Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KidSnide" data-source="post: 5974613" data-attributes="member: 54710">Lots of reasons.&nbsp; Just because the average dwarf is less dexterous than the average elf, doesn't mean that the average PC dwarf rogue is less dexterous than the average elf rogue.&nbsp; Unless, the weakness is supposed to be part of the race, I don't see why we should handicap PCs.&nbsp; If every class is best played by a small number of races (like 4e) many interesting party concepts (e.g. the &quot;all dwarf party&quot;) become much harder to play optimally.&nbsp; I don't want a party of all dwarves to play like a party of all elves, but 4e-style racial balance disadvantaged those parties too much when compared to a party made up of optimal race-class pairings.The one exception I'll grant you is the halfling (or gnome) example.&nbsp; Those races explicitly have &quot;small&quot; as part of their identity.&nbsp; That's a limitation (or, in some editions, an advantage) that is build into the race, and I think that's fine.&nbsp; I don't mind if a small number of races aren't any good with specific classes.&nbsp; It's a problem when a given class is dominated by a small number of races.That's all true, and -- to a certain extent -- I'm still reacting from my experience with 3.x and, more recently, 4e.&nbsp; At least with 4e, hitting was so important because the cool effect riders also required a hit.&nbsp; If hitting is a less essential part of effectiveness (or, possibly better, stat bonuses didn't affect the to hit modifier), then the balance issue becomes less important and it's easier to let game world ideas about stat modifiers dominate stat modifiers.-KS</blockquote>

[QUOTE="KidSnide, post: 5974613, member: 54710"] Lots of reasons. Just because the average dwarf is less dexterous than the average elf, doesn't mean that the average PC dwarf rogue is less dexterous than the average elf rogue. Unless, the weakness is supposed to be part of the race, I don't see why we should handicap PCs. If every class is best played by a small number of races (like 4e) many interesting party concepts (e.g. the "all dwarf party") become much harder to play optimally. I don't want a party of all dwarves to play like a party of all elves, but 4e-style racial balance disadvantaged those parties too much when compared to a party made up of optimal race-class pairings. The one exception I'll grant you is the halfling (or gnome) example. Those races explicitly have "small" as part of their identity. That's a limitation (or, in some editions, an advantage) that is build into the race, and I think that's fine. I don't mind if a small number of races aren't any good with specific classes. It's a problem when a given class is dominated by a small number of races. That's all true, and -- to a certain extent -- I'm still reacting from my experience with 3.x and, more recently, 4e. At least with 4e, hitting was so important because the cool effect riders also required a hit. If hitting is a less essential part of effectiveness (or, possibly better, stat bonuses didn't affect the to hit modifier), then the balance issue becomes less important and it's easier to let game world ideas about stat modifiers dominate stat modifiers. -KS [/QUOTE]

Verification