D&D Races [Rebalancing 3.5]

[Midnight_v]

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.

*cough* Paizo *cough*

I agree that races that have negatives should keep the negatives, notable exception being the 1/2 orc, orc etc...

Aslo, no I don't I dont' think it pigeon holes them, I think that the sterotypes exist for a reason that could be backed up mechanically. reward punisment... Elf wizard (thousands of years of conditioning and support from the elves)
Orc wizard (umh... largely orcs dont' have books) It's just that simple.

[Elennsar]

Not all of them are necessarily as good an idea as they sound, however. Dwarves are somewhat gruff and xenophobic.

That's not a reason for them to be terrible at being paladins. Sorcerers, maybe. Bards, probably. Paladins, no.

[Midnight_v]

Not all of them are necessarily as good an idea as they sound, however. Dwarves are somewhat gruff and xenophobic.

That's not a reason for them to be terrible at being paladins. Sorcerers, maybe. Bards, probably. Paladins, no.

Which is why there'll be need to be an ACF for dwarven paladins.
Though I point out that originally, when the concept of paladins in D&D came about dwarves were already gruff and xenophobic. Paladin was a "Human only" benifit for rolling high stats and still wanting to be a fighter type.
Meaning dwarves primarilly were clerics,which are better than paladins. Still though I get your point, one possiblilty is a Acf. Another is that Dwarves dont' gravitate towards paladin-hood in general and you've already accepted that they don't make the best sorcerors or bards.
Its not that far a stretch to accept that when you fight a dwarven "paladin" you're actually fighting a dwarven:
Fighter/Cleric which makes a lot of sense actually as dwarves favorite class is fighter, there's nor reason that they wouldn't have thier own order of fighter clerics or something. Thats where Prc's should come in.

I'm against socialism in all its forms, the classes aren't all supposed to be equall. In which case you choice of race simply becomes cosmetic. ...
and I rest.

[Elennsar]

Alternate Class Features that basically mean that Dwarven paladins are nothing like paladins of any other race don't really make sense. I'm all for them existing, but not like that.

If "paladin" is "a lawful good champion of all that's good and true", a race that values and leans towards Lawful Good more than humans do should be perfectly capable of taking the class. "Humans only" might make sense if other races didn't lean that way, but since Dwarves do...

I'm personally in favor of point based systems. If I spend 10 points on something and you spend 10 points on something else, we should get about the same return.

Now, some characters will be worth more points than others, whether that's a problem in a given campaign is another story.

In a class based system, having some classes or races be superior for the same investment is a bad idea. If I choose to play someone weaker than you, that should be a consciously choice. I shouldn't be forced to either play something other than what I wanted to play or play something feeble and/or irrelevant.

[Midnight_v]

Alternate Class Features that basically mean that Dwarven paladins are nothing like paladins of any other race don't really make sense. I'm all for them existing, but not like that.

If "paladin" is "a lawful good champion of all that's good and true", a race that values and leans towards Lawful Good more than humans do should be perfectly capable of taking the class. "Humans only" might make sense if other races didn't lean that way, but since Dwarves do...

I'm personally in favor of point based systems. If I spend 10 points on something and you spend 10 points on something else, we should get about the same return.

Now, some characters will be worth more points than others, whether that's a problem in a given campaign is another story.

In a class based system, having some classes or races be superior for the same investment is a bad idea. If I choose to play someone weaker than you, that should be a consciously choice. I shouldn't be forced to either play something other than what I wanted to play or play something feeble and/or irrelevant.

1. Dwarven palandins could be different from paladins from every other race because they have different gods. Gruff, xenophobic gods need champions too.
2. I belive you're projectiing your own interpretations of dwarves in there somewhere. Do dwarves really leand towards LAWFUL & GOOD? That odd because there are at least 3 variant of fallen dwarves. I'll not bother to list them as everyone knows em. Variant good dwarves? There may be some but I'm unfamiliar with them offhand.


3.

In a class based system, having some classes or races be superior for the same investment is a bad idea. If I choose to play someone weaker than you, that should be a consciously choice. I shouldn't be forced to either play something other than what I wanted to play or play something feeble and/or irrelevant.

