Ok 1.) 3.5 half giants took a dex hit and only had a +2 str. They actually made decent wizareds for much the same reasons dwarves did. However they had an LA and thus were rarely if ever considered for caster classes because caster levels were rediculously broken.
2.) Goliaths in 3e had +4 strength and thus were even bigger and badder than half-giants.
3.) A red wyrm in 3e had 40+ str while a 4e version has maybe high 20s low 30s, the ability score scale is smaller in 4e, i.e. flatter math. DOn't try to use that as a reason to call 4e versions of a previous edition critter weaker. The bar got moved.
4.) Darksun doens't justify penalties, if anything it would purge such weakness.
Ok 1.) 3.5 half giants took a dex hit and only had a +2 str. They actually made decent wizareds for much the same reasons dwarves did. However they had an LA and thus were rarely if ever considered for caster classes because caster levels were redicu
I don't really see how this requires any change in how they were playing ereviously. It's literally just not putting any score higher than x in a certain stat.
Such would be the case if the modules applied only to PCs, but the idea that NPCs will use different racial modifiers than PCs is still unsupported. Using the alternate reasoning, the module defines all NPCs everywhere within the setting, barring only those with the same kinds of unique excuses that PCs tend to favor. If you don't use the module, then you're defining that the top 0.5% of Halflings have 18 Strength because that's what the mechanics dictate.
Such would be the case if the modules applied only to PCs, but the idea that NPCs will use different racial modifiers than PCs is still unsupported. Using the alternate reasoning, the module defines all NPCs everywhere within the setting, barring on
The 3.5 half giant was not a good representitive of the Darksun half giant. A reskinned ogre would have made a better 3.5 DarkSun half giant.
4th ed creatures generally are stronger than the 3.5 ones and they powered up the monsters in alot of ways to compensate. 4th ed DS was not a great conversion of the 2nd ed material because they were limited by the mechanics of the 4th ed system. They did move the bar, the main point being it wasn't a great system for a semi faithful conversion.
3.5 did not scale power very well at all. level adjustments were not used in 2nd ed but the more powerful races did level up slower. A level 15 Ogre was not that badly outclassed by a level 20 human fighter for similar reasons a level 14/14 character could hang out with a level 18-20 one and not suck.
To get an accurate 4th ed half giant they would probably have to make it a class with paragon paths and epic destinies and racial feats being used to grow it into somehting like the 2nd ed one. Imagaine the uproar here when they get around to converting the 4th ed Dragonborn if the conversion doesn't even resemble the 4th ed one. I don't think it will have the bloodied ability but you probably want to have +1 str or cha and a breath weapon.
The 3.5 half giant was not a good representitive of the Darksun half giant. A reskinned ogre would have made a better 3.5 DarkSun half giant. 4th ed creatures generally are stronger than the 3.5 ones and they powered up the monsters in alot of ways
It would be used as a reference point for consenting groups to succeed at implementing the changes they want, without 'nerfing' or screwing with the numbers too drastically.
That much is fine, as long as I'm free to ignore it.
Are we all being serious that we think all DMs who use it will just use it against their players' will? That's exactly what was just said and supported as a truth twice over. -- Is that the true state of D&D?
Again, the people who won't use the module won't, and the people who will use the module for what it's for would have done so even if the module hadn't existed. The only people going to get acual use out of the module are the people restricting their players.
Way I see it, there are 3 groups of people for this module(not counting people completely against it even existing)
Group 1 doesn't care one way or the other about the module. They won't use it.
Group 2 likes the module. They and their table are fine with racial restrictions, but in this case wouldn't have tried to put a stat above what "makes sense" to them anyways.
Group 3 also likes the module, even if their players don't. At least one player is fine playing certain races above their racial restriction and can't because the DM is imposing said module on them, restricting their character options.
So 1 group doesn't care about the module, 1 group would have acted the same regardless if the module existed or not, and 1 group uses it to restrict other player's options. I don't see it that unreasonable to believe the only use it gets is to restrict other people, since they aren't entirely wrong.
What about the group that uses the module to help them determine 'what makes sense'?
Why is my description of a math-respecting gaming group who desires direction from modular options keep getting swept under the rug?
Your proposed Group 2 explicitly disincludes the case where the group is unsure what makes sense. They want a clear guideline to help them succeed at defining their play experience. -- You're denying them that because you think the opportunity to enact restrictions by virtue of a lack thereof is somehow enabling them to get done what they need to get done. YES, they can cap stats, BUT, they want to do so with the guided insight of recommendation.
Why are we against allowing the Player's Handbook and/or Dungeon Master's Guide to serve as a reference or provide a guideline? -- Is that not odd to anyone but me?
That much is fine, as long as I'm free to ignore it.Again, the people who won't use the module won't, and the people who will use the module for what it's for would have done so even if the module hadn't existed. The only people going to get acual us
1) 4e could have handled a +4 strength race, at least well as any other edition could have. It's an extra +1 to hit and damage and +1 to fortitude over the fairly common +2 strength classes. The designers decided to err on the side of caution, though, and you can criticize that judgement call if you'd like, but just because they treated the system like a delicate flower doesn't make it one.
2) I fail to see how the judgement calls of the D&D team on 4e stuff, sound or not, have anything to do with the conversation about penalties.
Okay, tangeantsauce.1) 4e could have handled a +4 strength race, at least well as any other edition could have. It's an extra +1 to hit and damage and +1 to fortitude over the fairly common +2 strength classes. The designers decided to err on the s
YEs the creatures were more powerful and capable in 4e, but the actual strength scores tended to be much less extreme. Example a 4e ogre would call it a day with 18-19 str while a 3e ogre had 22.
The races were designed to hand out +2 bonuses, get over it. You complain about the stat matching that happens with just +2 bonuses and no penalties? Imagine what will happen with +4s and -2s.
If you're saying darksun specifically should use higher ability scores then that's a separate issue.
Why would anyone want a semi-faithful conversion? Oldschool half giants sound lame.
Races can be as powerful or weak as the devs decide to make them. They just need to be all roughy on the same page.
YEs the creatures were more powerful and capable in 4e, but the actual strength scores tended to be much less extreme. Example a 4e ogre would call it a day with 18-19 str while a 3e ogre had 22. The races were designed to hand out +2 bonuses, get ov
The racial penalties allowed more powerful races to be used. It wasn't balanced of course in the 4th ed sense but it was fun. Half Giants despite their +4 strength were not the default go to option for fighter types in 2nd ed DS as Muls and Kreen also made good fighters (and halfling) just in differnet ways.
A DS half giant dual wielding great swords was not even close to balanced I suppose but it was fun and the setting worked. Different edition, non core setting but according to some I am a hypocrit and a bad person for daring to like it even though it used racial penalties.
Rampant they could have just powered up the other races to the half giants level and had a disclaimer along the lines of "4th ed DS characters are more powerful than standard. One can treat creatures in the MM as one level lower for purposes of encounter design and xp rewards".
That could have been hilarious fun. 4th ed half giant, large, +4 strength, +2 con and some racial power I suppose. A human could have gotten +4 to something of their choice, Elves +4 dex +2 wisdom or +4 wisdom, +2 dex.
That could have been interesting and crazy fun. Nope rekin a golaith and shoehorn in the Dragonborn. Would you like a D&DN conversion of a Dragonborn if it doesn't even resemble the 4th ed one (small, +1 wis, +1 dex, has small wings and can glide/feather fall)
The racial penalties allowed more powerful races to be used. It wasn't balanced of course in the 4th ed sense but it was fun. Half Giants despite their +4 strength were not the default go to option for fighter types in 2nd ed DS as Muls and Kreen als
The devs decided if more powerful races can be used. Penalties were just a failed attempt to make races that should have been nerfed playable.
This is were 4e again proves it had the best design ever in dnd history. Not only were the races given more power and influence overall in order to allow people to have fun with even the regular stuff like elves or dwarves, but they had balanced ways of getitng more 'racial' features via feats, powers and paragon paths specific to their race.
The base write up has to be roughly balanced but even now in 5e there are obvious ways to allow for more potent abilities. You just have to give up something that actually matters, like feats.
IF you dislike the way wizards handled the dray and half-giants in 4e that is a legitimate and separate concern.
The devs decided if more powerful races can be used. Penalties were just a failed attempt to make races that should have been nerfed playable.This is were 4e again proves it had the best design ever in dnd history. Not only were the races given more
Why are we against allowing the Player's Handbook and/or Dungeon Master's Guide to serve as a reference or provide a guideline? -- Is that not odd to anyone but me?
I would put stat caps and means in "the monster manual entry" .
Hey it makes the monsters one step closer to being playable ..
I would put stat caps and means in "the monster manual entry" .Hey it makes the monsters one step closer to being playable ..
The devs decided if more powerful races can be used. Penalties were just a failed attempt to make races that should have been nerfed playable.
This is were 4e again proves it had the best design ever in dnd history. Not only were the races given more power and influence overall in order to allow people to have fun with even the regular stuff like elves or dwarves, but they had balanced ways of getitng more 'racial' features via feats, powers and paragon paths specific to their race.
The base write up has to be roughly balanced but even now in 5e there are obvious ways to allow for more potent abilities. You just have to give up something that actually matters, like feats.
IF you dislike the way wizards handled the dray and half-giants in 4e that is a legitimate and separate concern.
