D&D Races [Rebalancing 3.5]

[RobbyPants]

A month or so back I started a thread on Rebalancing 3.5.  It's gotten huge to the point that I was asked to split it into several sub-threads in the house-rules page.

Just so we're on the same page, what I'm looking to do is help close the gap between the drastically overpowered and the underpowered.  I'm trying to remove some of the worst abuses.  If you're familiar with JaronK's Tier system, I'm aiming for roughly a tier 3 game.

I will try to update these first posts with the current versions of what we've "agreed on."  Any recent additions will be in red so they're easier to find.

That being said, we can begin the work below.


(Cross-post links:)

Rebalancing Compendium

Races 
Core Classes
Other Classes 
Skills & Feats 
Spells 
Combat & Rules 
Equipment 

[RobbyPants]

Races


Half-elfHalf-Orc
- Remove the -2 penalty to Charisma. 
- Add a +2 racial bonus to Intimidate checks.
- Add weapon familiarity.  A half-orc can treat a greataxe as a simple weapon and an Orcish shot-put as a martial weapon.


Hobgoblin
- The ability score adjustments are +2 Dexterity,-2 Wisdom.
- Add Toughness as a bonus feat.
- Add a +1 racial bonus to attack rolls against elves.
- Add a +2 racial bonus to Knowledge(History) and Profession(Siege Engineer) checks.
- Reduce level adjustment to  +0.


Kobold
- Remove the -2 penalty to Constitution.


Orc
- Add a +2 racial bonus to Intimidate checks.
- Add weapon familiarity.  An orc can treat a greataxe as a simple weapon and an Orcish shot-put as a martial weapon.

[RobbyPants]

* reserved *

[RobbyPants]

* reserved *

[RobbyPants]

* reserved Q & A *

[RabidPirateMan]

Huh, I guess I'll try and open up this discussion...

I'm guessing the first thing we should do is decide on an existing race that should be the be all-end all of races, what every race should strive for in power.

...I nominate human...

Well, that was quick.  So now that we know what we're up against, how can we make every race as good as a human, but not?

[Mister_Sinister]

Well, that was quick.  So now that we know what we're up against, how can we make every race as good as a human, but not?

One of my ideas, connected to the burning of multiclassing penalties and favoured classes as we know it, was as follows.

"If you take levels in your favoured class, you gain +1 skill point per level, an extra 4 if you're 1st level. Humans, having every class as favoured, get this ability at all levels."

I think this helps a fair bit.

[Elennsar]

So humans get a free feat and no penalties, versus say a dwarven fighter.

Hm.

+2 Constitution, -2 to Charisma, +1 to hit vs. orcs and goblinoids, +4 dodge bonus versus giants, darkvision, and some relatively minor stuff.

Vs.

One bonus feat (may be any type).

I think the Dwarf has a slight advantage, but that's because I'm the kind of player (and DM) that would want lots of orc and goblin fights. On the whole, a bonus feat can be extremely useful, so it might balance out.

Definately is looking good for making "Favored class" mean something, however. Dwarves should lean towards being fighters, elves to being wizards, or whatever. To human is to do anything (and do it tolerably well). To be nonhuman involves cultural and/or pyschological tendancies towards specialization (and do it well).

[RabidPirateMan]

Well, that was quick.  So now that we know what we're up against, how can we make every race as good as a human, but not?

One of my ideas, connected to the burning of multiclassing penalties and favoured classes as we know it, was as follows.

"If you take levels in your favoured class, you gain +1 skill point per level, an extra 4 if you're 1st level. Humans, having every class as favoured, get this ability at all levels."

I think this helps a fair bit.

That's a different kind of restriction on the player- only now you aren't punishing them for playing a class that's not their favored, but rewarding them for playing one that is.

I say do away with it entirely.  Let them play Dwarf Wizards and Orc Rangers.

[Mister_Sinister]

Definately is looking good for making "Favored class" mean something, however. Dwarves should lean towards being fighters, elves to being wizards, or whatever. To human is to do anything (and do it tolerably well). To be nonhuman involves cultural and/or pyschological tendancies towards specialization (and do it well).

Quite, and if we leave in racial sub levels, this encourages it even more (though many of them need de-sucktising, or they resemble the penis of a certain father we both know).

That's a different kind of restriction on the player- only now you aren't punishing them for playing a class that's not their favored, but rewarding them for playing one that is.

I say do away with it entirely.  Let them play Dwarf Wizards and Orc Rangers.

It's not a restriction at all - it's a form of positive reinforcement. The above two examples are not unfeasible under the rules at all - and, if anything, sub levels should help make them work better.

[RabidPirateMan]

Hmm... Well, here's my point:  a Dwarf Fighter would be a great choice.  But if you want to be a Dwarf Barbarian, you won't get as much out of it as if you were an Orc Barbarian...  And Orcs are far better Barbarians than they are Rangers...  Dwarves are still not good at being Sorcerers, but now they aren't as comparatively good at being Wizards, since an Elf would get the skill points... And we'd also have to find classes that don't have favored classes on races (Dread Necros?  Swashbucklers?)...

But I also don't think it'd be gamebreaking.

