balanced or not?

[Aust Diamondew]

I think w/o the -2 con elves are strong +0 LA, like dwarves.

Elves get:
+2 Dex, lowlight vision, +2 spot/search/listen, detect secret doors, and +2 vs enchantment
oh and the weapon proficiencies which, aren't that great even at low levels.
You could still make a case for dwarves being stronger than elves w/o -2 con, which might mean dwarves are just too good.

I prefer to give elves +2 charisma myself instead of removing the con penalty. I still don't see many elf characters in my games though.

 

[delericho]

I agree with others - removing the Con penalty would make them a bit too good to be +0, but not good enough to be +1.

At present, I rate the Core races as follows:

Dwarves
Elves and Humans
Gnomes and Halflings
Half-elves
Half-orcs

(The Half-elves might place higher than Gnomes and Halflings... but they seem never to be played.)

Warforged, FWIW place slightly higher than Dwarves.

Making this change would adjust the order as follows:

Dwarves
Elves
Humans
Gnomes and Halflings
Half-elves
Half-orcs

So, what I think is actually needed is to weaken Dwarves a tad (changing the -2 Cha to -2 Dex and removing the attack bonus against Orcs and/or the AC bonu vs Giants would be a good way to do it, I think), to toughen up Gnomes and Halflings similarly (for Gnomes switching to -2 Wis instead of -2 Str, and for Halflings removing all stat modifiers might do it), and to completely overhaul Half-elves and Half-orcs.

Edit: I'm also inclined to think that races in general are too detailed and too fiddly. Dwarves get, what, a dozen or so raial features, and elves a similar number? Furthermore, most of these become redundant after a few levels. So, I say that races should have one or two 'big' features (like an extra feat and an extra skill point per level) that really set them apart, and that ideally remain beneficial over the course of a campaign.

 

[Warbringer]

As stated between +1/+0 without -2 Con

I'd balance with a free feat - either weapon (focus, point blank, finess) or spell (focus), then +1

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

At present, I rate the Core races as follows:

Dwarves
Elves and Humans
Gnomes and Halflings
Half-elves
Half-orcs

(The Half-elves might place higher than Gnomes and Halflings... but they seem never to be played.)

Gnomes and halflings below elves? Seriously? I consider both competitive with humans and not *hugely* behind dwarves, and leagues ahead of elves (honestly, I'm inclined to rank half-elves above elves, since while they get very little, they don't lose a TON due to having a penalty to the most important stat).

Gnomes simply by virtue of having Con +2 are above the curve. Str is virtually useless for most powerful characters, so it's not much of an issue. Same with weapon damage; the only time it becomes relevant is if you use stacking weapon size increases for a medium character, which can get you truly devastating Huge or Gargantuan weapons; the difference between Small and Medium (and Medium and Large) is too small to be relevant. The only real knock on gnomes is their reduced speed, but that only comes into play if you have to retreat - and Small PCs can take mounts into dungeons until the levels where retreat becomes a matter of spellcasting or failure.

Halflings get the second-best stat (Dex) and a penalty to one of the worst (Str), and they get a BONUS TO ALL SAVES. Not as good as the Dwarven +2 to essentially all saves, but still very good, especially coupled with being very hard to hit (small and with a Dex bonus). Nothing much else of worth, admittedly. They have the same movement penalty/mount bonus as gnomes.

 

[Destil]

Gnomes and halflings below elves? Seriously? I consider both competitive with humans and not *hugely* behind dwarves, and leagues ahead of elves ...

You forgot +1 AC, +4 hide and +1 to ranged attack (+2 to +3 for halflings, depending on the weapon).

You can hide any penalty EXCEPT Con with the proper class/race/feat/spell/equipment choices. That said Dex is pretty nice as well, so I think their all and all an okay race.

 

[Drowbane]

3.5 Elves, as written are fairly craptastic. Or humans and dwarves are just too damn good.

I'm in the "power creep up the crappy races to match" boat.

 

[megamania]

Feh, I misread that and voted yes.

Ditto.

 

[Nifft]

I'm with MoogleEmpMog regarding Gnomes & Halflings. Both make excellent Wizards, Druids or Clerics (though Gnomes are slightly better as Wizards, if they don't specialize and bar themselves from using Illusion spells).

A Druid's damage output at low levels is directly related to his choice of Animal Companion, not his weapon size.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Meeki]

In my campaigns I usually give elves some in game benefits, such as a larger list of contacts due to the expanded life span. Depending on the cultures of elves that exist in your world you could offer elven players some in game rewards. In the current game I am running elves have access to more ancient knowledges and crafts than that of other races. If you ever need to find out where an item is, a race such as elves, would be a good place to start, again since the expanded life span there are probably more higher level npcs than with other races. Dwarves also live long however in most campaigns they are secluded in mountains or what not, definitely not the wanderlust race generic elves are.

Mechanically I change nothing but I do make my PC's worry about sleeping hours and ability to see in unfavorable conditions, non-wizard elves are great for keeping watch.

 

[fusangite]

I've been away from ENWorld for a while but how long has it been like this? Is there always some kind of new thread about elves being too weak? Or did I just come back at a strange time?