And I am sayig that there is nothing inherently bad with a stat penalty. You would not want a 4th ed elf and 3.5 elf in the same party as the 4th ed one is just more powerful.
I prefer a lower powered game for the most part. I see 4th ed races and classes as more powerful than 3.5 ones. a 4th ed race/class combo at level 1 is more comparable to a 3.5 3rd level PC. A negative to stats is taking away some of your candy. You see it as bad design, I just see it as a different design. 4th ed races had some drawbacks as well pigeonholing them, predictable and boring racial structure, power inflation, limited expansion options.
I'm not claiming 3.5 or 4th ed are perfect in their racial implementation. Saga races were a bucket of fun and they were intersting. Some of them did suck meh so what.
And I am sayig that there is nothing inherently bad with a stat penalty. You would not want a 4th ed elf and 3.5 elf in the same party as the 4th ed one is just more powerful. I prefer a lower powered game for the most part. I see 4th ed races and cl
Stats in 5e are more important than in previous editions - if you think 4e had racial pigeon holing (I dont quite honestly you havent seen anything yet. I think my eladrin who can fade between the fae realm ... and my deva with reincarnativ e memory flashes.. very distinct. And the races in previous editions horridly boring..
Stats in 5e are more important than in previous editions - if you think 4e had racial pigeon holing (I dont quite honestly you havent seen anything yet. I think my eladrin who can fade between the fae realm ... and my deva with reincarnativ e memory
Despite the extra ability bonuses, and the lack of penalties, we never felt that 4e's races were noticeably "more powerful" than their 3e counterparts. Generally the penalties of 3e so incredibly rarely came into play that they were negligible, and the extra bonuses from the 4e races often amounted to "+1 to a defense, some checks, and maybe a rider-effect here and there".
What we did notice was a wider set of class-race combinations hitting the table, without the stat penalties to discourage specific combinations.
Despite the extra ability bonuses, and the lack of penalties, we never felt that 4e's races were noticeably "more powerful" than their 3e counterparts. Generally the penalties of 3e so incredibly rarely came into play that they were negligible, and
I did backward convert some 4th ed races to 3.XYZ.
Elf 3.XYZ
+2 Dex, +2 Wis or Int, -2 con +2 perception racial weapons elven accuracy
You get the idea and I really liked these conversions and so did the players. The 4th ed races were better than the 3.5 ones even with a -2 tacked on. I have homebrewed my races for 3.XYZ to address some of the concerns regarding 3.5 races where they were actually bad.
Nagai race just for an example (SWSE). One of the more powerful saga race, think space elf.
+2 Dex,+2 Cha, -2 Con Speed 6 +2 Reflex Defense (+2 AC in 4th ed as well) Reroll persuasion checks, keep the worst one Exotic weapon treated as simple- tehk'la blade (2d6 knife).
El Zardo special (homebrew)
Gnome Racial Traits
+2 Constitution, +2 Charisma or +2 Intelligence, –2 Strength: Gnomes are physically weak but surprisingly hardy, and their attitude makes them naturally agreeable.
Small: Gnomes are Small creatures and gain a +1 size bonus to their AC, a +1 size bonus on attack rolls, a
–1 penalty to their
Combat Maneuver Bonus and Combat Maneuver Defense, and a +4 size bonus on Stealth checks.
Slow Speed: Gnomes have a base speed of 20 feet.
Low-Light Vision: Gnomes can see twice as far as humans in conditions of dim light. See Chapter 7.
Keen Senses: Gnomes receive a +2 racial bonus on Perception skill checks.
Master Tinker: Gnomes experiment with all manner of mechanical devices. Gnomes with this racial trait gain a +1 bonus on Disable Device and Knowledge (engineering) checks. They are treated as proficient with any weapon they have personally crafted.
Obsessive: Gnomes receive a +2 racial bonus on a Craft or Profession skill of their choice.
Pyromaniac: Gnomes are treated as one level higher when casting spells with the fire descriptor, using granted powers of the Fire domain, using the bloodline powers of the fire elemental bloodline or the revelations of the oracle’s f lame mystery, and determining the damage of alchemist bombs that deal fire damage (this ability does not give gnomes early access to level-based powers; it only affects the powers they could use without this ability). Gnomes with Charisma scores of 11 or higher also gain the following spell-like abilities: 1/day—dancing lights, f lare, prestidigitation, produce f lame. The caster level for these effects is equal to the gnome’s level; the DCs are Charisma-based.
Weapon Familiarity: Gnomes treat any weapon with the word “gnome” in its name as a martial weapon.
Languages: Gnomes begin play speaking Common, Gnome, and Sylvan. Gnomes with high Intelligence scores can choose from the following: Draconic, Dwarven, Elven, Giant, Goblin, and Orc.
I did backward convert some 4th ed races to 3.XYZ.Elf 3.XYZ+2 Dex, +2 Wis or Int, -2 con+2 perceptionracial weaponselven accuracy You get the idea and I really liked these conversions and so did the players. The 4th ed races were better than the 3.5
I am finding the halflings intriguing in 5e.. which is quite a compliment actually as they are probably one of my longest standing least favorites.. could be me responding to having recently read the Hobbit to my daughter though
I am finding the halflings intriguing in 5e.. which is quite a compliment actually as they are probably one of my longest standing least favorites.. could be me responding to having recently read the Hobbit to my daughter though
Halflings are kind of interesting but they are outclassed by Humans and in testing probably the elf as well even on things like a halfling rogue. I don't mind pigeonholing a race as long as that race is good at something (preferably a few somethings).
Halflings are kind of interesting but they are outclassed by Humans and in testing probably the elf as well even on things like a halfling rogue. I don't mind pigeonholing a race as long as that race is good at something (preferably a few somethings)
The main reason I'm not a fan of racial mods is because in every edition so far, the abilities were not even remotely balanced with each other. Int and Cha on a fighter meant next to nothing, and low score were rarely a true penalty. Using a race that had a +4 str, -2 int, -2 cha LOOKS balanced based solely on the numbers, but it really isn't even remotely so.
I truly hope that DDN will make every ability count, especially when it comes to saves and resisting manuevers. Then let the races get anything else BUT racial ability mods to help define their genetic and cultural features.
The main reason I'm not a fan of racial mods is because in every edition so far, the abilities were not even remotely balanced with each other. Int and Cha on a fighter meant next to nothing, and low score were rarely a true penalty. Using a race tha
It would be used as a reference point for consenting groups to succeed at implementing the changes they want, without 'nerfing' or screwing with the numbers too drastically.
That much is fine, as long as I'm free to ignore it.
Are we all being serious that we think all DMs who use it will just use it against their players' will? That's exactly what was just said and supported as a truth twice over. -- Is that the true state of D&D?
Again, the people who won't use the module won't, and the people who will use the module for what it's for would have done so even if the module hadn't existed. The only people going to get acual use out of the module are the people restricting their players.
Way I see it, there are 3 groups of people for this module(not counting people completely against it even existing)
Group 1 doesn't care one way or the other about the module. They won't use it.
Group 2 likes the module. They and their table are fine with racial restrictions, but in this case wouldn't have tried to put a stat above what "makes sense" to them anyways.
Group 3 also likes the module, even if their players don't. At least one player is fine playing certain races above their racial restriction and can't because the DM is imposing said module on them, restricting their character options.
So 1 group doesn't care about the module, 1 group would have acted the same regardless if the module existed or not, and 1 group uses it to restrict other player's options. I don't see it that unreasonable to believe the only use it gets is to restrict other people, since they aren't entirely wrong.
Given the contentions in this conversation, shouldn't we just remove racial ability mods altogether? Even the positive ones? I mean, if someone feels that halflings should be more dextrous than their human counterparts, they should feel free to add whatever positive modifier they please onto the dexterity of the halfling they're building.
Whatever number makes sense, ya know. (So obvious.)
I like this method! My vision of the quickest halfling in the land is now possible. -- I'm thinking +6 is appropriate.
Nobody better have anything to say about it, either. You have no right to tell me what to do with my character. Mind your own damn business.
That much is fine, as long as I'm free to ignore it.Again, the people who won't use the module won't, and the people who will use the module for what it's for would have done so even if the module hadn't existed. The only people going to get acual us
Wait, what? What do you mean my +6 doesn't make sense? It makes sense to me.
Who the hell are you to impugn upon my goodrightfun?
How is +2 more sensible, anyway? Where'd you come up with some ridiculously arbitrary number like that? Can you cite something in the ruleset that offers such a 'sensible' guideline? -- Didn't think so.
Sod off and keep your eyes on your own character sheet!
Wait, what? What do you mean my +6 doesn't make sense? It makes sense to me.Who the hell are you to impugn upon my goodrightfun?How is +2 more sensible, anyway? Where'd you come up with some ridiculously arbitrary number like that? Can you cite somet
Given the contentions in this conversation, shouldn't we just remove racial ability mods altogether? Even the positive ones?
Yup remove stat mods.. .which is utterly not the same as the stuff you follow this part of the post with.
LOL I was just being a snarkass since that has been much of the opposing argument to including max cap guidelines as an optional toggle or point of reference.
Yup remove stat mods.. .which is utterly not the same as the stuff you follow this part of the post with.[/quote]LOL I was just being a snarkass since that has been much of the opposing argument to including max cap guidelines as an optional toggle o
Does anyone really think the inclusion of one table in the back of the DMG with it's tiny amount of required book space is worth the amount of militant opposition of some to these ideas?
