Balance test: does +2 Int make a race at least +1 LA?

[Particle_Man]

I have been discussing the Blue on the Wizards Boards and some people said, basically, that any race, (any race at all), with a +2 Int (or any mental stat) must have a LA higher than 0 because they are better at something (in this case it is claimed that they are better at being wizards and psions) than the core races. I wanted to test that out with a new race, called the Turquoise.

Str -16, Dex -16, Con -16, Int +2, Wis -16, Chr -16
(Note: All stats for the Turquoise have a minimum of 3 after racial ability adjustments)
Medium
Move 10' (they are deep thinkers, but slow)
Favoured Class: Psion
Languages: Turquoise, Common
Bonus Languages: Goblin, Orc, Giant, Draconic, Abyssal

So...does this race look too powerful to be LA +0? Because some guys on the other board seem to be arguing that way.

Basically, I was trying to get people who thought that the Blue in the XPH warranted a +1 LA to post a "Blue Lite" that would have +2 Int, but be LA +0 by virtue of having other drawbacks from the Blue as written. Presumably, the "Blue Lite" would be somewhere between the Turqouise and the Blue as written, for power-level.

I did not expect anyone to seriously argue that the Turquoise above was too powerful to be +0 LA. Have I missed something?

 

[Creamsteak]

The way you set up this question, it's more of a troll than I think you'd like it to be. Your asking a more serious question than your example would lead me to believe.

In the context of the core rules, none of the examples given include a core player race with a +0 LA and a bonus to a mental stat. Personally, I lean towards the concept that these are just core examples, and are the basics for the game. In the most simple DnD game, I can understand why a DM shouldn't have to deal with races with odd adjustments such as +4 to one stat (and significant penalties to others) or dealing with a +2 to a spellcasting statistic, unles that DM wants to or feels able to.

In the long run though, a +2 to a spellcasting stat is comparible if not equal to a bonus to a physical stat. I think that the opinion that a +2 to a mental stat automatically should require a level adjustment is a bit bogus. A +2 bonus, at most, nets you one extra 1st level spell (if you have a natural 18 to start). At 11th level, when you get your first 6th level spell slot, if you put your two bonus attribute points into your spellcasting attribute, you net a bonus 1st level spell, and a bonus 6th level spell. That's if you don't include spellcasting stat bonus items. Functionally, your getting a +1 to the DC of all your spells, and even that isn't really worth a +1 LA nearly.

Breaking down the numbers a little bit more specifically, a +2 racial bonus to a spellcasting attribute is not going to net a character much in the way of bonus spells, and a +1 DC isn't much when compared to some races +1 or +2 racial bonuses to saving throws versus spells. Functionally, a +2 racial bonus to a spellcasting attribute is netting you a bigger bonus to your favored skills, most likely, and possibly a tiny edge as a spellcaster, but it is not nearly enough to denote an entire level lost.

My opinion agrees with you, that the people that think a +2 to a spellcasting stat is always a level adjustment are not concerned with the actual effectiveness of the stat, but rather with sticking strictly to the core guidelines as law.

 

[Thanee]

The +1 LA for the blue is way off. They should be +0.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

BTW, the core rules also have at least one +0 LA +2 INT race (grey elf).

Bye
Thanee

 

[CRGreathouse]

I've made it very clear to the players in my campaign that a race (very much like your Turquoise) with -10 to all abilities but Int and Int +2 is LA +1.

I adamantly refuse to allow spellcasters the ultimate choice -- the intelligence (or Wis/Cha) they'd normally have to pay LA for *plus* the uninterrupted spellcasting of LA +0.

It would be terrible for campaign variety -- there would almost never be other races used as spellcasters, since the spellcasting stat is generally all the players care about.

Now I have a LA +1 race with Int +4, Cha +2 -- I'm not opposed to giving characters bonuses to their mental stats, I just don't want it to come free.

And yes, the MM grey elf and the FRCS sun elf have an Int bonus at LA 0. That's why I don't use MM LAs or play in Faerun.

 

[DarkMaster]

It would be terrible for campaign variety -- there would almost never be other races used as spellcasters, since the spellcasting stat is generally all the players care about.
.

Not true, what kind of power game are you playing. Give a class that has a +2 Int plus some other bonus and put a -2 or -4 Con or a (-2 Con, -2 dex) and you will see alot of player hesitate to take it for their wizard. Their wizard will be a slightly better spell caster but will always struggle to survive any encounter. (there are tons of other example)

Also going with the same logic, all barbarian and fighter would be half-orc. In my campaing one of the player choose to be a barbarian human because he wanted more skills and wanted a minimum of charisma.

 

[Thanee]

CRG, I don't know, but there are plenty benefits in playing a human, dwarven, gnome or halfling spellcaster as well.

The Int bonus (or Wis, Cha) is surely very powerful, however, especially considering how tough it is to get spell save DCs up.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Chacal]

Not true, what kind of power game are you playing. Give a class that has a +2 Int plus some other bonus and put a -2 or -4 Con or a (-2 Con, -2 dex) and you will see alot of player hesitate to take it for their wizard. Their wizard will be a slightly better spell caster but will always struggle to survive any encounter. (there are tons of other example)

This is true but (-4 Con) is the kind of balance that I'd tend to avoid (-2 Con, -2 Dex could be ok, but I'd prefer something that somewhat hurts their spellcasting, like a specialist's limitation). I don't like balancing a power with too much increased lethality. I doesn't go well with my style of play.

Also going with the same logic, all barbarian and fighter would be half-orc. In my campaing one of the player choose to be a barbarian human because he wanted more skills and wanted a minimum of charisma.

By choosing half orc, a PC loses some abilities that are relevant to his combat focus, like int prerequisites for feats, bonus feats or weapon familiarity.
The choice is less obvious than in the spellcaster's case, who relies on a single stat, and finds no bonus relevant to his spell "focus" in advantages from other races.


Chacal

 

[James McMurray]

CRG: Have you actually tried it? We've played quite a bit in FR with Sun Elves available as wizards and psions. My first wizard was a Sun Elf, and he did ok until the -2 Con killed him. When I made my psion I went human because -2 Con really hurts.

The Blue is a bit different though, as he has a lot more going for him than just +2 Int. For one thing, his penalties aren't in stats that wizards or psions care about (strength and charisma). Also, he gets all of the benefits of small size but still moves 30'. He also gets darkvision. I don't know if all of that equates to +1 LA or not, but it is more advantages than just +2 Int.

I personally think the idea that +2 Int is worth +1 LA is crap. 5% more creatures will fail your spell saves, and you'll get extra bonus spells. A dwarven fighter has more hit points to help him tank longer. A half-orc fighter has more strength to help him drop foes quicker. A halfling rogue has higher dex to aid his weapon finessed sneak attacks.

Every race except human has a class or two that it is better suited for. Spellcasters deserve the same consideration.

 

[Chacal]

Every race except human has a class or two that it is better suited for. Spellcasters deserve the same consideration.

The problem seems to lie in the reverse proposition :
When a class has a race which is better suited to.



Chacal