Racial stat increases

[Starfox]

For me, a big part of the reason for giving out an additional +2 bonus is that it is relatively simple to implement in the character builder. It also leaves the races more intact - all dwarfs still have +con/wis, they just have yet another add-on to a third stat.

 

[Pale Jackal]

Why make it complex?

Replacing all racial stat bonuses with two floating +2 bonuses (no more than one per stat) is easy and simple and amounts to the same thing.

It help retains racial flavor? It prevents an 18 Str./ 18 Con. Eladrin, for instance. Both are simple fixes. While an 18 Str./18 Con. Eladrin isn't going to make my head explode, I think allowing a single free floating +2 is sufficient.

Honestly, so what? What's the big deal about a dwarf with a couple of nice benefits? It's not so unbalancing as to make them invincible or even all that special.

Actually, I'm currently allowing a Dwarf Cleric with a +2 to Str./Wis./Con. to use Dwarven Weapon Training. Is it a deal breaker? No, but I do think that it'd probably be more balanced if it was just +1 damage, since he's also able to use a maul with said feat. It's just something to keep in mind, chill.

 

[eriktheguy]

Out of the dozen or so characters that have been made for my games since I instituted this rule, I've had two or three humans. Make of that what you will, but so far it's all balanced out for us.

Just because you're group isn't taking advantage of an imbalanced house rule doesn't mean it's balanced. Other groups might have more treacherous players . Many races gain bonus to non-AC defenses to make up for their particular ability score allocations. Humans only gain one ability score bonus and get a large bonus to their defenses to even it out. If you wanted to encourage more race/class combos while maintaining strict balance, you want to be more careful about how you alter human ability scores.

Why make it complex?

Replacing all racial stat bonuses with two floating +2 bonuses (no more than one per stat) is easy and simple and amounts to the same thing.

But it also gives humans a larger bonus than other races, even though humans are not part of the optimization problem. It would be better to leave humans alone, and simpler.

Honestly, so what? What's the big deal about a dwarf with a couple of nice benefits? It's not so unbalancing as to make them invincible or even all that special. It's just an occasional damage bonus and makes them really sticky fighters... have more enemies hit them and problem solved. Everything evens out somewhere, somehow.

The problem for me is that dwarfs get these nice feats specifically to make up for their non-optimization. Even though its only slightly imbalanced, some groups prefer balanced to slightly imbalanced. If I introduce this house rule to help non-optimized characters, and the one or two power gamers at the table take advantage of it to make more optimized characters, this exaggerates the power difference in the party. Not everything evens out, some builds are better than other builds.


I don't disagree that the discrepancies here are small, I'm just saying "why not use a more balanced house rule that's just as simple."

If someone wants to try an suboptimal race/class combo let them change one of the +2 bonuses. Don't do it if they plan to take advantage of a race specific feat designed to overcome the suboptimal race.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Just because you're group isn't taking advantage of an imbalanced house rule doesn't mean it's balanced. Other groups might have more treacherous players . Many races gain bonus to non-AC defenses to make up for their particular ability score allocations. Humans only gain one ability score bonus and get a large bonus to their defenses to even it out. If you wanted to encourage more race/class combos while maintaining strict balance, you want to be more careful about how you alter human ability scores.

You'll just have to agree to disagree with me then. Personally I think humans by RAW are underpowered, and that I've simply given them a nudge in the right direction. I don't take polls, but players in every 4e game I've been a part of have favored demihumans even when it's me DMing with this house rule. In fact when it's been a RAW game, players seem to avoid humans at all costs unless they can't -- like at a con game with pregens.

If I had a group of players who think like you do, I might drop my house rule, but then again I might not: after all humans are generally assumed to be the most common race in D&D. Regardless, you can't prove that humans are empirically better than other races -- even if we could directly correlate a number of NAD bonuses to a number of stat bonuses, there are other factors involved that just can't be compared with mathematical certainty: namely, racial powers. It's a matter of perception, and that's all there is to it.