[Mister_Sinister]

Hmm... Well, here's my point:  a Dwarf Fighter would be a great choice.  But if you want to be a Dwarf Barbarian, you won't get as much out of it as if you were an Orc Barbarian...  And Orcs are far better Barbarians than they are Rangers...  Dwarves are still not good at being Sorcerers, but now they aren't as comparatively good at being Wizards, since an Elf would get the skill points... And we'd also have to find classes that don't have favored classes on races (Dread Necros?  Swashbucklers?)...

But I also don't think it'd be gamebreaking.

Well, yes. However, part of patching the hole would be racial substitution levels. Additionally, as for the 'classes which nobody favours' problem, why not attach them to a race? Is there any reason why a race cannot have more than one favoured class? I mean, humans do...

[Stratovarius]

Hmm... Well, here's my point:  a Dwarf Fighter would be a great choice.  But if you want to be a Dwarf Barbarian, you won't get as much out of it as if you were an Orc Barbarian...  And Orcs are far better Barbarians than they are Rangers...  Dwarves are still not good at being Sorcerers, but now they aren't as comparatively good at being Wizards, since an Elf would get the skill points... And we'd also have to find classes that don't have favored classes on races (Dread Necros?  Swashbucklers?)...

But I also don't think it'd be gamebreaking.

I don't really see what you're getting at here. There have always been races that are better at certain aspects of DnD than others, in part because certain races have cultural tendencies towards a given lifestyle. If this means that an Orc is a slightly (1 skill point/level) better barbarian than my dwarf, that's something I'm perfectly fine with.

This suggested fix also removes the penalty associated with favoured class XP, where it is a negative. "Take this or lose more XP", with a positive, a small incentive to play something more closely tied to the nature of your race. With all the subtypes of races, there are plenty to go around for almost any class.

[RobbyPants]

Sorry that I had nothing but an opening paragraph and some reserved posts.  I got interrupted right after I made these threads.

I've ported over what I'd worked on to date in the 2nd post.

[RabidPirateMan]

Ya know, I call myself a hobgoblin enthusiast... and I kind of like Hobbys having no negatives; they're just good at everything they do.

With what you have presented, +2 Con and +4 to Move Silent makes for an OK race.  Maybe not on Par with, say, Assimar and Teifling, but thats mainly for Outsider cheese.

Also, I was wondering: maybe Half-Orcs and Orcs could get a +4 to Bullrush; Dwarves have stability, and since dwarves and orcs are always fighting, you'd think they'd learn to knock em over.

[Elennsar]

Dwarves are stable because they're naturally hard to knock over.

I wouldn't mind giving orcs/half-orcs a bonus to Bull Rush, I just don't think that they should be good at it because dwarves are hard to tip. They fight elves too, elves aren't harder to knock over.

[RobbyPants]

One of my ideas, connected to the burning of multiclassing penalties and favoured classes as we know it, was as follows.

Yeah, I posted something like that a while back.

I want to kill the XP penalties entirely, but I was going to post that in the rules thread.  Still, it makes sense to mention that here.

Ya know, I call myself a hobgoblin enthusiast... and I kind of like Hobbys having no negatives; they're just good at everything they do.

With what you have presented, +2 Con and +4 to Move Silent makes for an OK race.  Maybe not on Par with, say, Assimar and Teifling, but thats mainly for Outsider cheese.

Just to be on the same page, the hobgoblin stats listed are in addition to what they normally get, with the exception of the ability scores, which replace the old ability adjustments.

The version I posted I made a while back on the WotC threads.  The idea was to get it down to LA +0.  I actually got into a large argument about giving no negatives, but I decided to give -2 to a stat to keep it on par with other races.  Obviously Dex and Con were out of the question and Str made no sense.  Int didn't work because they're not stupid.  That left Wis and Cha.  I'm so sick of seeing -2 Cha on every non-pretty race that I refused to do it.  So, the -2 Wis was justified by them being rather haughty and arrogant.

The Toughness feat for free was to mimic the +2 Con flavor-wise, but to bring the power level down.  I may need to change it though, because I've changed the Toughness feat, and it's a lot more potent than a simple +3 HP!

[Sunic_Flames]

First thing I'd recommend is ditching any negative stats. All it does is pigeonhole them out of certain things where certain is defined as anything that uses that stat. Yes, this means elves get pigeonholed out of everything.

[Elennsar]

I disagree. Orcs (for instance) having an Int penalty means that quite simply to have a harder time being successful at being wizards than being fighters or barbarians.

Boo hoo. Fluffwise, orc wizards are extremely rare for a variety of reasons. I don't see anything wrong with "lack of higher intelligence" being one of them.

Still, penalties should be applied only when necessary. Having Dwarves get -2 to Cha is highly obnoxious and not justified (same with orc penalties there...their issues in a social sense should be represented in a different manner).

[RobbyPants]

First thing I'd recommend is ditching any negative stats. All it does is pigeonhole them out of certain things where certain is defined as anything that uses that stat. Yes, this means elves get pigeonholed out of everything.

I do agree about the pigeon holing.  The terminology I used for this in an argument is how stat penalties limit the race's scope, not power.

Still, I think a few races need penalties for flavor reasons, but I can see ditching a few of them.  Perhaps we can come to an agreement on some.

I think the small races need to keep -2 Str because of their size.  We could ditch the -2 Con for elves.  I'd like to keep half orcs with -2 Int, but if I did that, they'd need some other compensation.  I could remove the -2 Cha from dwarves, but they might need to be pulled back a bit otherwise.

Thoughts?