Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GreenTengu" data-source="post: 7212250" data-attributes="member: 6777454">It is very important when creating a new race that it not be the overwhelming best possible race for certain classes. Being able to get free movement and a free melee attack every single time you down an opponent it WAY too good of a bonus to give a Barbarian. Especially at lower levels when d6+Str bonus actually means something.Speaking of which, the natural attack should only be d4, not d6. Again-- it doesn't matter what the MM says, it matters what is balanced for PCs. And so far all PC races that have natural attack have it at d4-- its what you would get as a level 1 monk.The MM entry is all about giving the creature some sort of ability that is meant to counter the fact that they get no class abilities-- plus they want the creatures to fight like those stated creatures. But if you are giving them class abilities, you should be less focused on how to give the race extra damage and movement every round and instead consider how to give them interesting options.Instead of half-movement, maybe make it an option 5' step into the square previously occupied by the target that was reduced to 0 HPs.Also-- no race should be granting more than one bonus skill. I am sure there already are ones that do, but it should be avoided. It would be best if every race granted 1 and only 1 bonus skill, but 2 skills stacked into a race just because you can't think of anything else to give them is too much.There just aren't that many skills in the game and if one player be proficient with nearly half the skills in the game because their race gave them 2, their background gave them 2 and their class gave them 5... well, it means there is less chance any of the other players are going to be proficient in skills this character doesn't have any have their opportunity to shine.I like what Stew wrote up there. That could slip in instead of a skill proficiency and it would be fun regardless of your class.And bow proficiency? Look, I get that some silly things were written in 4E, but these 7+' tall more animal than man creatures should not be universally expert with bows. I think that was just an excuse to match them up with the Ranger class which naturally had a heavy emphasis on bows. Also, it is kind of silly to give the same race both a natural attack AND weapon proficiency.And for the attribute.... Sure... +2 Con with a +1 in either Dexterity or Constitution would be fair. Honestly, I think the races that have subraces are eventually going to be filled out so you can have that floating +1 in any attribute. It would probably be better if all races just allowed you to stick that +1 in any score other than the one you get a +2 in as it would increase the number of viable classes for any given race.If you want to know how to make a good race, look at the Elf and the Dwarf. Those were clearly crafted before the others. You would notice that none of the things they get give them flat out bonus attacks or bonus movement or a flat out standard bonus that cannot be matched by a member of any other race. Instead, they kind of get bonuses that you might get if you were slightly multi-classed with another class... bonuses that are kind of moot or redundant if you are those classes.If you count up the number of bonuses you have after taking my suggestions into account and feel you really, really want them to have something else...Maybe a natural AC of 12 instead of 10 when unarmored (or, if wearing no armor, they get to add their Con bonus to their AC). It would be fitting and generally only be a boon to those who are caster classes which wouldn't get to take advantage of the bonus natural attack when they reduce someone to 0 HP.</blockquote>

Verification