Drow - good for anything?

[bestone]

Drow? Wizard + Sorcerer + ultimate magus (thats the one where you get +! sorc/wiz casting increase/lev right? from complete mage, i might be wrong, but that class)

= good

with both the bonuses to int and cha, if you had good base stats in each, once your mid level you'll have more spells than you know what to do with


Besides, im gonna agree with the opinion that YES drow are good for something, being drow, what else? a orc or gnome arent good at being a drow, even with some black face paint and white hair dye

why do you have to play something that is superior to something else?, wizards might aswell compile a book of the best builds for each class, and best race suited for it, and publish it, so we can all just be the same thing.

I've played a drow, and it wasnt because of any inclination/want to be more powerfull than anything else, it was because i wanted to be an evil bastard.....thats how it should be

 

[Seeten]

Thats great. Well, I feel silly, I never thought that it was a roleplaying game, so we should expect game designers to design balanced races, because every race is best at being what it is.

This insight has humbled me.

 

[Victim]

Drow? Wizard + Sorcerer + ultimate magus (thats the one where you get +! sorc/wiz casting increase/lev right? from complete mage, i might be wrong, but that class)

= good

with both the bonuses to int and cha, if you had good base stats in each, once your mid level you'll have more spells than you know what to do with

Yeah, sure. The marginal bonus of each casting stat for spells per day is three at best (and only for characters capable of casting 9th level spells - ie, not a drow ultimate magus), so the extra caster levels the character would have would provide more spells per day. A drow ultimate magus will have plenty of spell slots, but not by "virtue" of being a drow.

And compounding the ultimate magus's lack of high level spells with a level adjustment race doesn't seem like a recipe for success.

 

[Seeten]

Yeah, sure. The marginal bonus of each casting stat for spells per day is three at best (and only for characters capable of casting 9th level spells - ie, not a drow ultimate magus), so the extra caster levels the character would have would provide more spells per day. A drow ultimate magus will have plenty of spell slots, but not by "virtue" of being a drow.

And compounding the ultimate magus's lack of high level spells with a level adjustment race doesn't seem like a recipe for success.

What do you mean? A Drow Ultimate Magus excels at being a Drow Ultimate Magus, as Bestone said. How can you possibly have a better Drow Ultimate Magus?

 

[Felix]

bestone, welcome to the boards.

As I'm sure you'll find out, ENWorld can be very welcoming and is a warm community of DnD players. The Rules board, however, does have it's share of ... competitive spirit. I wish you well, and as someone who has posted here for years, I can honestly say you will find a home here.

What do you mean? A Drow Ultimate Magus excels at being a Drow Ultimate Magus, as Bestone said. How can you possibly have a better Drow Ultimate Magus?

Speaking for myself, I understood that you disagreed with bestone when you said, in a manner which could be taken as something other than complete sincerity, "This insight has humbled me".

Would you care to join me in welcoming bestone, considering how he's new to the boards?

 

[bestone]

thanks felix

 

[WarlockLord]

Oh, hey, bestone. Welcome to ENWorld. Interesting idea, but it doesn't work out.

What do you think of the racial feats I posted above? (from Dragon Mags). I think they're kinda weak. Disease Bolt is not as good as a reserve feat, Carrying Capacity is odd (get a Heward's Haversack! Don't waste a feat!), Disease Shield would be neat if it had a longer duration, I have no idea if RD is supposed to be HD (I got these from internet browsing), and maybe the Damage Mastery thing would be better if there were better drow feats (or maybe Highborn Drow, Daylight Adaption, and Improved Levitation count). Actually, you could take extend supernatural ability from Tome of Magic for disease shield... I don't know...tell me what you think...

 

[Votan]

Yep and very difficult and challanging. However, were the benefits worth being 2 HD behind, no. That doesn't mean that it wasn't fun for a while.

Fun is, admittedly, a strong argument. However, the last part of your quote says it all: being 2 HD behind isn't worth it.

What is ironic, is that the Drow can be useful at high levels (the levels that we see them in novels and adventures) but are nearly hopelessly weak at low levels.

I like to consider a game at level 3 (levels 1 and 2 being a mite problematic). This would be the moment that a Drow was maximally disadvantaged -- and boy are they! I know of no class that can survive being 1st level with these attributes.

But part of it is that Drow are designed to be wizards and clerics; the game heavily penalizes large LA for these classes. Given this, I'd be very tempted to make them strong +1 LA. The only element that is dangerous is the SR -- this can matter a lot in some games but very little in others. In fact, I might propose it is a lot of the reason for disagreement. If spells that are affected by SR are rare challenges then the Drow (already a weak +2 LA choice given that the Asimar exists) is really gimped.

If fireballs fly frequently and often (and people do not metagame "It's a Drow, it has SR") then the SR might make the Drow seem approximately LA +2 (although the Monk does it better).

But I incline towards the rules, as written and applied to iconic Drow, are a bit on the weak side compared to other LA choices.

 

[kaomera]

I never enter any balance discussions with the understanding that "I can just rule 0 it" I can, and HAVE rebalanced Drow in my campaign, I've rebalanced a lot of things, but that doesnt mean we cant discuss whether the original design is balanced.

I can understand this. However, so far the discussion seems to be one side saying "The drow are hampered so much by their disadvantages that they are not a viable choice as a race." and the other side saying "The disadvantages of the drow warrant the disadvantages they have been saddled with.". Both sides are looking at the same set of rules, there's no real confusion in that respect. However, what one side thinks is obvious and unarguable the other simply does not agree with.

Myself I'm fine with drow the way they are. Two of my players are currently playing drow and they certainly seem to be having fun with their characters. Things went extremely rough on them when they where ECL 3, but I'm fine with that and they've continued playing the characters so I assume that they are too. I don't expect that my or their experiences are going to automatically reflect what others will get out of the same rules; IMHO the whole point of D&D (or any RPG) is to take it and make it yours. However this experience (in part) leads me to feel that the best recourse for those who don't like the way the drow is balanced is to either re-balance it with house rules (or third-party products; both Goodman Games and Green Ronin have products out that might be of use, although I do not own them and therefore can't comment on any specifics) or else to simply not use the race. I simply don't see any other constructive options, myself. (Doesn't mean I'm right, just that I don't see them.)

I don't think "is this balanced" really comes out as much of a rules discussion, as such. Both sides are working from the same rules, they just see the repercussions of those rules reflected differently in their games. Making statements that are (or get construed as) absolute about this sort of things just seems to end up with people getting hot under the collar.

 

[bestone]

once you've reached epic level, say a 22 human mage, and a 20 drow mage, wouldnt it start to equal out slightly, as once epic you dont get anymore spell slots? *correct me if im wrong, which i could very well be*