For me it's more just that I don't see the point in including it. Either it's a tool for DM imposition when players want to play characters other than those that the DM likes, which I don't support at all, or it does absolutely nothing because everybody at the table already agrees that Halflings should have low Strength and will build their characters like that anyway, which makes further codification useless.
It's only imposition if the DM uses them against the objections of the group. And that's a much larger argument than simply including a small table of attribute maximums.
For me it's more just that I don't see the point in including it. Either it's a tool for DM imposition when players want to play characters other than those that the DM likes, which I don't support at all, or it does absolutely nothing because everyb
Does anyone really think the inclusion of one table in the back of the DMG with it's tiny amount of required book space is worth the amount of militant opposition of some to these ideas?
For me it's more just that I don't see the point in including it. Either it's a tool for DM imposition when players want to play characters other than those that the DM likes, which I don't support at all, or it does absolutely nothing because everybody at the table already agrees that Halflings should have low Strength and will build their characters like that anyway, which makes further codification useless.
It's only imposition if the DM uses them against the objections of the group. And that's a much larger argument than simply including a small table of attribute maximums.
A MUCH larger WHOLE OTHER argument, yes.
For me it's more just that I don't see the point in including it. Either it's a tool for DM imposition when players want to play characters other than those that the DM likes, which I don't support at all, or it does absolutely nothing because everyb
Given the contentions in this conversation, shouldn't we just remove racial ability mods altogether? Even the positive ones?
Yup remove stat mods.. .which is utterly not the same as the stuff you follow this part of the post with.
LOL I was just being a snarkass since that has been much of the opposing argument to including max cap guidelines as an optional toggle or point of reference.
You need Shas to give you snark lessons.. yours come off hollow with insufficient bite and poignancy. Take that as a compliment if you are in such a mood as to do so.
Yup remove stat mods.. .which is utterly not the same as the stuff you follow this part of the post with.[/quote]LOL I was just being a snarkass since that has been much of the opposing argument to including max cap guidelines as an optional toggle o
You need Shas to give you snark lessons.. yours come off hollow with insufficient bite and poignancy. Take that as a compliment if you are in such a mood as to do so.
LOL Ookay.
I'm sure they seem relevant to the person they were aimed at? (Maybe not.)
--
I'm confused by your use of poignancy here.
poignancy|ˈpoinyənsē|noun -- the quality of evoking a keen sense of sadness or regret
How does Shasarak leverage poignancy via snarkiness?
LOL Ookay. :thinks:I'm sure they seem relevant to the person they were aimed at? (Maybe not.)--I'm confused by your use of poignancy here.poignancy |ˈpoinyənsē| noun -- the quality of evoking a keen sense of sadness or regretHow does Shasarak leve
You need Shas to give you snark lessons.. yours come off hollow with insufficient bite and poignancy. Take that as a compliment if you are in such a mood as to do so.
LOL Ookay.
I'm sure they seem relevant to the person they were aimed at? (Maybe not.)
--
I'm confused by your use of poignancy here.
poignancy|ˈpoinyənsē|noun -- the quality of evoking a keen sense of sadness or regret
How does Shasarak leverage poignancy via snarkiness?
Shas's on my friends list I think he and I agree maybe on one in 10 subjects. (I said what I meant - some things are just plain sad and snark can indeed bring it on)
LOL Ookay. :thinks:I'm sure they seem relevant to the person they were aimed at? (Maybe not.)--I'm confused by your use of poignancy here.poignancy |ˈpoinyənsē| noun -- the quality of evoking a keen sense of sadness or regretHow does Shasarak leve
How does Shasarak leverage poignancy via snarkiness?
You probably should spend some time reviewing his work. There's really no better snark artist on the scene today.
LOL Is snarky really something I should be aspiring towards?
You probably should spend some time reviewing his work. There's really no better snark artist on the scene today.[/quote]LOL Is snarky really something I should be aspiring towards?
I like this method! My vision of the quickest halfling in the land is now possible. -- I'm thinking +6 is appropriate.
There's a massive difference between playing the game by the rules and cheating in extra stats. Unless you can point to where in the rules you're allowed to give yourself arbitrary stat bonuses without DM permission?
There's a massive difference between playing the game by the rules and cheating in extra stats. Unless you can point to where in the rules you're allowed to give yourself arbitrary stat bonuses without DM permission?
How does Shasarak leverage poignancy via snarkiness?
You probably should spend some time reviewing his work. There's really no better snark artist on the scene today.
LOL Is snarky really something I should be aspiring towards?
Hey, if you're gonna do something, do it well.
You probably should spend some time reviewing his work. There's really no better snark artist on the scene today.[/quote]LOL Is snarky really something I should be aspiring towards?[/quote]Hey, if you're gonna do something, do it well.
I like this method! My vision of the quickest halfling in the land is now possible. -- I'm thinking +6 is appropriate.
There's a massive difference between playing the game by the rules and cheating in extra stats. Unless you can point to where in the rules you're allowed to give yourself arbitrary stat bonuses without DM permission?
Just pointing out that 'no restrictions' and the concept of 'living rulesets' (i.e. open to interpretation by virtue of implied meaning and acting within the freedom of what isn't said) are slippery slopes that can be lucidly and concisely satisfied by a few optional guidelines offered in any one of the books that offer insight into successful gaming.
My actual/real/meaningful response to you was Post #571, wherein I've made a point that isn't being addressed.
There's a massive difference between playing the game by the rules and cheating in extra stats. Unless you can point to where in the rules you're allowed to give yourself arbitrary stat bonuses without DM permission?[/quote]Just pointing out that 'no
It would be used as a reference point for consenting groups to succeed at implementing the changes they want...
How? And what changes? If the system already lets them build the characters that they want through simple ability score point allocations during character creations, then what changes need to be made to that and why?
Are we all being serious that we think all DMs who use it will just use it against their players' will?
Absolutely. What other way could is possibly be used? You can't just say that it simply won't be used that way. You have to actually show how they could otherwise be used, and show how that would be impossible or even any more difficult without them.
You've forgotten about the people who never even would have considered it if the module wasn't listed, but enjoy themselves much more for having used it; and the people who would have thought about it and probably enjoyed it, but rejected it because it had no official support.
I'm not convinced that these are things that exist.
What about the group that uses the module to help them determine 'what makes sense'?
How is that actually done, though? And why should this be the preferable method for getting across "what makes sense" above the flavor text. Again, if the flavor text isn't getting all of this across, then it's the flavor text that needs work. If the flavor text does get it right, then how and why would any such module be of any further assistance in determining "what makes sense"?
YES, they can cap stats, BUT, they want to do so with the guided insight of recommendation.
Why? The default recommendation is clearly to have no penalties at all, and then further recommendations can already be found in the flavor text. What is the purpose of anything further if not to then be used agaist players' will?
It's only imposition if the DM uses them against the objections of the group.
Which is the only time where they'll actually do anything. If the group all has the same vision anyway for how different races abilities scores "should" look, then they don't need the penalties or anything else to build them like that anyway.
I'm not just being contrary, and I think that we're actually getting somewhere here because I'm starting to see things being said that I legitimately don't understand rather than things being said that I already know are complete B.S. as was the case earlier.
How? And what changes? If the system already lets them build the characters that they want through simple ability score point allocations during character creations, then what changes need to be made to that and why?Absolutely. What other way could i
It's only imposition if the DM uses them against the objections of the group.
Which is the only time where they'll actually do anything. If the group all has the same vision anyway for how different races abilities scores "should" look, then they don't need the penalties or anything else to build them like that anyway.
I'm not just being contrary, and I think that we're actually getting somewhere here because I'm starting to see things being said that I legitimately don't understand rather than things being said that I already know are complete B.S. as was the case earlier.
One could say the same thing about codified special abilities, but I definitely want them to be an officially supported part of the game.
Which is the only time where they'll actually do anything. If the group all has the same vision anyway for how different races abilities scores "should" look, then they don't need the penalties or anything else to build them like that anyway.I'm not
Does anyone really think the inclusion of one table in the back of the DMG with it's tiny amount of required book space is worth the amount of militant opposition of some to these ideas?
For me it's more just that I don't see the point in including it. Either it's a tool for DM imposition when players want to play characters other than those that the DM likes, which I don't support at all, or it does absolutely nothing because everybody at the table already agrees that Halflings should have low Strength and will build their characters like that anyway, which makes further codification useless.
It's only imposition if the DM uses them against the objections of the group. And that's a much larger argument than simply including a small table of attribute maximums.
A MUCH larger WHOLE OTHER argument, yes.
And one that should take place at gaming tables, not be universally suppressed because some think DMs shouldn't have the right to run their game as they see fit & think if the information is not provided it will fix their supposed problem. Let them do what they want, if their players dislike it enough they will definitely make it known.
For me it's more just that I don't see the point in including it. Either it's a tool for DM imposition when players want to play characters other than those that the DM likes, which I don't support at all, or it does absolutely nothing because everyb
What about the group that uses the module to help them determine 'what makes sense'?
How is that actually done, though? And why should this be the preferable method for getting across "what makes sense" above the flavor text. Again, if the flavor text isn't getting all of this across, then it's the flavor text that needs work. If the flavor text does get it right, then how and why would any such module be of any further assistance in determining "what makes sense"?
