In 3e, a halfling can be built who can power attack better -- hitting more often, and for more damage -- than a half-orc with the same weapon.
Not if both PCs have the same distribution of build points in their stats and choose the same class & feats...especially since the Halfling will have the smaller weapon.
Now, if they make DIFFERENT choices, sure. That's what the difference between Stats and Training (Feats, Classes, etc.) are about.
You blame the conflict between mechanics and flavor solely on mechanics. That's a bit one-sided, don't you think?
I'm not blaming the conflict solely on mechanics. I'm pointing out a particular kind of dissonance where the new mechanics don't reflect the fluff NOR the game history of the races in question; where the changes were done in the name of balance.
There are issues with 4Ed- AND other games- where the problem is the fluff- this isn't one of them.
And the reason WHY I chose 4Ed to illustrate this kind of point is because its the most recent game I've purchased that isn't HERO or a 3.5 or a variant thereof. It has nothing to do with 4Ed itself.
My half-orc Barbarian can outshine a human Barbarian on damage dealing, because +1d12 damage is nothing to sneeze at. It's not just his Str score: his racial ability encapsulates some of his brutal power.
And the racial abilities of Minotaurs reflect none of their brutal power- just their horns. And Goliaths' abilities don't reflect their strength, but their toughness.
That said, not all racial abilities are perfect, but that's not enough to tear down the system IMHO.
I'm not trying to tear down 4Ed!
We're in a thread where we're talking about "Bias against game balance." Some of us have said that we don't like it when balance is achieved at the expense of certain other elements.
This happens to be one of those elements.
...which one do you honestly think I meant?
I honestly couldn't tell.
When you actually go to measure your Str against someone else, you most often do so via a check that also shows your training in a skill, or your BAB, or your Fortitude bonus.
I can't say I agree, here. Most of the ways in which I see people measuring their Str is in pure competitions of Str- not combat. Bench presses, dead lifts, Caber tosses, sled pulls and the like.
Now, all of these involve learning some skills, like how to do the task with the proper form so you don't injure yourself, but most don't have true combat application.
Some more esoteric Str competitions DO involve a bit more...combat-centric ...training, like breaking or bending of things like ice, wood, or iron, but they're applying that training in unusual ways. The
Pumphreys are world-famous for their displays of breaking and bending techniques, but it would be a rare circumstance when they'd get the chance to actually USE those techniques to their fullest extent in combat- they take too much time.
In a sense, those techniques are almost like 4Ed Rituals...except that they involve the application of physical force, not the manipulation of magical energies.
Danny, you're right that the 4e system for racial stats is less simulationist than 3e's. I'm guessing the change was due to criticism of the LA system which had a major flaw - you couldn't play a creature of LA +X until level X+1. So a minotaur couldn't be played as a character until 3rd level. It's true that Savage Species fixed this but SS was itself very unbalanced imo, to a degree which I think most gamers would find unacceptable.
OTOH, a 2Ed Minotaur COULD be played at 1st level, even with its bonus that put it solidly into Giant-class strength...in a system that had no way to increase stats over time. They simply didn't have much of a future in gaining levels after a certain point. They may start off impressive, but they eventually conformed to the average...or less...as initial stats mattered less and class abilities mattered more.
FWIW, for 3.X, I tended to use AU/AE's take on racial classes/monster classes, which did a good job of correcting SS's mistakes.
4Ed made a design decision- instead of balance over time for races with traditionally high stat mods, they opted for contemporaneous balance.
So what you're really looking at here is a choice between systems with different flaws.
No, I'm just pointing out an example of sacrificing flavor and evocative mechanics in favor of balance which just happens to exist in 4Ed.
I mean, I could use other systems to do so, but given the nature of this site, I'd probably have to do a LOT of quoting of rules to illustrate the point- with D&D, most people here are going to know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.
one could argue that the 4e approach is more true to D&D's history. 3e is something of an aberration, as the most simulationist edition of the game. Though every edition is an aberration in some respects.
I disagree.
With varied class XP/advancement charts and other mechanics, 1Ed and 2Ed functionally embraced the the model of balance over time. Low level Warrior types ruled, but after a certain point, it was all about the spellcasters.
3Ed/3.5Ed was similar in this, but unified the XP/advancement charts and attempted to expand the "sweet spot"- but ultimately, how much you think it succeeded depends upon your experiences.
4Ed is easily the most balanced version of the game that has ever existed. At each given level, the designers took great pains to ensure that no class outshines the others. The concept of "balance over time" has been completely ditched.
