Excerpt: Racial Benefits

[abyssaldeath]

Are we paying for the books? Then of course we can look at this issue from our perspective.

WotC undoubtedly has to try and find a balance due to a number of factors, some of which you mentioned. But the necessity of a balance and the number of those factors doesn't somehow invalidate the perspectives of large chunks of people buying the books.

Seems I left out a very important word from that sentence.

I would say most of us in this thread are veterans of PnP RPG's and as such the background fluff isn't nessasarily useful to us. Unfortunitly, we can't really look at this issue from our perspective alone when it comes to the core books for the reason I have given above.

We need to at least think about the needs of the new commers because without them our hobbie won't survive. That being said I wish that would refrain from naming powers, feats and anything that will be cross campain world abilites after things in the base setting. Who the hell is Tenser and why do I want to transform into him?

Disclaimer: I know who Tenser is and what the spell does.

 

[Jhaelen]

... so! Who else here is banning halflings?

I think, I'm going to ban humans and half-elves, as well. Since I never liked elves, I'll also ban them and Eladrin. It goes without saying that abominations like the dragonborn and tieflings will never make an appearance in my game.

 

[Ahglock]

Seriously? You people worry about an implied setting? Seriously?
This is your problem? That WotC gives you suggestions for the flavor text of your game, that you are under no compunction to accept whatsoever?
Good gravy.

It sort of depends on how much is there. I am not really worried, but if there is so much that we could of had the Druid in the core book instead I am a bit irritated. Mechanics without fluff usually bring much more inspiration to me than stuff with fluff. Yes I do not have to use it but it feels like a straitjacket to me.

 

[Ahglock]

Wait--so because humans aren't at least as good as every race at every class, they're getting short-changed? Sure, dragonborn is a natural choice for paladin or warlord, because they both need Str and Cha. It's probably a decent choice for rogue, depending on how the various Brawny/Trickster powers are designed, because both Str and Cha are secondary for them (although I think +2 Dex vs. +2 Str and +2 Cha is a toss-up). Similarly, halflings have a huge advantage in being Trickster rogues, elves in being Archery rangers, and so on. And yes, if you're a power optimizer, those are going to be tempting choices, just like gray elf is an absurdly popular choice for wizards.

But because humans get a +1 to all defenses, the loss of a second +2 means that unless you're comparing them with a race that gets perfect synergy with the class in question, they're just as viable stat-wise. Perhaps more so--for instance, an elf Trickster rogue gets a ton of mileage from the +2 Dex, but the +2 Wis is almost useless to them because their Cha is going to be higher. Meanwhile, you're comparing the human's +1 Fort and Will, extra feat and skill, and extra at-will power to the elf's +1 speed, skill bonuses, bow proficiency, and Wild Step. I think that's an even comparison at least.

Wait because I am concerned that the choice in race might always be not human I think there could be a problem. I really don't know yet, and neither do you since we have not seen everything. But stats are a very powerful part of a game and having uneven ones makes it harder to balance. They may have even gone the other direction and given humans to many perks to make up for it. I do not know, but the issue is still the same the more different the benefits the harder it is to balance. When you have to come up with quirky benefits to help the human make up for lost attribute points it is harder to balance.

 

[Andor]

We need to at least think about the needs of the new commers because without them our hobbie won't survive. That being said I wish that would refrain from naming powers, feats and anything that will be cross campain world abilites after things in the base setting. Who the hell is Tenser and why do I want to transform into him?

Disclaimer: I know who Tenser is and what the spell does.

So... I kind of put implied setting in three categories.

1. Unimportant. This is of course the type that ENWorld cares about the most. Stuff like the name of deities. If you're going to have special abilities for priests who worship different types of gods, then you pretty much need a default name for that god. The game would be kind of obnoxious if each god was labeled in the PHB as "Deity of Valor- check with your DM for this deity's name." So a name gets slapped on. Easiest thing in the world to change, and honestly doesn't matter if you don't change it.