Some people do interact better with numbers, though I dont think that is what we are looking at. Including a correspondence between the flavor text and the mechanical aspect of the game is in someways set by precident this kind of rule creates precident. My suggestion is to allow any score to be set via point buy mechanics, but mean and peak values are defined for a races to establish norms. People wanting to follow those correspondences tighter will find it useful whether they do so as a group or individually.
How is that actually done, though? And why should this be the preferable method for getting across "what makes sense" above the flavor text. Again, if the flavor text isn't getting all of this across, then it's the flavor text that needs work. If the
Yet another option would be to have different point buys per ability score per race. Perhaps it would cost a halfling comparatively more to have a high strength than a half-orc, etc. Not that I want such a system, but perhaps someone does.
If every ability had significant impact for all characters, then a simple 1-1 ratio point buy system would work just fine. Then any racial mods would have negligible negative impact on game balance.
Yet another option would be to have different point buys per ability score per race. Perhaps it would cost a halfling comparatively more to have a high strength than a half-orc, etc. Not that I want such a system, but perhaps someone does.If every ab
Rodney Thompson in his latest D&D Next Q&A addressed ability score penalties and R&D don’t see that as something integral to race design.
Are ability score penalties necessary to convey the flavor and mechanics of a race? We don’t see racial ability score penalties as something integral to race design, and thus we don’t have any in the current draft of the game. This is a place where we have a choice between carrot and stick, and carrot is the clear choice. We don’t feel the need to penalize any race angling toward a particular archetype, especially when bonuses already help distinguish the races.
Rodney Thompson in his latest D&D Next Q&A addressed ability score penalties and R&D don’t see that as something integral to race design. Are ability score penalties necessary to convey the flavor and mechanics of a race?We don’t see raci
I still don't know how someone would like racial ability scores penalties...is kinda of a dumb idea and prevent diferent race/class combos. Hell, i love the idea of 13th age relating to class and race ability score bonus, it actually prevent the min/max mentality of: "i don't play this race for this class because it doesn't have bonus to it's main stat the class use"...
I still don't know how someone would like racial ability scores penalties...is kinda of a dumb idea and prevent diferent race/class combos. Hell, i love the idea of 13th age relating to class and race ability score bonus, it actually prevent the min
I still don't know how someone would like racial ability scores penalties...is kinda of a dumb idea and prevent diferent race/class combos.
For some folks it helps highlight the differences between the races.
There are better ways to do so, instead of punishing you for selecting certain class/race combo... A race should be defined by it's strong points, not it's weakness
For some folks it helps highlight the differences between the races.[/quote]There are better ways to do so, instead of punishing you for selecting certain class/race combo... A race should be defined by it's strong points, not it's weakness
I still don't know how someone would like racial ability scores penalties...is kinda of a dumb idea and prevent diferent race/class combos.
For some folks it helps highlight the differences between the races.
There are better ways to do so, instead of punishing you for selecting certain class/race combo... A race should be defined by it's strong points, not it's weakness
But people are flawed just as much as we are strong. No living thing can escape this, especially not sentient ones. I 100% understand the view of "I want to make what I want to make", and it's a fine view to have. But I also see the point of view from people who like the feel of the older games
The difference is showing the differences between the races in absolutes rather than small quirks.
For some folks it helps highlight the differences between the races.[/quote]There are better ways to do so, instead of punishing you for selecting certain class/race combo... A race should be defined by it's strong points, not it's weakness[/quote]B
In theory I might kind of agree with you but the 4th ed races for example were kind of cookie cutter templates to some degree.
I liked the Saga races myself as they were al over the show in terms of who got what. Some races had penalties, others didn't some had +4 here and there. Differnet genre though and some races were strictly better than others (better all of the toime, not just situationally).
In theory I might kind of agree with you but the 4th ed races for example were kind of cookie cutter templates to some degree. I liked the Saga races myself as they were al over the show in terms of who got what. Some races had penalties, others didn
One has to wonder if the desire to optimize has gotten out of hand.
A -2 stat penalty translates into a -1 mod. How does that make a race suck at a class? Does that -1 really make that huge of a difference?
Does this mean that if a character has only a 16 in a prime stat vs. an 18 he is doomed to eternal suckage?
One has to wonder if the desire to optimize has gotten out of hand.A -2 stat penalty translates into a -1 mod. How does that make a race suck at a class? Does that -1 really make that huge of a difference?Does this mean that if a character has only
But people are flawed just as much as we are strong. No living thing can escape this, especially not sentient ones. I 100% understand the view of "I want to make what I want to make", and it's a fine view to have. But I also see the point of view from people who like the feel of the older games
The difference is showing the differences between the races in absolutes rather than small quirks.
Yeah, but you are not flawed because of your race...thought now that i think about...seeing how old D&D was sexist with the penality for being female, i won't be amazed that the racial penalty is a proof of racism
Yeah, but you are not flawed because of your race...thought now that i think about...seeing how old D&D was sexist with the penality for being female, i won't be amazed that the racial penalty is a proof of racism
kishri I think it is becuase of point buy. In older ediitons an 18 would become a 17 or even a 16 but if you use point buy it becomes 14 vs 18.
In 4th ed a +2 to hit bonus was huge in comparison to say 3.5. Due to the way it was designed 3.5 could often get around the penalty in various ways. A 3.5 halfling was better at being a fighter for example than a 4th ed fighter relative to their respective systems.
The downside of 3.5 races was that some races just did suck (Half Orc) as they did not really make decent anything. The downside of th 4th ed approach was not in the races themselves but in the way they interacted with the class design philosphy. A halfling would always be outclassed at being a fighter by any race with a str/dex combo or str/con combo for attributes and offensive racial powers were usually better than utility or defensive ones.
4th ed races were more powerful than 3.5 ones and if one had both of them at the same table the 3.5 one would just suck. If D&DN has 4th ed style races and 3.5 class design (with balance problems fixed obviously) we may get the best of both worlds. 4th ed powered the races/classes up and they were really the equivilent of 3rd level 3.5 PCs. 4th ed also powered up the monsters though to compensate.
kishri I think it is becuase of point buy. In older ediitons an 18 would become a 17 or even a 16 but if you use point buy it becomes 14 vs 18. In 4th ed a +2 to hit bonus was huge in comparison to say 3.5. Due to the way it was designed 3.5 could of
kishri I think it is becuase of point buy. In older ediitons an 18 would become a 17 or even a 16 but if you use point buy it becomes 14 vs 18.
In 4th ed a +2 to hit bonus was huge in comparison to say 3.5. Due to the way it was designed 3.5 could often get around the penalty in various ways. A 3.5 halfling was better at being a fighter for example than a 4th ed fighter relative to their respective systems.
The downside of 3.5 races was that some races just did suck (Half Orc) as they did not really make decent anything. The downside of th 4th ed approach was not in the races themselves but in the way they interacted with the class design philosphy. A halfling would always be outclassed at being a fighter by any race with a str/dex combo or str/con combo for attributes and offensive racial powers were usually better than utility or defensive ones.
4th ed races were more powerful than 3.5 ones and if one had both of them at the same table the 3.5 one would just suck. If D&DN has 4th ed style races and 3.5 class design (with balance problems fixed obviously) we may get the best of both worlds.
Actually no...because halfling have some interesting feat support to make out for this (feats related to using versatile weapons as halfling), you still have bonus to Dex and Con wish is beneficial to many fighter builds, fighter on 3.5 doesn't suffer as much because of the BAB, on 4e, some fighter combat style have +1 to attack rolls with certain weapons, but it doesn't goes like how 3rd edition BAB scale, because that's +1 is static and will never change (wish actually make out for the lack of +2 bonus to strength in case of accuracy).
While it is preferable, feat support will usually outweight not having bonus to strength as a fighter...i am going to play a drow tempest fighter, who's only ability score bonus useful to me is DEX on this build (i choosed CHA as secundary racial bonus, he is a very mean and scary person the boost will come handy to suplement this, thought training on intimidate and bonus from other sources for that skill is the main bonus for it), and it still a great fighter build (it's damage output is striker level too most of the time).
Tieflings didn't had bonux to CON until essentials, and they were still the best infernal warlock on the game, even when infernal pact goes around having CON to cast the spells.
Actually no...because halfling have some interesting feat support to make out for this (feats related to using versatile weapons as halfling), you still have bonus to Dex and Con wish is beneficial to many fighter builds, fighter on 3.5 doesn't suffe
But people are flawed just as much as we are strong. No living thing can escape this, especially not sentient ones. I 100% understand the view of "I want to make what I want to make", and it's a fine view to have. But I also see the point of view from people who like the feel of the older games
They can already do this, as previously stated. "I don't think halflings should be strong." Then don't give your halfling a high strength. "All elves are dextrous." So don't give your elf a low Dexterity.
They can already do this, as previously stated. "I don't think halflings should be strong." Then don't give your halfling a high strength. "All elves are dextrous." So don't give your elf a low Dexterity.
But people are flawed just as much as we are strong. No living thing can escape this, especially not sentient ones. I 100% understand the view of "I want to make what I want to make", and it's a fine view to have. But I also see the point of view from people who like the feel of the older games
The difference is showing the differences between the races in absolutes rather than small quirks.