Again, if we go in that direction it become a scenario where you're class choice doesn't matter at all.
If every race is equal in regards to taking every class, then race is something that you could theoretically take out of the game. It becomes a negligible choice, get me?
Like If there are two races with the exact same stats then the only reason to play one or the other is flavor, and while flavor has historically influence mechanics, that idea set crosses the line where balance is now a straight jacket.
The second you give another race a bonus to intelligence... they start getting weighed vs. the Elves with intelligence as either better or worse. If better then the largely suppplant the elves as favorite choice, except for those playing for flavor, in which case its a conscious choice to suck, as you mentioned.
You're problem is flavor I think. 
Because based on your argument, why shouldn't you live in fear of the "flying armada of Orc wizards"? Why? Because thats not one of your base assumtions about the game.
Dwarves don't make good paladins and really never have and rally there's no precedent for it. Dwarves therefor have a long tradition of fighter clerics that people encounter and call "paladins"
A nice 5 level prc would fix it.
Although a nice ACF would fix it. Ala races of destiny 1/2Orc paladin variant.

[Elennsar]

1) Right, but "divine grace" and "smite evil" and such make exactly the same amount of sense for both Dwarves and humans and elves and anything else. The rest (special mounts, say), not necessarily.

2) Not intentionally. As I recall, they're "Usually Lawful Good" (officially) and Moradin is Lawful Good. So they seem to lean in that direction more than humans lean towards Neutral Good (since they only have Pelor being NG as an influence there) This isn't including subraces.

3) It shouldn't matter other than "I want to play someone who uses ____." Making the game so that no one tries to play an elven fighter (even though there's plenty of them by fluff) would be a terrible idea.

This is why I prefer point based systems. If you want to build a more powerful character, you can, but you need to have more points available to begin with...making more powerful classes mean there's no reason except deliberately wanting to be weak to play the weak classes, even if they're the kind of thing you'd want to play otherwise, which is no fun.

As to the flying armada of orc wizards...I don't mind (well, I do, but not in the sense that's relevant here) the idea of orc wizards. I don't think orcs should be made so they can do just fine as wizards...nothing about their culture or their creation supports that. My personal fondness for keeping that the same way may be a factor in my feelings, but if orcs had a culture that supported wizardry as being perfectly possible, then I'd be fine with it. (if doing orcs differently in any world I built)

As to dwarven paladins...a "Usually lawful good" combeaive race should be able to have good divinely blessed fighting champions, not 60% spellcaster/40% warrior hybrids. Nothing wrong with fighter/clerics, but if "dwarves can do just fine as 'paladins' with that", then why have the paladin class at all if that can play Divine Champion of Goodness just as well? That'd be true for humans and elves too.

Briefly, some races are better at some things than other things, but all things that it makes sense for the race to be good at, it should do well with.

Some options will be more desirable than others...but the fact that dwarves make bad sorcerers should be built from fluff up, rather than adding fluff just to make it look pretty.

[DaveoftheRave]

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.

You are still punishing them though.

If they don't take the favoured class they get -1 skill points per level.

[Stratovarius]

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.

You are still punishing them though.

If they don't take the favoured class they get -1 skill points per level.

Sorry, but not getting something by choice is not a punishment. Otherwise anyone picking a fighter level is punished for not getting wizard spells as well. It's called opportunity cost, and it is not a punishment, it is the result of making a choice.

[RabidPirateMan]

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.

You are still punishing them though.

If they don't take the favoured class they get -1 skill points per level.

Sorry, but not getting something by choice is not a punishment. Otherwise anyone picking a fighter level is punished for not getting wizard spells as well. It's called opportunity cost, and it is not a punishment, it is the result of making a choice.

Hmm... I'd call that a punishment. If someone wants to play a Halfling rogue, its fine- in fact they get a bonus for doing so.  If someone wanted to play a dwarf rogue, who is still perfectly able stat wise to be a rogue, he is punished.

What you are suggesting is synonymous with "Players not playing a favored class get -1 to all skill points"

The opportunity cost of wizard and fighter is being fixed so that fighters and wizards are more or less balanced in terms of power.  The opportunity cost of playing an orc fighter over a dwarf fighter is much bigger than choosing to play a wizard over a fighter.

[Midnight_v]

The opportunity cost of wizard and fighter is being fixed so that fighters and wizards are more or less balanced in terms of power.  The opportunity cost of playing an orc fighter over a dwarf fighter is much bigger than choosing to play a wizard over a fighter.

LOL WUT?

Did you write that backwards or something? Okay ignoring that. . .

  Now I don't agree with the negative skill point thing perse. I do have to say that there should be reasons "mechanical" benifits to playing the favored class.

Also, all races should not excell at all classes.

Even if Moradin is Lawful good it has nothing to do with how dwarve are mechanically. I could argue that there are no half-orc gods and that they shuoldn't be allowed as clerics, but thats the same argument you're making ultimately.
 I reiterate...

