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

[frankthedm]

There is little need for a +2 mental stat race considering starting at a higher age does not even require DM consent. This also means any LA+0 race with a mental stat boost is a balance risk.

VITAL STATISTICS

AGE
You can choose or randomly generate your character’s age. If you choose it, it must be at least the minimum age for the character’s race and class (see Table: Random Starting Ages). Your character’s minimum starting age is the adulthood age of his or her race plus the number of dice indicated in the entry corresponding to the character’s race and class on Table: Random Starting Ages.
Alternatively, refer to Table: Random Starting Ages and roll dice to determine how old your character is.

Table: Random Starting Ages
Race Adulthood Barbarian
Rogue
Sorcerer Bard
Fighter
Paladin
Ranger Cleric
Druid
Monk
Wizard
Human 15 years +1d4 +1d6 +2d6
Dwarf 40 years +3d6 +5d6 +7d6
Elf 110 years +4d6 +6d6 +10d6
Gnome 40 years +4d6 +6d6 +9d6
Half-elf 20 years +1d6 +2d6 +3d6
Half-orc 14 years +1d4 +1d6 +2d6
Halfling 20 years +2d4 +3d6 +4d6

With age, a character’s physical ability scores decrease and his or her mental ability scores increase (see Table: Aging Effects). The effects of each aging step are cumulative. However, none of a character’s ability scores can be reduced below 1 in this way.
When a character reaches venerable age, secretly roll his or her maximum age, which is the number from the Venerable column on Table: Aging Effects plus the result of the dice roll indicated on the Maximum Age column on that table, and records the result, which the player does not know. A character who reaches his or her maximum age dies of old age at some time during the following year.
The maximum ages are for player characters. Most people in the world at large die from pestilence, accidents, infections, or violence before getting to venerable age.

Table: Aging Effects
Race Middle Age1 Old2 Venerable3 Maximum Age
Human 35 years 53 years 70 years +2d20 years
Dwarf 125 years 188 years 250 years +2d% years
Elf 175 years 263 years 350 years +4d% years
Gnome 100 years 150 years 200 years +3d% years
Half-elf 62 years 93 years 125 years +3d20 years
Halforc 30 years 45 years 60 years +2d10 years
Halfling 50 years 75 years 100 years +5d20 years
1 At middle age, –1 to Str, Dex, and Con; +1 to Int, Wis, and Cha.
2 At old age, –2 to Str, Dex, and Con; +1 to Int, Wis, and Cha.
3 At venerable age, –3 to Str, Dex, and Con; +1 to Int, Wis, and Cha.

-3, +2 for an old age mage might scare away some Timmys and twinks, but i find it worthwhile. Also helps explain why the 9th level NPC cleric is NOT going adventuring with the people he is raising.

 

[James McMurray]

Over at WotC';s psionics board an email from Bruce Cordell was posted wherein he stated that a balanced race with +2 int and +0 LA was entirely possible. The Blue's LA is because the +2 int coupled with all of his other bonuses (small size, high speed, psionic nature, etc.) makes the race too good for psions and wizards.

 

[Conaill]

I think +2 Int would be perfectly balanced against -4 Con or -2Con/-2Dex.

However, keep in mind that LA estimates for non-core races are slightly high *on purpose*. Because otherwise, too many players would want to play non-core races, which screws with the assumed demographics of your world.

So... if you want this +2 Int race to be a *core* race in your world, I don't see anything wrong with it. If you want them to be rather exceptional in your world, you may want to tack on an additional penalty on top of the -4 Con or -2Con/-2Dex.

 

[Zimri]

'Cmon, you know what I mean. They don't care about hit points, carrying capacity/melee attacks/ranged attacks/etc. when they're playing a caster.

If your casters don't care about hit points there is a definite problem somewhere.

Then again I am a melee that doesn't much care about strength. Get finesse or intuative strike and the same stat that affects my ac affects my attack bonus and I am pretty sure there is a feat out there somewhere that lets you use dex or wis for the damage portion as well.

So yeah Dex wis and con hmm same three that affect saving throws... go figure.

 

[Chacal]

There is little need for a +2 mental stat race considering starting at a higher age does not even require DM consent. This also means any LA+0 race with a mental stat boost is a balance risk.



-3, +2 for an old age mage might scare away some Timmys and twinks, but i find it worthwhile. Also helps explain why the 9th level NPC cleric is NOT going adventuring with the people he is raising.

The funny thing is also that the age use the dreaded odd stat adjustments.


Chacal

 

[James McMurray]

-3/+2 is scary. It means your AC is at least one lower, your hit points are at least 1 lower per die, your fort. and reflex saves (most spellcasters' achilles heels) are at least one lower. You have to spend more points or have odd rolls in order to avoid having these cause -2 instead of just -1.

As Zimri said, if your casters don't care about hit points (and I'll add in AC and saves) then there is something wrong.

 

[Chacal]

They are one and the same. Dual-wielding rogues are better suited to halflings. Tank fighters are better suited to dwarves.

First : Note that you had to restrict the class ("tank", "dual-weilding") to make the reverse proposition work.
I have no problem with races being better for a particular class sub-role. What I find problematic is when almost all the concepts associated with a class are better suited to a race. This either restricts variety and limits the options or "punish" the players who want to play different races.

This is why I look carefully at the stuff that's introduced in a campaign. If an option invalidate one or several other ones, then it's not an option, it's a disguised restriction.



Chacal

 

[James McMurray]

Ray-focused wizards are better suited to halflings. Self-buffing melee wizards/eldritch knights are better suited to dwarves. DC-focused wizards are better suited to Grey Elves. Wizards who want feat-intensive PrCs are better suited to humans.

Is that better?

 

[Chacal]

Ray-focused wizards are better suited to halflings. Self-buffing melee wizards/eldritch knights are better suited to dwarves. DC-focused wizards are better suited to Grey Elves. Wizards who want feat-intensive PrCs are better suited to humans.

Is that better?

Yes, and it doesn't annoy me at all because they're different stereotypes. What would annoy me is a more broad generalization (most class "x" stereotypes are better suited to one and only one race) that would throw us back in the realm of the dwarf, elf and halfling classes of basic D&D.


Chacal

 

[James McMurray]

Given those generalizations, do you feel that +2 int would be the default choice for all wizards?