Yeah, but you are not flawed because of your race...thought now that i think about...seeing how old D&D was sexist with the penality for being female, i won't be amazed that the racial penalty is a proof of racism
But I am flawed because I am human.
I cannot run as fast as a cheetah, and in fact, my own house cat is faster.
Many animals are stronger.
Now being human has its advantages, but it has its downsides too, like if you take away my clothes I freeze in my chosen environment.
This is not racism, it is fact. The races in D&D are not the same as human races in the real world. Comparing me to an elf is much like comparing me to a lemur-- we're totally different animals. Somethings I do better, other things not so well.
In a system/world where there are only advantages, not having an attribute is a disadvantage. The idea that there are no disadvantages is simply an illusion.
For example, if Orcs get +2 to strength, they have an advantage over those who don't get that bonus strength if one wishes to play a fighter. That means, anyone playing fighter that doesn't get a +2 to strength is disadvantaged. After all, missing that -1 mod means eternal suckage.
Of course, if the game has both penalties AND bonuses, then the mod suck factor sinks to a -2. Still, is that the end of viability for a class? Does the character with a 14 in a prime stat totally suck? If the answer is yes, then the game system as well as its players' attitudes might need a rethink.
Yeah, but you are not flawed because of your race...thought now that i think about...seeing how old D&D was sexist with the penality for being female, i won't be amazed that the racial penalty is a proof of racism[/quote]But I am flawed because I am
kishri I think it is becuase of point buy. In older ediitons an 18 would become a 17 or even a 16 but if you use point buy it becomes 14 vs 18.
In 4th ed a +2 to hit bonus was huge in comparison to say 3.5. Due to the way it was designed 3.5 could often get around the penalty in various ways. A 3.5 halfling was better at being a fighter for example than a 4th ed fighter relative to their respective systems.
The downside of 3.5 races was that some races just did suck (Half Orc) as they did not really make decent anything. The downside of th 4th ed approach was not in the races themselves but in the way they interacted with the class design philosphy. A halfling would always be outclassed at being a fighter by any race with a str/dex combo or str/con combo for attributes and offensive racial powers were usually better than utility or defensive ones.
4th ed races were more powerful than 3.5 ones and if one had both of them at the same table the 3.5 one would just suck. If D&DN has 4th ed style races and 3.5 class design (with balance problems fixed obviously) we may get the best of both worlds. 4th ed powered the races/classes up and they were really the equivilent of 3rd level 3.5 PCs. 4th ed also powered up the monsters though to compensate.
Thanks for that explanation.
I personally hope DDN eliminates the need to have exactly the best score to have a good, viable character.
Thanks for that explanation. I personally hope DDN eliminates the need to have exactly the best score to have a good, viable character.
In theory I might kind of agree with you but the 4th ed races for example were kind of cookie cutter templates to some degree.
No more so than races in 3.5 or Pathfinder.
QFT.
Pathfinder is very templated as far as races go, especially since the Advanced Races guide has come out.
Worse, that book has created balance issues in that there are feats that only a race can get. One of the most obnoxious is a feat that lets a half orc add sneak attack damage whenever he charges. No other race can do this, and I have seen a huge increase in the number of half orcs being played because of this and other feats.
No more so than races in 3.5 or Pathfinder.[/quote]QFT. Pathfinder is very templated as far as races go, especially since the Advanced Races guide has come out.Worse, that book has created balance issues in that there are feats that only a race can g
kishri I think it is becuase of point buy. In older ediitons an 18 would become a 17 or even a 16 but if you use point buy it becomes 14 vs 18.
In 4th ed a +2 to hit bonus was huge in comparison to say 3.5. Due to the way it was designed 3.5 could often get around the penalty in various ways. A 3.5 halfling was better at being a fighter for example than a 4th ed fighter relative to their respective systems.
The downside of 3.5 races was that some races just did suck (Half Orc) as they did not really make decent anything. The downside of th 4th ed approach was not in the races themselves but in the way they interacted with the class design philosphy. A halfling would always be outclassed at being a fighter by any race with a str/dex combo or str/con combo for attributes and offensive racial powers were usually better than utility or defensive ones.
4th ed races were more powerful than 3.5 ones and if one had both of them at the same table the 3.5 one would just suck. If D&DN has 4th ed style races and 3.5 class design (with balance problems fixed obviously) we may get the best of both worlds.
Actually no...because halfling have some interesting feat support to make out for this (feats related to using versatile weapons as halfling), you still have bonus to Dex and Con wish is beneficial to many fighter builds, fighter on 3.5 doesn't suffer as much because of the BAB, on 4e, some fighter combat style have +1 to attack rolls with certain weapons, but it doesn't goes like how 3rd edition BAB scale, because that's +1 is static and will never change (wish actually make out for the lack of +2 bonus to strength in case of accuracy).
While it is preferable, feat support will usually outweight not having bonus to strength as a fighter...i am going to play a drow tempest fighter, who's only ability score bonus useful to me is DEX on this build (i choosed CHA as secundary racial bonus, he is a very mean and scary person the boost will come handy to suplement this, thought training on intimidate and bonus from other sources for that skill is the main bonus for it), and it still a great fighter build (it's damage output is striker level too most of the time).
Tieflings didn't had bonux to CON until essentials, and they were still the best infernal warlock on the game, even when infernal pact goes around having CON to cast the spells.
Depends on how much 4th ed splat books you have to make it work. Core rules 3.5 halfling is a better fighter than core 4th ed. Core 4th ed fighter may be better than the 3.5 one in terms of how it interacts with other classes in the same game system.
Actually no...because halfling have some interesting feat support to make out for this (feats related to using versatile weapons as halfling), you still have bonus to Dex and Con wish is beneficial to many fighter builds, fighter on 3.5 doesn't suffe
Races with feat support are better than those without it, but since you pay for the extra goodies with feat it's mostly ok. if said feats are OP however...
Races with feat support are better than those without it, but since you pay for the extra goodies with feat it's mostly ok. if said feats are OP however...
In theory I might kind of agree with you but the 4th ed races for example were kind of cookie cutter templates to some degree.
No more so than races in 3.5 or Pathfinder.
QFT.
Pathfinder is very templated as far as races go, especially since the Advanced Races guide has come out.
Worse, that book has created balance issues in that there are feats that only a race can get. One of the most obnoxious is a feat that lets a half orc add sneak attack damage whenever he charges. No other race can do this, and I have seen a huge increase in the number of half orcs being played because of this and other feats.
Not familiar with that particular build but it sounds interesting. The PF Rogue seesms to be slightly underpowered anyway and if half orcs are finally good at something sweet. I don't mind cookie cutter races myself but it gets a bit repetitive after a while.
No more so than races in 3.5 or Pathfinder.[/quote]QFT. Pathfinder is very templated as far as races go, especially since the Advanced Races guide has come out.Worse, that book has created balance issues in that there are feats that only a race can g
Races with feat support are better than those without it, but since you pay for the extra goodies with feat it's mostly ok. if said feats are OP however...
I tend to agree but I see problems.
Stepping away from feats for the moment, I will cite the Tiefling and the Asimar. They get resistances like +5 fire, cold and electricity for Tieflings and asimar gets +5 to acid, cold and electricity. These are over powered compared to the likes of Elves, gnomes, halflings and such.
I think Paizo tried to compensate for the above by giving the standard races good feats, but I am starting to think this is a case where if your stew has too much salt, adding more sugar isn't going to help.
I tend to agree but I see problems.Stepping away from feats for the moment, I will cite the Tiefling and the Asimar. They get resistances like +5 fire, cold and electricity for Tieflings and asimar gets +5 to acid, cold and electricity. These are o
In theory I might kind of agree with you but the 4th ed races for example were kind of cookie cutter templates to some degree.
No more so than races in 3.5 or Pathfinder.
QFT.
Pathfinder is very templated as far as races go, especially since the Advanced Races guide has come out.
Worse, that book has created balance issues in that there are feats that only a race can get. One of the most obnoxious is a feat that lets a half orc add sneak attack damage whenever he charges. No other race can do this, and I have seen a huge increase in the number of half orcs being played because of this and other feats.
Not familiar with that particular build but it sounds interesting. The PF Rogue seesms to be slightly underpowered anyway and if half orcs are finally good at something sweet. I don't mind cookie cutter races myself but it gets a bit repetitive after a while.
Well, with the right archtypes, the PF rogue rocks. Since the Advanced Players Guide and Ultimate Combat Guide, rogues have gotten a lot of love.
In short, PF is starting to suffer the inevitable power creep that expansion material brings.
No more so than races in 3.5 or Pathfinder.[/quote]QFT. Pathfinder is very templated as far as races go, especially since the Advanced Races guide has come out.Worse, that book has created balance issues in that there are feats that only a race can g
I thought Aasimars were overpowered as well but in play they don't seem that great even though they do not have a stat penalty. Elemental resistences IMHO are not even worth a feat. One of my players has a Aasimar Sorcerer with the celestial bloodline.
I liked the APG and Ultimate combat but yeah its is power creep. I would have prefereed they power creep in differnet directions (monk love, and neglected fighter styles like sword and board, multiclassing etc).
Archers and THW users just got better yawn. The class varients are kinda kewl though.