Also, all races should not excell at all classes.
You're argument isn't against that you're argument is that dwarves are lawful good "as a race" (a fallacy) and that they're should be paladins as thier god is lawful good. Which I say, no, they should have a divine champoion but not a pally perse so people can jack off in thier armor and make moral rulings as a dwarf!
 hyperbole I know but my point stands, theres no reason for it. An acf or Prc should fix the problem fine.
 Dwarves, they have no written cultural leaning toward paladins, in story or in history of D&D. Not to say they shouldn't exist but the reason we don't see them all the time is because of the char negative.
   Or, the fighter dwarf tradition is so strong becaues thats the major focus of thier fighting arts, and since all dwarves fight excetionally well and all Scream "MORADIN"! or the name of the clan when charging into battle he doesn't even need divine champions. If he does then he just taps any dwarf and gives them super powers, that may or may non consist of divine grace and smite evil.

Either way we're not arguing balance there we're arguing about adding an archtype that you want added to the game and added strongly, which has never existed really and probbably is unneccacary

Let's not pander to fetishism. I like orcs but I'm not advocating making them archmages.  Its the same thing.

[RabidPirateMan]

I think we aught to keep flavor out of this, since this is about rebalancing 3.5, not rewriting the dnd storyline.

Anyway, I think the concept of favored class is both a flavor issue and a subjective mechanics issue.  OK, Dwarves are usually fighters because bananas are their favorite food and on their planet they have spatulas instead of suns.  Fantastic.  Mechanically, their +2 con helps them be fighters, and their -2 cha doesn't hinder them at all.  Their plus to resisting trip and bullrush stops them from being thrown away in melee, their ability to wear heavy armor is nice and blah blah blah. Mechanically, they make better fighters than elves or halflings. 

But we shouldn't punish people for not playing a dwarf fighter.  Heck, a dwarf can be a sorcerer, if he can deal with the cha penalty.

[Risada]

I don't know if it's been suggested, but Favored Class should be Favored Classes. So an orc can be either a Fighter or Barbarian, a dwarf can either a Fighter or whatever you guys want.... and so on...

[RobbyPants]

I guess I'm fine with halflings being better rogues than dwarves (or whatever).  I guess my goal is to get all races on the same power level as opposed to actually making them "equal".  If we take it too far, we might as well make all races human (either medium or small) and make some race feats you can take to customize your race.  I'd rather avoid that.  At least as far as the LA +0 races are concerened, I don't know that they need too much changing.

Something else this made me think of, what about some of the weaker lower LA races?  I've seen various Aasimir, Tiefling, and Drow rewrites.  I'd like to either boost them to be worth their LA (as much as you can), or drop them down to LA +0 so they're playable.  Does anyone have any suggestions.  I've seen lesser planetouched races, but I don't remember the gist of the lesser drow.  IIRC, it drops the boost to the mental stats.

I don't know if it's been suggested, but Favored Class should be Favored Classes. So an orc can be either a Fighter or Barbarian, a dwarf can either a Fighter or whatever you guys want.... and so on...

I'm thinking about dropping the favored class mechanic entirely.  The only thing I'm stuck on is how I want to compensate humans and half-elves for the loss of Favored Class: Any.

[Midnight_v]

I think we aught to keep flavor out of this, since this is about rebalancing 3.5, not rewriting the dnd storyline.

Anyway, I think the concept of favored class is both a flavor issue and a subjective mechanics issue.  OK, Dwarves are usually fighters because bananas are their favorite food and on their planet they have spatulas instead of suns.  Fantastic.  Mechanically, their +2 con helps them be fighters, and their -2 cha doesn't hinder them at all.  Their plus to resisting trip and bullrush stops them from being thrown away in melee, their ability to wear heavy armor is nice and blah blah blah. Mechanically, they make better fighters than elves or halflings. 

But we shouldn't punish people for not playing a dwarf fighter.  Heck, a dwarf can be a sorcerer, if he can deal with the cha penalty.

No, No I agree with you 100% I'm just tired and being too wordy today. You've got it. Thats actually my point, lets not rewrite the story.  I also like this: Heck, a dwarf can be a sorcerer, if he can deal with the cha penalty.
Which is pretty much the world as it stands, have some fu, for simplicity sake.

I'm thinking about dropping the favored class mechanic entirely.  The only thing I'm stuck on is how I want to compensate humans and half-elves for the loss of Favored Class: Any.

I'm really glad to hear you say that second part, it makes me think that ultimately on the suject of balance we're on the same page. Compensation, must be considered... you'll hear me say that more than once.

I think I'm in favor of the multiple favored class thing. I remember that the Drow used to have 2 favorite classes Wizard if male/cleric if female. Something about that struck me as cool.
I'd like to give that a try before its decided to nix the whole concept. Still its not the biggest issue either way.

