do, the DM can just fiat the same way).
As for casting methods, though, it's important to me that what rules we do have are internally consistent. (All rules should be internally consistent, but this is just the most obvious break). A 3E wizard may have cast their fireball spells differently from a sorcerer or a fire-domain cleric, but they could all sit down together and rationally discuss their different philosophies, and anyone could change class to gain access to those new mechanics (if they found the right teacher). If enemy wizards are all re-charge based, and PC wizards are AEDU, then it had better be because the enemy wizards are from a different culture where they learned how to cast spells differently - there needs to be a good, in-game reason for why one arbitrary sub-set of characters is restricted to one casting method, while another sub-set is forced to use a different method.
One thing that AD&D had going for it was that making any character, whether PC or NPC, was really pretty simple. It took longer if you wanted to fill out the spellbook of an NPC wizard, which could occasionally be a major hassle, but I would be all i
Sure it can. I mean, you can make NPCs that are like PCs in 4E pretty easily. If you want you can give them fighter powers and do all the math, or you can use the default NPC system.
It's actually quite a bit of work, for much the same reason you dislike creating a spellcaster NPC in 3E - lots of choices for every level, ..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />
Incorrect. 4e NPCs using a PC template do not get feats, don't need magic items, and get 1 at-will, 1 encounter, and 1 daily. It is nowhere near as complicated as making and managing a full-fledged PC.
It's actually quite a bit of work, for much the same reason you dislike creating a spellcaster NPC in 3E - lots of choices for every level, ..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="tru
One thing that AD&D had going for it was that making any character, whether PC or NPC, was really pretty simple. It took longer if you wanted to fill out the spellbook of an NPC wizard, which could occasionally be a major hassle, but I would be all in favor of limiting the number of spells known to something like the 4E model.
Yeah, so long as you weren't making an NPC rogue, doing stuff in AD&D was fairly easy. Mainly because there weren't a lot of modifiers to apply and no class abilities.
A fighter was pretty much a matter of giving him weapon spec, and that's it. For a wizard, you didn't have bonus spells from intelligence or any of that, and if you really wanted to you could DM fiat his spells memorized as you went along.
Rogues were the only tough ones, becasue you had dex modifiers to thier skills and you had to spend points on their thief abilities (at least the 2E rogues had to do that).
As for casting methods, though, it's important to me that what rules we do have are internally consistent. (All rules should be internally consistent, but this is just the most obvious break). A 3E wizard may have cast their fireball spells differently from a sorcerer or a fire-domain cleric, but they could all sit down together and rationally discuss their different philosophies, and anyone could change class to gain access to those new mechanics (if they found the right teacher). If enemy wizards are all re-charge based, and PC wizards are AEDU, then it had better be because the enemy wizards are from a different culture where they learned how to cast spells differently - there needs to be a good, in-game reason for why one arbitrary sub-set of characters is restricted to one casting method, while another sub-set is forced to use a different method.
Well in my mind, it only really becomes a problem if the NPC way is better than the PC way. I mean 3E lived with NPC classes like Adepts taht were flat out worse than PC classes, and you could honestly just abstract those and say that your NPC casters tend to work the same way. Care should be taken that the NPC casting method isn't better than the PC one, but I figure that's probably not a big concern anyway, since generally NPCs are supposed to be simplified and nerfed in many ways. You only have a problem when you have a PC that would rather be the NPC style, since now the PC feels like he's being cheated out of something as opposed to being superior. One of the main issues where PCs tended to complain about the 4E NPC system is simply because 4E NPCs got more hit points and did more damage on basic attacks.
But arguably a PC probably isn't going to care if the NPC figther has 1 manuever compared to 3 for his fighter, or if the NPC wizard onyl has 1 spell instead of 2.
Yeah, so long as you weren't making an NPC rogue, doing stuff in AD&D was fairly easy. Mainly because there weren't a lot of modifiers to apply and no class abilities. A fighter was pretty much a matter of giving him weapon spec, and that's it. For a
Incorrect. 4e NPCs using a PC template do not get feats, don't need magic items, and get 1 at-will, 1 encounter, and 1 daily. It is nowhere near as complicated as making and managing a full-fledged PC.
Mind-boggling. Are you telling me that they heard my grievance, and actually printed some rules in an attempt to reconcile these differences? And still had to hand-wave past feats and magic items and all that?
Well, at least the player characters should be less confused, since things would appear to be more consistent.
Mind-boggling. Are you telling me that they heard my grievance, and actually printed some rules in an attempt to reconcile these differences? And still had to hand-wave past feats and magic items and all that?Well, at least the player characters shou
So I'm playing this wizard.
What race is it?