I thought Aasimars were overpowered as well but in play they don't seem that great even though they do not have a stat penalty. Elemental resistences IMHO are not even worth a feat. One of my players has a Aasimar Sorcerer with the celestial bloodlin
I thought Aasimars were overpowered as well but in play they don't seem that great even though they do not have a stat penalty. Elemental resistences IMHO are not even worth a feat. One of my players has a Aasimar Sorcerer with the celestial bloodline.
I liked the APG and Ultimate combat but yeah its is power creep. I would have prefereed they power creep in differnet directions (monk love, and neglected fighter styles like sword and board, multiclassing etc).
Archers and THW users just got better yawn. The class varients are kinda kewl though.
I really like the idea of the archtypes, but I think they need tweaking. Many cause a class to give up good and cool abilities for little gain, while others are way over powered--> Titan Mauler I am looking at you!
The other is that some archtypes ask players to trade abilities for flavor, while other acrhtypes enhance combat. This is an issue Paizo will need to address.
Yeah, I am not a fan of asimars either. I like Tieflings, but not how PF has them statted out.
I really like the idea of the archtypes, but I think they need tweaking. Many cause a class to give up good and cool abilities for little gain, while others are way over powered--> Titan Mauler I am looking at you!The other is that some archtypes as
Depends on how much 4th ed splat books you have to make it work. Core rules 3.5 halfling is a better fighter than core 4th ed. Core 4th ed fighter may be better than the 3.5 one in terms of how it interacts with other classes in the same game system.
Or just have DDI account, or borrow someone else DDI to update your Character Builder (back on the day), i have yet to know someone that bought many D&D books beside the core books on 4e because of DDI avaibility, actually most of them don't even had the core books either, i only own PHB, DMG1, Rules Compedium & HotF...is also kinda hard to justify buying the books in my case, because i have to cross the US border, then drive 3 hours to San Diego to get to a store that sold RPG books.
Or just have DDI account, or borrow someone else DDI to update your Character Builder (back on the day), i have yet to know someone that bought many D&D books beside the core books on 4e because of DDI avaibility, actually most of them don't even had
DDI may not be around in a year or two. On release 4th ed was very exclusionist from the 2nd ed to 3rd ed changeover (missing class/races, restricted class options). Alot of the 4th ed splats were trying to allow what one could do in 3.5 core. The hardcore 4th ed players seem to use DDI alot. Wonder if that cannibalised 4th ed sales?
I think that was the key difference between 3rd ed and 4th ed. Elegant vs balanced take your pick.
DDI may not be around in a year or two. On release 4th ed was very exclusionist from the 2nd ed to 3rd ed changeover (missing class/races, restricted class options). Alot of the 4th ed splats were trying to allow what one could do in 3.5 core. The ha
DDI may not be around in a year or two. On release 4th ed was very exclusionist from the 2nd ed to 3rd ed changeover (missing class/races, restricted class options). Alot of the 4th ed splats were trying to allow what one could do in 3.5 core. The hardcore 4th ed players seem to use DDI alot. Wonder if that cannibalised 4th ed sales?
I think that was the key difference between 3rd ed and 4th ed. Elegant vs balanced take your pick.
I don't see nothing elegant on 3rd...most of 3rd edition looks amateurish to me, like if written and designed by a nerdy teenager.
And yes, DDI did "cannibalised" book sales alot, because DDI was suppose to be the main aspect of 4th edition, but the tragedy that struck to the guy in charge of DDI make wotc abort all the plans for DDI and 4th edition... the books were to suplement DDI, not the other way around as their plans
I don't see nothing elegant on 3rd...most of 3rd edition looks amateurish to me, like if written and designed by a nerdy teenager.And yes, DDI did "cannibalised" book sales alot, because DDI was suppose to be the main aspect of 4th edition, but the t
DDI may not be around in a year or two. On release 4th ed was very exclusionist from the 2nd ed to 3rd ed changeover (missing class/races, restricted class options). Alot of the 4th ed splats were trying to allow what one could do in 3.5 core. The hardcore 4th ed players seem to use DDI alot. Wonder if that cannibalised 4th ed sales?
I think that was the key difference between 3rd ed and 4th ed. Elegant vs balanced take your pick.
I don't see nothing elegant on 3rd...most of 3rd edition looks amateurish to me, like if written and designed by a nerdy teenager.
And yes, DDI did "cannibalised" book sales alot, because DDI was suppose to be the main aspect of 4th edition, but the tragedy that struck to the guy in charge of DDI make wotc abort all the plans for DDI and 4th edition... the books were to suplement DDI, not the other way around as their plans
Though I think that is a VERY interesting idea, I'm not sure how I feel about a business model that revolves around a monthly fee...
I don't see nothing elegant on 3rd...most of 3rd edition looks amateurish to me, like if written and designed by a nerdy teenager.And yes, DDI did "cannibalised" book sales alot, because DDI was suppose to be the main aspect of 4th edition, but the t
DDI may not be around in a year or two. On release 4th ed was very exclusionist from the 2nd ed to 3rd ed changeover (missing class/races, restricted class options). Alot of the 4th ed splats were trying to allow what one could do in 3.5 core. The hardcore 4th ed players seem to use DDI alot. Wonder if that cannibalised 4th ed sales?
I think that was the key difference between 3rd ed and 4th ed. Elegant vs balanced take your pick.
I don't see nothing elegant on 3rd...most of 3rd edition looks amateurish to me, like if written and designed by a nerdy teenager.
And yes, DDI did "cannibalised" book sales alot, because DDI was suppose to be the main aspect of 4th edition, but the tragedy that struck to the guy in charge of DDI make wotc abort all the plans for DDI and 4th edition... the books were to suplement DDI, not the other way around as their plans
Though I think that is a VERY interesting idea, I'm not sure how I feel about a business model that revolves around a monthly fee...
I prefer it...if DDI originals plans had materialized, D&D and even RPG in generals world could have opened to a whole new audience all over the world.
Also great value on the original plans...10 bucks per month for the services such as compedium and the download and update (up to 5 times per month) of Character Builder and Adventure Tools.
Adventure tools was suppose to include not only Monster Builder, but encounter tracker, map builder and more.
Also it basically include subscription for Dragon Magazine and Dungeon Magazine every month wish you could download into your computer without any restriction (and access to all the past magazines before you subscribed)
Virtual Tabletop, wish was suppose to be 3D on the original plans, wish would be continuos updated over time with more content
Character Visualizer, wish allow you to build the appearence of your character just for the kick, and also would be continuos updated with more options over time.
And who know what else
The other thing about the value...if you unsubscribe, you still kept all you had at the moment when you unsubscribe in case of Character Builder and Adventure Tools.
I don't see nothing elegant on 3rd...most of 3rd edition looks amateurish to me, like if written and designed by a nerdy teenager.And yes, DDI did "cannibalised" book sales alot, because DDI was suppose to be the main aspect of 4th edition, but the t
DDI may not be around in a year or two. On release 4th ed was very exclusionist from the 2nd ed to 3rd ed changeover (missing class/races, restricted class options). Alot of the 4th ed splats were trying to allow what one could do in 3.5 core. The hardcore 4th ed players seem to use DDI alot. Wonder if that cannibalised 4th ed sales?
I think that was the key difference between 3rd ed and 4th ed. Elegant vs balanced take your pick.
I don't see nothing elegant on 3rd...most of 3rd edition looks amateurish to me, like if written and designed by a nerdy teenager.
And yes, DDI did "cannibalised" book sales alot, because DDI was suppose to be the main aspect of 4th edition, but the tragedy that struck to the guy in charge of DDI make wotc abort all the plans for DDI and 4th edition... the books were to suplement DDI, not the other way around as their plans
What I mean by elegant is that the classes were reasonably simple to design. 4th ed TWF tempest fighter required around 13 pages in martial power for example to duplicate what was a 3.5 core concept which used a handful of feats and a few lines in the combat chapters.
A class varient in PF uses a page or so of plug in and play options. A side offect of 4th eds design was that I think they rapidly ran out of design space in classes as they really only had 20 odd status effects and scaling damage to paly with which resulted in repetition and similar powers across classes. it also did not help the bloat problem 4th ed had as a class varient more or less needed anew power tree designed for it.
They could have just balanced the spellcasters by going back to pre 3rd ed spellcaster designs, added at wills and powered up the fighter (bonus feats give encounter powers if you want them). 4th ed was better balanced, was not elegant if that makes any sense. 3.5 was more modular by design, how good those modules were is a differnet story.
I don't see nothing elegant on 3rd...most of 3rd edition looks amateurish to me, like if written and designed by a nerdy teenager.And yes, DDI did "cannibalised" book sales alot, because DDI was suppose to be the main aspect of 4th edition, but the t
I dunno, there's just something that bothers me about having to buy books and pay a monthly fee. I mean, in a standard subscription based MMO, most splat material is given in patches, free of charge as it's basically understood that you paying your monthly fee covers that production cost.
Expansions are another thing though. They tend to evolve the game rather than just add content. I'm not sure how I can relate that one >.> So I will just leave it at patches.
TLDR; I'd have no problem paying a monthly fee if the new supplimental stuff was provided to me because of it, rather than having to buy a book.
Though I suppose it KIND of was given to you in the form of the Character Creator's updates...kind of.