[Sinfire Titan]

I'm thinking about dropping the favored class mechanic entirely.  The only thing I'm stuck on is how I want to compensate humans and half-elves for the loss of Favored Class: Any.

Simple: Improve the Skill Points they gain. Have Favored Class allow you to get an extra Skill Point at each level, and just have Humans get more than the other races. Only require that those skill points have to be used on a class skill.

[Midnight_v]

I'm thinking about dropping the favored class mechanic entirely.  The only thing I'm stuck on is how I want to compensate humans and half-elves for the loss of Favored Class: Any.

Simple: Improve the Skill Points they gain. Have Favored Class allow you to get an extra Skill Point at each level, and just have Humans get more than the other races. Only require that those skill points have to be used on a class skill.

Wait so get rid of the mechanic except for humans and half elves? I'm confused... please go over that one more time bro?

[ZeroSum]

I think he means instead of Favored class giving an XP penalty it gives a skill point boost for class skills.

So if a Halfling with favored class Rogue takes a fighter level he gets 2 skill points.  If he takes a Rogue level he gets 9.  Thus, Humans and Half-elves would get +1 skill point each level for every class.

(I like it.  I think more skill points is a good thing.)

[RabidPirateMan]

Meh, I don't like it.  I cant remember playing in a game that even paid attention to favored classes.

Besides, favored classes are knitted into the classes themselves.  Look at the Dwarf, and see what a dwarf could be good at...

Dwarves make good fighters, barbarians, rogues, rangers, druids, monks, wizards, alright clerics and paladins, and aren't that great at being sorcerers or bards.

So lets look at the half orc...

Half-orcs are good fighters, barbarians, druids, alright monks, clerics, paladins, rogues, rangers, and arent that hip at being sorcerers, wizards or bards.

And humans?  Humans are good at anything.

So if someone wants to play a Half-Orc Rogue, which is already not as good as a Halfling Rogue, why should they also suffer by losing a skillpoint they would have gotten by being a halfling?

If in making the classes, points were given to humans and half-elves for having that Favored Class- Any status, then... compensate them with race features.  But do humans really need anything else?  Theyre already the best race in the game (outside of kobolds, I know).

[Mister_Sinister]

As I have said before, the compensation for killing the favoured class mechanic is easy - I have mentioned how to do this already. And yes, a bonus feat is totally worth the stuff nonhuman races get, because, according to my fix, humans STILL get extra skill points more often than other races.

RabidPirateMan, you CANNOT disjoin fluff and crunch. You just can't - the very notion is ridiculous. Crunch exists to mechanically represent fluff - it cannot be a baseless abstraction. As a result, if this means keeping certain racial stereotypes, we must do so. As K said, you cannot remove system mastery (having some options be better some of the time than at other times) without removing all consequence of choice (and ending up with 4E, which doesn't do this for races in any case). Thus, due to both of these considerations, the fact that some races are better at being something than others must, and hopefully will, remain.

One way to mitigate this issue, though, it to have 'racial maximums' instead of penalties. Effectively, instead of burning half-orcs for 2 Int, why not simply cap the score they can assign at generation to 16 or lower? That way, we're not kicking in the Difference Engine, and we can still represent the lower intelligence that is typical of such races. Same can go for Str for Small races.

[Elennsar]

Midnight: Dwarves, according to D&D core (PHB, Monster Manual), and this is not refering to subraces are "usually Lawful Good".

This isn't me being Fond of Lawful Good Dwarves Because They're Cool. I'm a Tolkien fan(atic). If I was basing things on my personal preferences, Dwarves would be a slightly less crazy version of Sparta and Salem (and without the slavery issue), which means they would very, very rarely have paladins, if ever. That's entirely different than core (and not something I think should replace it in general, though if I get around to writing up that kind of Dwarf, I'll probably show it off.)

But since it is core that they're quite often Lawful Good and that Moradin is Lawful Good, "Dwarven Paladin" should be a perfectly viable option...particularly as the kind of Charisma paladins do is not something Dwarves should suck at (charm, yes, force of personality, no).

The reason there's no tradition of dwarven paladins in the game is purely A) the old "only humans" and B) the fact Dwarven charisma blows means that their ability to be the class (which is already too weak) is considerably crippled, which means whether or not it fits becomes irrelevant. This is not good.

Sinister: I like. It represents "higher intelligence is very uncommon (to say the least)" rather than "they're usually idiots" for races with an Intelligence penalty, which makes infinitely more sense (and hurts play less).