 

[RoyalB]

It occured to me that switching one of the race stat mods could be added to the options of backgrounds (choice of language, class skill, or bonus) just use that stat that the skill is associated with as a switch option. Ex. Occupation - Mariner has Acrobatics and Perception so player with this background could choose to exchange for Dex or Wis. The main benefit of this method is that it adds a narrative element to to stat switch. Ex. The dragonborn spent so many nights atop the crow's nest with just his thoughts and the sea that his fiery personality turned inward to self-relection. (+2 to Cha to +2 to Wis)

 

[Kzach]

The problem for me is that dwarfs get these nice feats specifically to make up for their non-optimization./QUOTE]

In isolation, granting an extra +2 floating bonus to humans is most definitely unbalanced.

But you have to look at things holistically. All races get feats that are very powerful and designed to 'compensate' for their lack. So sure, just giving humans an extra +2 floating bonus imbalances things, and just replacing the dwarven bonuses with two floating +2 bonus is unbalancing, but when you universally erase all racial stat mods and replace them with two +2 floating bonuses, then the playing field is REbalanced.

I'm not saying it's perfectly balanced, but view it as a whole and the picture becomes a lot less lopsided than you may think.

 

[eriktheguy]

The problem for me is that dwarfs get these nice feats specifically to make up for their non-optimization./QUOTE]

In isolation, granting an extra +2 floating bonus to humans is most definitely unbalanced.

But you have to look at things holistically. All races get feats that are very powerful and designed to 'compensate' for their lack. So sure, just giving humans an extra +2 floating bonus imbalances things, and just replacing the dwarven bonuses with two floating +2 bonus is unbalancing, but when you universally erase all racial stat mods and replace them with two +2 floating bonuses, then the playing field is REbalanced.

I'm not saying it's perfectly balanced, but view it as a whole and the picture becomes a lot less lopsided than you may think.

I suppose that if you combine the demi-humans' choice of stat bonuses with their feats, they compare to humans with two +2 bonuses balance wise. Again, I doubt your house ruling is going to cause any problems with your group if all they want to do is try some different combos.
The reason I am weary of the house rule is that giving the humans and additional +2 while simply giving the demi-humans more choice is a larger advantage for the humans. Although, if you think humans are a little underpowered, this makes sense.

 

[keterys]

Clearly, instead you just give all races an extra floating +2 to any stat, but keep the rest the same.

 

[Safari]

I read all your posts and decided that a point buy system is the way to go for me. If I add a floating +2 stat bonus to every race, there will be more options. However, certain class/race combinations will still be stronger.
A lot of classes benefit from 3 stats and then I’m just shifting the problem to making those combinations more favorable.
I also think the races already have enough built in flavor without stat bonuses, with increases to certain skills and racial powers.

I'm going for 32 point buy. This leaves the option of getting 18 in two stats, but at a steep cost. If a character goes for a lower secondary, they can increase a lot more stats.
The Eladrin and Goliath lose their save bonus, because they can freely choose stats now. I'm inclined to let humans keep their save bonus, because I consider this to be one of the human perks.

The reason I want to get rid of the stat bonuses is because they have lost a lot of their value over the last 2 editions. In previous editions, they had a lot more inherent value. Dexterity was for defense, strength for melee, intelligence gives extra skills etc.
In 4e any stat can give attack or defense, leaving only the bonus to skills as flavor with the different stats. Also, in 4e the system for increasing them is so rigid for a lot of classes, it hardly leaves any choice for your character. If you're character is dependent on one stat for offense and another for defense, it's really bad for your character to choose any other stat to increase.
Don't get me wrong, I like the streamlined math of 4e. I just think that ability scores have become obsolete. I'd rather just give everyone a fixed bonus to attack and defense and be done with the stat increasing min/maxing.

A system I’ve been thinking about, is one where ability scores don’t give a bonus to attacks and defense anymore, but they only give a bonus or benefit, when it's fitting to the story.
We don't have to be reminded with every attack that Roxar the barbarian is really strong, I just want him to shine when he lifts the huge barrel of the cleric.
A character’s incredible strength or speed would be explained with skill choices.

Off course, such a system changes how all attacks and defenses are calculated, and might be more work than it’s worth