I dunno, there's just something that bothers me about having to buy books and pay a monthly fee. I mean, in a standard subscription based MMO, most splat material is given in patches, free of charge as it's basically understood that you paying your m
What I mean by elegant is that the classes were reasonably simple to design. 4th ed TWF tempest fighter required around 13 pages in martial power for example to duplicate what was a 3.5 core concept which used a handful of feats and a few lines in the combat chapters.
A class varient in PF uses a page or so of plug in and play options. A side offect of 4th eds design was that I think they rapidly ran out of design space in classes as they really only had 20 odd status effects and scaling damage to paly with which resulted in repetition and similar powers across classes. it also did not help the bloat problem 4th ed had as a class varient more or less needed anew power tree designed for it.
They could have just balanced the spellcasters by going back to pre 3rd ed spellcaster designs, added at wills and powered up the fighter (bonus feats give encounter powers if you want them). 4th ed was better balanced, was not elegant if that makes any sense. 3.5 was more modular by design, how good those modules were is a differnet story.
Nope, you are not making sense. Because how 3rd edition handle it...for the things you can do with it...it's extremly complicated and combulted with alot of redundancy for such a basic things they can do outside of casters, the micromanage of things make me wonder...what was monte cook smoking?
Nope, you are not making sense. Because how 3rd edition handle it...for the things you can do with it...it's extremly complicated and combulted with alot of redundancy for such a basic things they can do outside of casters, the micromanage of things
I dunno, there's just something that bothers me about having to buy books and pay a monthly fee. I mean, in a standard subscription based MMO, most splat material is given in patches, free of charge as it's basically understood that you paying your monthly fee covers that production cost.
Expansions are another thing though. They tend to evolve the game rather than just add content. I'm not sure how I can relate that one >.> So I will just leave it at patches.
TLDR; I'd have no problem paying a monthly fee if the new supplimental stuff was provided to me because of it, rather than having to buy a book.
Though I suppose it KIND of was given to you in the form of the Character Creator's updates...kind of.
The thing is...those books became optional on the original plans, DDI was suppose to give you everything from those books as part of the subscription (and for most part, it did)...
You either buy the books by yourself...or you could just get DDI and get EVERYTHING!!!
The thing is...those books became optional on the original plans, DDI was suppose to give you everything from those books as part of the subscription (and for most part, it did)...You either buy the books by yourself...or you could just get DDI and g
In theory I might kind of agree with you but the 4th ed races for example were kind of cookie cutter templates to some degree.
Right reincarnative memories is just like teleporting.. sheesh, more of this goo of you have the same number of powers it must mean you are identical carbin copies...
Gag.
Right reincarnative memories is just like teleporting.. sheesh, more of this goo of you have the same number of powers it must mean you are identical carbin copies... Gag.
What I mean by elegant is that the classes were reasonably simple to design. 4th ed TWF tempest fighter required around 13 pages in martial power for example to duplicate what was a 3.5 core concept which used a handful of feats and a few lines in the combat chapters.
A class varient in PF uses a page or so of plug in and play options. A side offect of 4th eds design was that I think they rapidly ran out of design space in classes as they really only had 20 odd status effects and scaling damage to paly with which resulted in repetition and similar powers across classes. it also did not help the bloat problem 4th ed had as a class varient more or less needed anew power tree designed for it.
They could have just balanced the spellcasters by going back to pre 3rd ed spellcaster designs, added at wills and powered up the fighter (bonus feats give encounter powers if you want them). 4th ed was better balanced, was not elegant if that makes any sense. 3.5 was more modular by design, how good those modules were is a differnet story.
Nope, you are not making sense. Because how 3rd edition handle it...for the things you can do with it...it's extremly complicated and combulted with alot of redundancy for such a basic things they can do outside of casters, the micromanage of things make me wonder...what was monte cook smoking?
Thats a class balance issue Mexrage. Other d20 products using the 3.5 engine did do things like remove the spellcasters completely and suddenly a large amount of the problems 3.5 had go away. Star Wars Saga and I believe Conan did this as they were different genres. The Saga Soldier class was very simialr to the 3.5 fighter but Saga allowed fighters to gain encounter powers and similar things with feats and talents. With no spellcasters around the fighter class was actually a very good and elegant design.
One could rip the spell casters out of 3.5 and pug in AEDU varients if you wanted. Others replaced the core fighter with the book of 9 swrods classes and renamed them. You couldn't really do that with 4th ed without fundamentally rewritting the game due to the way races, classes and monsters interacted with the game. The PHB alone had how many pages of errata?
The 3.5 era d20 rules themselves were very elegant of the most part. They could have been alot better in some ways but the fundamentals were good. I wanted 4th ed to resemble Star Wars Saga more than what I got with what 4th ed actually was. Most 3.5 classes only required 2-5 pages (they added more fluff to the classes towards the end of 3.5). The spell lists in the PHB were used for new classes that used them in differnet ways like the Duskblade, Beguiler, Warlock, etc. One could plug entire new ways of doing things ito the game as well such as psionics and the Book of 9 Swords.
I'm probably more loyal to the d20 system than any one incarnation of it.
Nope, you are not making sense. Because how 3rd edition handle it...for the things you can do with it...it's extremly complicated and combulted with alot of redundancy for such a basic things they can do outside of casters, the micromanage of things
In theory I might kind of agree with you but the 4th ed races for example were kind of cookie cutter templates to some degree.
Right reincarnative memories is just like teleporting.. sheesh, more of this goo of you have the same number of powers it must mean you are identical carbin copies...
Gag.
The powers were different of course but the pattern was the same for most of the races. +2/+2, +2 some skill, racial power and some minor bits and pieces. Didn't bother me at first but by the PHB3 era of 4th ed it was becoming stale IMHO. I had 3 years of DDI and more or less stopped caring about 4th ed races after the PHB2 or the essentials revision to the original ones.
Right reincarnative memories is just like teleporting.. sheesh, more of this goo of you have the same number of powers it must mean you are identical carbin copies... Gag. [/quote] The powers were different of course but the pattern was the same for
In theory I might kind of agree with you but the 4th ed races for example were kind of cookie cutter templates to some degree.
Right reincarnative memories is just like teleporting.. sheesh, more of this goo of you have the same number of powers it must mean you are identical carbin copies...
Gag.
The powers were different of course but the pattern
Thats right the structure nothing at all similar in how they function nor even benefitting the same arena of activity... in anything approaching the same way.
The fairies from the fae wild very interesting (The PHB3 races were seriously meh)
Right reincarnative memories is just like teleporting.. sheesh, more of this goo of you have the same number of powers it must mean you are identical carbin copies... Gag. [/quote] The powers were different of course but the pattern[/quote]Thats rig
Yeah I did not like the PHB3 races and I'm not familiar with much of 4th ed after essentials whuch was towards the end of my DDI subscription.
The early 4th ed stuff wwasn't to bad eve though it wasn't realy my thing. Reading up on Mithrendain (sp?) or the Dragonborn was kind of kewl although I found the Eladrin to be a silly race (teleporting elves= silly IMHO). I liked things like the Warlord better than some 3.5 classes that will be coere in D&DN (Barbarian, Monk, Assassin).
Some races I did not like at 1st but they kind of grew on me (3.5 Warforged) others also fell into my silly category (Shifters, Kalashtar). To be fair the silly races were in splats and I don't really care what they put in splats as thats what they are designed for.
Yeah I did not like the PHB3 races and I'm not familiar with much of 4th ed after essentials whuch was towards the end of my DDI subscription. The early 4th ed stuff wwasn't to bad eve though it wasn't realy my thing. Reading up on Mithrendain (sp?)
I still don't know how someone would like racial ability scores penalties...is kinda of a dumb idea and prevent diferent race/class combos. Hell, i love the idea of 13th age relating to class and race ability score bonus, it actually prevent the min/max mentality of: "i don't play this race for this class because it doesn't have bonus to it's main stat the class use"...
Because they make sense, and not having them doesn't. It prevents nothing, just takes the focus off min/maxing and onto roleplaying and immersion, where it should be. By sticking with reason over mechanics it gets mechanics focused people to go play something eles, thereby improving the game for the rest of us. 8-)
Because they make sense, and not having them doesn't. It prevents nothing, just takes the focus off min/maxing and onto roleplaying and immersion, where it should be. By sticking with reason over mechanics it gets mechanics focused people to go play
Similar structures on game elements contribute to interoperability (look we just got multi-racing analogous to multiclassing if you want it), as well as fairness ... the only complaints about it are subjective.
Similar structures on game elements contribute to interoperability (look we just got multi-racing analogous to multiclassing if you want it), as well as fairness ... the only complaints about it are subjective.
Please remember to keep your comments positive, productive, and on topic. Remember we are trying to create a mutually beneficial and productive community for everyone to take part in.
At the end of the day we are all in this thing together, and if we don't work together we will never get anywhere!
If you have any questions or would like to read the CoC you can find it here:
Remember, Keep it clean, Keep it nice, and of course Keep it fun!
Thank you for your understanding!
Please remember to keep your comments positive, productive, and on topic. Remember we are trying to create a mutually beneficial and productive community for everyone to take part in.At the end of the day we are all in this thing together, and if we
although I found the Eladrin to be a silly race (teleporting elves= silly IMHO).
