|
5 months ago ::
Jan 12, 2013 - 4:18AM
#1
|
|
|
Hi!
I am wondering in which direction Racials will go when more races are added. One big flaw in *4e* in my opinion was when certain races were too optimal for certain classes, so people "going with the math" said like "you can play class x only as race y, and never as race z". It seems to me they reduced this a bit in D&D Next by most races only get +1 stat bonus, but with the weapon trainings again for certain classes something like this might come in. Also for non-melee classes Human might be "too optimal".
But I guess currently we only have a very small "sample size" as to races and classes, and how this plays out remains to be seen when more classes/races are available.
Personally I would like some sort of Feat/Specialty system tied to the Race (additionally to the already existing Feat/Specialty system) where you can "customize" the racials to what sort of character you have (so a Elven Wizard would get more a higher +Int adjustment, an elven fighter the weapon training etc.). Something like that would be cool I think.
MagicSN
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 12, 2013 - 4:26AM
#2
|
|
|
This will always be the case, more or less. It also always HAS been the case.
Any race with an intelligence bonus will be somewhat more favorable for being wizards. Any race with physical bonuses will be suited to a physical roles.
Best way to modify this is through subtypes, such as 3 had - there were normal frail, agile elves, magical smart elves, and dumb strong elves. 4e just (in one of my least-favourite moves) made the magical smart elves into a separate race entirely.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 12, 2013 - 6:24AM
#3
|
|
|
That it always has been the case is no argument for me. Why not change it? Yes, sub-types sound like a good idea (and it seems D&D Next goes a bit into that direction, with the different dwarves and elven sub-types and such), but I think this could still be expanded , basically to take various aspects of the race into the racial and you "choose one" or such. Actually I tend to think if it is not maybe a good idea to not give any ability boni to the race, but only other kind of Boni (though I do not think the D&D developer team would do such a change "this late").
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 12, 2013 - 11:15AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Dec 27, 2011
|
I think Senevri's point is that it always will be the case, as long as there is any difference in race. If dwarves get a bonus to constitution, they will always be a slightly better race choice for a fighter than, say, gnomes that grant a bonus to wisdom. However, by reducing the amount that any one race outclasses another in terms of favorability, one reduces the chance that any one race becomes "the" race for a class. For example, although the hill dwarf's increased hit points makes it an excellent choice for fighters, melee rogues and monks can make good use of that benefit, and the mountain dwarf's armor proficiency makes it a good choice for rogue or wizard. Ultimately, the dwarf probably works best as a fighter, but someone that decides to play a dwarf rogue or wizard will be only slightly less efficient than a min/maxed dwarf fighter. My latest character is a high elf rogue with a custom-made specialty that makes use of minor spellcasting and two-weapon fighting. Is he highly optimized? No. There are far more effective TWF builds. Is he fun to play? Yes. Do I care that my character could be a little more effective in combat? Not at all. I'm too busy freezing baddies with magic and then shattering them with my longsword.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 12, 2013 - 12:11PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
I think Senevri's point is that it always will be the case, as long as there is any difference in race. If dwarves get a bonus to constitution, they will always be a slightly better race choice for a fighter than, say, gnomes that grant a bonus to wisdom.
You can have racial differences without have racial stat bonuses. Really, stat bonuses are the least interesting way to differentiate races.
<Ioun> they're apparently making a MolIsCool pp
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 12, 2013 - 3:16PM
#6
|
|
|
Well, yes, some people did argue there were optimal races for each class in 4e. Not everyone always agreed, of course, which made me feel better that they had designed a system with many right answers.
But, If there are stat bonuses then there will always be favored classes. And if not, then powers will have some impact on favored classes. And if there aren't ability bonuses or powers, what difference is there between races?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 12, 2013 - 4:49PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2012
|
I've always hated racial stat bonuses (even more than racial weapon profs) and D&DNext has the best set up to get rid of them.
Class: +1 to specific stats
Background: +1 to specific stats
Specialty: +1 to specific stats.
Limit any specific stat to getting a +2 bonus and I think things would be fine.
Give races some interesting flavor and abilities and you don't need the racial stat bonuses.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 12, 2013 - 5:02PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jul 11, 2008
|
I'm a big fan of doing away with stat bonuses from race and class. Your starting score (how many points you put into it or how well you roll) perfectly represents pre-campaign class training and racial predispositions without having to add more bonuses on top of that.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 12, 2013 - 5:51PM
#9
|
|
|
The loss of racial powers is one of the better things that I think we've lost in the transition to DDN. I really hope we can get them back.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 12, 2013 - 6:11PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2008
|
They should move the subraces into a separate category called culture and allow every race to enter it.
Instead of high elves and wood elves we have just one race, elf. We then have two cultures: woodland and high magic cultures.
instead of mountain dwarves and hill dwarves we have just one race, dwarf. We then have two cultures, Hill (nomadic) or mountain (mining).
Perhaps some campaigns would prefer specific race-culture combinations but i would prefer it to be more open.
Cultures could then include woodland, high magic, nomadic, pastoral, mining, traders, seafarers, urban, raiders, etc.
Ability score mods would then come from class and culture. Race would provide other benefits besides a bonus to ability score.
|
|
|
