D&D 5E Cracking 5th Edition Article

[Sacrosanct]

There is non-optional stuff in the PHB?

Yes. Appendix E

 

[Quartz]

Humans do get severely gimped at the start if you're using point buy. Consider that to get two stats of 16, most demi-humans have to buy a 14 and a 15 - some races need only buy two 14s - but a human has to buy two 15s - a 3 or 6 point difference. It also means you do best by choosing the race to fit the class. And demi-humans get cool and useful racial abilities like darkvision.

I'd suggest doing away with racial stat bonuses completely; instead, give demi-humans one feat and humans two or three.

 

[fireinthedust]

Hiya!

I read most of it, up until you started going on about Feats. IMHO, taking Feats into consideration as a "base line" is akin to saying "Looking at races, we need to consider players going into town to buy any specific magic item to give their character an edge". The concept of "buying magic items" is firmly in the hands of the DM and is not assumed...kinda like Feats. Obviously (or probably?) you aren't going to be looking at characters with Gloves of Thievery, Gauntlets of Ogre power, Ring of Flying, Cloak of Invisibility, etc.

So, IMHO, you shouldn't be considering Feats, Multiclassing or any other "optional" things as the baseline. Once you've looked at the game from the "true" baseline (pretty much the Basic Rules; so no Barbarians, Bards, Drow, etc) and have that down...then you can go into the non-Optional stuff in the PHB. And then you can go and add in the effects that using Feats may have, or allowing Multiclassing, or what effects certain 'powerful/versatile' magic items may have, etc.

Jumping straight into using Feats (and, I'm going to assume Multiclassing) destroys any sort of "objective balance theorizing" because you are starting with a tainted sample.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

I think you're mistaking what the Feats do:

1) They replace the Ability Score Increase in character class levels. This means they have an approximate value equal to an ability score increase of +2, or of +1/+1.

2) Because of this, I suggest they offer a direct window into the value of the bonuses WITHIN the feats, such as armor and weapon proficiencies, languages, advantage on a kind of roll, resistance to a type of damage, etc.

3) By comparing the list of traits WITHIN each feat, and comparing probable values of that kind of trait across many feats, I believe it gives insight into what the WOTC designers (not me) consider to be the value of a given trait.

4) By looking at the races, which are like Feats in that they are pre-packaged bunches of Traits, I deconstruct them to get the approximate value piled into each race. In most cases it was 36mp, with a few 42mp (elves, etc.).

All of this comes from Feats, looking at the edition as a whole, NOT the mini-package they released as a teaser after developing everything.

 

[guachi]

Someone has already gone to the trouble to analyze the point costs of races and their features.

 

[Mistwell]

Someone has already gone to the trouble to analyze the point costs of races and their features.

Do you have a link to this mysterious someone so we can compare it to Fireinthedust's work?

 

[fireinthedust]

Do you have a link to this mysterious someone so we can compare it to Fireinthedust's work?

Yes please! Honestly, I went looking when this grit got into my mind, and couldn't find anyone else's work on the subject. Much appreciated if you can find it!

 

[fireinthedust]

Whipped these up for fun... very, very nerdy, obscure, nerdy fun.


Apologies... heh.





Also:

 

[fireinthedust]

Someone spotted that I hadn't included Aasimar: fixed in comments!

 

[Treantmonklvl20]

I hear this, and I think you're forgetting the difference between strategic value vs construction value.

This is the main takeaway I had from your article. If we are going to give a +1 to every ability score 36 mp (I love "Mearls" points by the way, very cool) and we are going to give two +1's in the location of the player's choice 12 mp, then right away this system does not work for evaluating the power levels of races.

That's fine if determining the relative power level of races is not your goal, but you seem to make conclusions on power level based on your points totals. I can't agree with the conclusions you make.

For example, you finish your introduction with:

Also I’m a designer, and if I want to see if I can convince DMs to let me play a given new class, race, or whatever, without them worrying that they’re too powerful or crazy. Well, powerful (yeah, yeah…)

...but power-level is exactly what the point system you create doesn't address, because that is based on the strategic use of the abilities gained. Simple admission that +6 to one stat is game-breaking but only worth the same as a standard human demonstrates where the problem lies.

According to your system, you could create a race with +2 to the ability score of your choice and 2 feats. This race would have 36 mp total (lower than most of the races in the PHB, the same as the standard human) but would likely be overshadowing all the other races in actual gameplay. The reason for this is exactly as Mistwell pointed out, every +1 is not equal to every other +1. Some abilities are more for flavor than power and vise-versa. Throw the points into places where there is strategic value and you've got a problem.

There is also some other point values I found strange. For example, elven weapons is worth 6 mp and a cantrip of your choice is worth 4 mp. Do you think that the racial weapons is worth more than a cantrip of your choice? I think the build is rare where this would be the case. Dwarven weapon proficiency likewise 6mp. You valued Light and Medium armor proficiency the same, though I think few would agree they have equal value.

As for the homebrew Eberron races below the racial breakdown, I would say that none of them looked too powerful as far as I was concerned.

 

[SteveC]

"with over $700 Million in sales within the first month and weeks on the bestseller lists of all the major online vendors."

That's incredible, I didn't know the sales were so high.


Agree on dwarves, they are excellent in every edition.

I would definitely need to have a source for that. Even if we're talking full $50 retail, that's 14 million books. If this were Wikipedia, that would be "citation needed."