I kind of did at first (but it doesnt have to be), In an era where the planes are closer together being able to slip accross one to another and the realm of faerry has a different but unpredictable time synch... see fairie used to merge with the mundane world all over the place wizards can still learn rare places where the barriers are weak and move through faerrie so that a months travel can be made in like a day. The eladrin cant do that natively because the method they use to push through momentarily has a danger of keeping them there it can destroy the connection to the mortal world
I dont have eladrin as a race on my game world ... but an individual talented in spatial transcendance would be built using one as a template.
I kind of did at first (but it doesnt have to be), In an era where the planes are closer together being able to slip accross one to another and the realm of faerry has a different but unpredictable time synch... see fairie used to merge with the mund
Exactly by removing stat penalties we stop gimping people who don't wanna play a race/class combo that don't match up ability scores. The idea isn't to prevent anything but to allow things.
Exactly by removing stat penalties we stop gimping people who don't wanna play a race/class combo that don't match up ability scores. The idea isn't to prevent anything but to allow things.
although I found the Eladrin to be a silly race (teleporting elves= silly IMHO).
I kind of did at first (but it doesnt have to be), In an era where the planes are closer together being able to slip accross one to another and the realm of faerry has a different but unpredictable time synch... see fairie used to merge with the mundane world all over the place wizards can still learn rare places where the barriers are weak and move through faerrie so that a months travel can be made in like a day. The eladrin cant do that natively because the method they use to push through momentarily has a danger of keeping them there it can destroy the connection to the mortal world
I dont have eladrin as a race on my game world ... but an individual talented in spatial transcendance would be built using one as a template.
Not to worried what the fluff is I just don't like teleport as a racial ability on a PC race. At least one in a core book.
I kind of did at first (but it doesnt have to be), In an era where the planes are closer together being able to slip accross one to another and the realm of faerry has a different but unpredictable time synch... see fairie used to merge with the mund
One has to wonder if the desire to optimize has gotten out of hand.
A -2 stat penalty translates into a -1 mod. How does that make a race suck at a class? Does that -1 really make that huge of a difference?
Does this mean that if a character has only a 16 in a prime stat vs. an 18 he is doomed to eternal suckage?
Exactly! You can play a character with straight 7s, won't make ANY difference in the game.
The amount of "suckage" just depends on what the average roll is of a d20 to hit a level-appropriate's defenses. If the swing is roughly 45-55% on a d20, then the penalty isn't ASnoticable as if the numbers were greater. But one has to understand that ALL your stats now play a much more stronger role in your character as opposed to say, 4E. In 4E you chose the better of your Str/Con, Dex/Int, Wis/Cha for defenses where as now a penalty in a stat that's not necessarily primary to your class, build, etc. will still very much hinder you. So a Fighter with a Int of 8 is going to be hit HARD (probably) on all his Intelligence saving throws for effects that relate to it and so a penalty here is felt more strongly.
As for a character with straight 7s, it certainly will make a differene in the game as that character continually fails far more often at even mundane tasks than another person in the group with maybe only ONE 7 in their ability score.
Not to worried what the fluff is I just don't like teleport as a racial ability on a PC race. At least one in a core book.
Yea, at first we were crazy scared at the implications of what this power could facilitate. Then we read the rules and realized that you have to have line of sight to use it. So if there ever was an Eladrin captured, instantly he's hooded or otherwise blinded to negate the effect.
Exactly! You can play a character with straight 7s, won't make ANY difference in the game.[/quote]The amount of "suckage" just depends on what the average roll is of a d20 to hit a level-appropriate's defenses. If the swing is roughly 45-55% on a d20
although I found the Eladrin to be a silly race (teleporting elves= silly IMHO).
I kind of did at first (but it doesnt have to be), In an era where the planes are closer together being able to slip accross one to another and the realm of faerry has a different but unpredictable time synch... see fairie used to merge with the mundane world all over the place wizards can still learn rare places where the barriers are weak and move through faerrie so that a months travel can be made in like a day. The eladrin cant do that natively because the method they use to push through momentarily has a danger of keeping them there it can destroy the connection to the mortal world
I dont have eladrin as a race on my game world ... but an individual talented in spatial transcendance would be built using one as a template.
Not to worried what the fluff is I just don't like teleport as a racial ability on a PC race. At least one in a core book.
As long as the mechanics avoided the fey charger over use ie the tactical benefit is kept under control to me the functionality is fine as long as I have a grip on the flavor. See,to me its remeniscent of being able to move through enemies spaces without invoking opportunity attacks ... ooh look the halfling.
Also : You use the word silly oddly (though I guess I am not really one to complain about somewhat different language use)... to me it directly implied flavor issues. Mechanically I am not seeing silly.
I kind of did at first (but it doesnt have to be), In an era where the planes are closer together being able to slip accross one to another and the realm of faerry has a different but unpredictable time synch... see fairie used to merge with the mund
But people are flawed just as much as we are strong. No living thing can escape this, especially not sentient ones. I 100% understand the view of "I want to make what I want to make", and it's a fine view to have. But I also see the point of view from people who like the feel of the older games
The difference is showing the differences between the races in absolutes rather than small quirks.
Yeah, but you are not flawed because of your race...thought now that i think about...seeing how old D&D was sexist with the penality for being female, i won't be amazed that the racial penalty is a proof of racism
But I am flawed because I am human.
I cannot run as fast as a cheetah, and in fact, my own house cat is faster.
Many animals are stronger.
Now being human has its advantages, but it has its downsides too, like if you take away my clothes I freeze in my chosen environment.
This is not racism, it is fact. The races in D&D are not the same as human races in the real world. Comparing me to an elf is much like comparing me to a lemur-- we're totally different animals. Somethings I do better, other things not so well.
In a system/world where there are only advantages, not having an attribute is a disadvantage. The idea that there are no disadvantages is simply an illusion.
For example, if Orcs get +2 to strength, they have an advantage over those who don't get that bonus strength if one wishes to play a fighter. That means, anyone playing fighter that doesn't get a +2 to strength is disadvantaged. After all, missing that -1 mod means eternal suckage.
Of course, if the game has both penalties AND bonuses, then the mod suck factor sinks to a -2. Still, is that the end of viability for a class? Does the character with a 14 in a prime stat totally suck? If the answer is yes, then the game system as well as its players' attitudes might need a rethink.
This person gets it. Thanks for saving me the trouble of posting something like this myelf.
Yeah, but you are not flawed because of your race...thought now that i think about...seeing how old D&D was sexist with the penality for being female, i won't be amazed that the racial penalty is a proof of racism[/quote]But I am flawed because I am
The powers were different of course but the pattern was the same for most of the races. +2/+2, +2 some skill, racial power and some minor bits and pieces.
And this was any more formulaic than races in previous editions because...? Because, for example, when I look at 3.5 or Pathfinder, I pretty much see +2/-2, +2 to some skills, some minor bits and pieces. And when I look at DDN, I pretty much see +1, some minor bits and pieces.
And this was any more formulaic than races in previous editions because...? Because, for example, when I look at 3.5 or Pathfinder, I pretty much see +2/-2, +2 to some skills, some minor bits and pieces. And when I look at DDN, I pretty much see +1,
Of course, if the game has both penalties AND bonuses, then the mod suck factor sinks to a -2. Still, is that the end of viability for a class? Does the character with a 14 in a prime stat totally suck? If the answer is yes, then the game system as well as its players' attitudes might need a rethink.
Exactly! You can play a character with straight 7s, won't make ANY difference in the game.
In every case, I place the blame squarely on the Universal Ability Modifier. It was a well-intentioned decision, designed to simplify the various roles played by the ability score, but the unforeseen side-effect was to make every penalty instantly tangible and every bonus equally important in perpetuity. In AD&D at least, you could play a perfectly capable character with 9s across the board, because anything less than a 14 or 15 had no impact on anything except actual ability checks (the equivalent of skill checks, in many cases) - and the 9 was only necessary to let you qualify for the class; most penalties (with the exception of spontaneous spell failure) didn't kick in until you had a 7 or less.
A -2 relative penalty should never invalidate a character from playing a class, even conceptually; if it does, then as Kishri mentioned, the game systems should be re-evaluated.
In every case, I place the blame squarely on the Universal Ability Modifier. It was a well-intentioned decision, designed to simplify the various roles played by the ability score, but the unforeseen side-effect was to make every penalty instantly t
FUrthermore as has been said multiple times a racial penalty in a piont buyt system as presented in the play test and previous editions comes out to well more than a mere -2 modifier on one stat.
FUrthermore as has been said multiple times a racial penalty in a piont buyt system as presented in the play test and previous editions comes out to well more than a mere -2 modifier on one stat.
FUrthermore as has been said multiple times a racial penalty in a piont buyt system as presented in the play test and previous editions comes out to well more than a mere -2 modifier on one stat.
Unfortunately, the same goes for bonuses as well. This is one of the main reasons I prefer a "no mods" option for races.
Unfortunately, the same goes for bonuses as well. This is one of the main reasons I prefer a "no mods" option for races.
A bonus however doesn't dramatically drive up the cost of buying your prime stat.
That said I can live without the bonuses myself, nifty race features are one of the coolest things about 4e and if 5e were to use them exclusively it'd earn a few innovation points.
A bonus however doesn't dramatically drive up the cost of buying your prime stat.That said I can live without the bonuses myself, nifty race features are one of the coolest things about 4e and if 5e were to use them exclusively it'd earn a few innova
Are ability score penalties necessary to convey the flavor and mechanics of a race?