Cadfan speaks truth. :\

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Quick question:

If a power is blast 3, doesn't that encompass significantly more than 9 squares? I may be reading the DDM rules wrongly, but I thought that a blast 1 hits 9 squares, blast 2 hits 16, and blast 3 hits 27 squares. Have I missed a definition? Perhaps in 4E it refers to the number of squares on a side?

 

[Spatula]

You know, it's funny. Yesterday I went to a used bookstore and was thumbing through the Monsternomicon. It's an Iron Kingdoms monster book. And a lot of the monsters were pretty typical from a mechanical point of view - improved grab, minor spell-likes, yawn.

But what really made the book just pop was that the information about the monster itself was told from the first-person perspective of a monster hunter/adventurer. He told anecdotes. As I was flipping through, I got irritated because I wanted the monster info without skimming the blather, but when I sat down to read the blather, it was really good and it made the otherwise hum-drum monsters really enticing. Each monster fit.

In addition, most of the monsters had a section called "Legends & Lore" which was just common to rare things told about them. There was some real Gold in there, like "Trapperkin abhore a mother's love; if a mother or a pregnant woman hugs a trapperkin, it will wither and die."

I even saw a monster entry and it made me say, "WHen I run a home brew game, this will be in there" because it just got my juices going.

The funny thing is, some (if not most) of the ardent 4ers who argue for a strong implied setting (inspiring! easy to ignore if you like!) are also arguing for monsters that are nothing more than mechanics (monster fluff limits my creativity! it can't be ignored!). And vice versa with the 4e nay-sayers: we don't want an implied setting, we want a toolbox! ...and monsters that are full of implied setting-ness!

I think your example of the Monsternomicom (a book that was widely praised here when it came out) shows how story elements (fluff) can breathe life into tired numbers. The problem is the quality of such is highly subjective and not everyone will like it. I personally dislike just about every setting-change made in 4e that's been revealed to-date, aside from moving away from the Great Wheel and the introduction of a fey realm as a core element. But that doesn't matter so much because the story elements are easy to ignore and change, and even stories that you don't like can give you new ideas for creating the stories that you do like.

Since none of us can say authortatively the effects of a strong or weak implied setting on the players, it's all a bit pointless to argue about. It will inspire! It'll just get in the way! Well, both are probably true for different people, but there's nothing that to be done about it now. And if it inspires someone, it was probably worth it. Besides, no book is going to be 100% tailored to your tastes.

 

[Cadfan]

The funny thing is, some (if not most) of the ardent 4ers who argue for a strong implied setting (inspiring! easy to ignore if you like!) are also arguing for monsters that are nothing more than mechanics (monster fluff limits my creativity! it can't be ignored!). And vice versa with the 4e nay-sayers: we don't want an implied setting, we want a toolbox! ...and monsters that are full of implied setting-ness!

At least on the side of the 4e fans, I can say that this is not a contradiction.

Implied settings can be a good thing. And to a certain extent, they are a necessary thing if you want your game to be anything other than a dry wasteland of generitude. That's mostly where I am- feat names like Power of Amanautor are a necessary thing because its a ton better than "Power of the Sun Deity. I mean, wait, that implies there IS a sun deity. Uh... Solar Power?"

But you know what's a bad thing? Crap in your rulebook that you cannot use. That's why feats like the overland movement feat are lame. That's why monsters don't need "cooking +15" in their statblock. Crunch for fluff that isn't usable in game is a bad, bad thing.

 

[frankthedm]

Quick question:

If a power is blast 3, doesn't that encompass significantly more than 9 squares? I may be reading the DDM rules wrongly, but I thought that a blast 1 hits 9 squares, blast 2 hits 16, and blast 3 hits 27 squares. Have I missed a definition? Perhaps in 4E it refers to the number of squares on a side?

Burst and blasts are easy to mix up. Blasts are the replacement for cones. They are measured by how many squares across they are. They have to be touching the originator with at least one edge or coner.

Bursts are radius based. A Close burst radiates from the originater, like it was blowing up. Ranged bursts are a number of squares around a central targeted square.

 

[Sojorn]

... so! Who else here is banning halflings?

My last D&D DM (about 5 years ago) did.

Because they didn't play well with others. I think he was using the Dark Sun model for them.