Fighter to mage - the Str vs. Int/Cha trade-off is NOT equal

[fafhrd]

I think, generally, if you expect balance equations to balance exactly at all times, you expect too much of the system. That said, it is made with certain assumptions in mind... yes, that combat is an important activity is a central part of that assumption. This was not a mystery.

As a general principle, I agree that balance is hard to strike, especially in such an involved system. The strength trade off is odd though because the premise seems faulty after even a cursory examination. Strength isn't treated as any more valuble when using point buy or when adding points in for leveling. Same goes for stat boosting magic items excepting the odd gauntlet/belt issue.

I don't expect perfect balance, but with this obvious case sitting in designers faces it's perplexing that it made it in and then survived the 3.5 transition.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

Strength is a very common attribute. Argueably, it is the only one you use all the time because of encumberance.

That being said I don't think that STR == MENTAL ATRIBUTE * 2

STR == MENTAL ATRIBUTE * 1.5 seems more about right

However, if you use point buy, it's a pretty dumb idea to balance +2 STR with +2 INT and +1 CHA because odd stats are a powergamer's dream with point buy.

I solve the issue by giving half-orcs a couple of extra hit points. You may prefer to give them a +1 FORT save, extend their darksight, or give them the human bonus of +1 skill point per level. Your choice really.

All of the above being said: half-orc clerics are a BLAST to play! They put the "fun" back into "fundamentalism"!

 

[Elric]

Half orcs have penalties to both Cha and Int because each PC is not an island. It is not particularly important if your 1/2 Orc Barbarian has 8 or 10 Charisma, or 10 or 12 Int. Another character is going to be doing the talking in either case. Every character has to fight in combat, though, while situations that require each character to make separate diplomacy checks are rare.

Con is in fact the most highly bought attribute in the campaign I play in. Almost every single character buys a 14 Con (though as of yet none have bought any higher). Why? Each point of increased Con is less effective than the previous one. If your 5 HP/level Cleric with a 10 Con increases it to 12, his HP go up by 20%. If he increases it from 12-14, his HP go up by another 16.7%. However, if he wants to raise his Con to 16, it will cost him double in point buy (in terms of other scores) and this time only raises his HP by 14%. Probably not worth it. Strength, on the other hand, is a gift that (for a melee character) keeps on giving, especially when facing enemies with a high armor class (where +1 to hit makes a huge difference).

One more thing to understand is that in a party, having incredibly powerful defenses relative to your offense is not that good. Against smart enemeis, it just means that you get killed last. Hence, characters who already relatively tough compared to their offensive power (melee characters, who have more HP/higher AC than wizard-types) shouldn't be trying to make themselves invulnerable. That will just get their wizard friends killed.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

IMO some stats don't hurt much as a penalty, but kick butt as a bonus.

Strength is one of those - IMO a Strength penalty doesn't mean a lot for many classes, such as mages, but a bonus really kicks butt in the hands of a half-orc fighter.

Intelligence is another one of these - it doesn't mean much to a half-orc barbarian, but it's a huge penalty for a half-orc wizard.

 

[Li Shenron]

I've read the DMG and articles addressing the abilities balance issue -- how strength is slightly more important to a character so a racial boost must be balanced by a cut in two other non-physical abilities. Still doesn't make sense.

To a character that's not combat-oriented -- focusing on more of the social interactions of the game -- intelligence and charisma go hand in hand. A penalty to both is totally unbalanced if you're working up a character who just happens to have been born a half-orc (for example). Is the strength boost a true benefit to such a character? Not when he's losing a skill point AND is assigned a penalty to his charisma skills each level.

I agree that it would be more fair and more beautiful if a +2 was simply balanced with a -2.
If a race has total bonus not equal to total penalty, it should have something else to compensate (although the thing gets dizzy when bonuses are larger than +2).

Balancing a race with one or two classes only in mind, just has the effect of keeping players away from some combinations, which detracts from the game. It can be acceptable "for flavor" that a race only has fighters, but then I would prefer that such a race was not in the PHB.

If anything, the game design logic leading to the Str=Int+Cha equation (2 pt. = 2 + 2 elsewhere) subtly reveals the heart of D&D: It's a combat game, not a roleplaying game.

I came to that conclusion in another way... When the player of a non-combat-oriented PC protests that his PC can't do anything in the game, for everyone it's player's fault ("You shouldn't have chosen such a useless character!"). When the player of a combat-oriented PC protests that his PC can't do anything in the game, for everyone it's DM's fault ("How am I supposed to play if there are no battles?").

:\

 

[Al]

A penalty to both is totally unbalanced if you're working up a character who just happens to have been born a half-orc (for example).

Granted, but surely the point is that unless you have a very unorthodox method of character generation, you don't just "happen" to play a half-orc bard. You don't roll randomly for class, and nor for race, so choosing to be a half-orc with a reliance on Charisma and Intelligence is a conscious decision. If I created a race with a -2 penalty to every ability score, there would be little grounds for complaint, as virtually no one would play a character of that race. Similarly, if you don't feel that +2 Strength is worth -2 Int and Cha, then fine: don't play a half-orc. No-one is forcing you to play one. Half-orcs are designed to be melee brutes who care little for Intelligence and even less for Charisma. Choosing to play a half-orc bard and then whining about the penalties is totally illogical.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Con is in fact the most highly bought attribute in the campaign I play in. Almost every single character buys a 14 Con (though as of yet none have bought any higher). Why? Each point of increased Con is less effective than the previous one. If your 5 HP/level Cleric with a 10 Con increases it to 12, his HP go up by 20%. If he increases it from 12-14, his HP go up by another 16.7%. However, if he wants to raise his Con to 16, it will cost him double in point buy (in terms of other scores) and this time only raises his HP by 14%. Probably not worth it.

Be careful how you use percentages - the context out of which you calculate them can give you misleading results (as it has in your case).

I can take the situation you described and come up with a completely different set of percentages. For example: raising your Con from 10 to 12 gives you an increase of 1 hp/level. Increasing it to 14 now raises your Con bonus hp to 2 hp/level, an increase of 100%!!!! Increasing your Con to 16 now increases your original Con bonus hp by 200%!!!!1111one!1111

The reality is that increasing Con doesn't have diminishing returns when it comes to hp gain. Every 2 points of Con increases your hp by a constant amount (i.e. 1 hp/level).

 

[Darkness]

When the player of a non-combat-oriented PC protests that his PC can't do anything in the game, for everyone it's player's fault ("You shouldn't have chosen such a useless character!"). When the player of a combat-oriented PC protests that his PC can't do anything in the game, for everyone it's DM's fault ("How am I supposed to play if there are no battles?").

:\

Right, it's the DM's "fault" in both cases. You should always try to give all PCs something to do in the campaign or, if that's not possible, make it clear beforehand.
If you make it clear and the player still insists on playing such a focussed character, it's his fault, of course. (Note: I don't believe in banning character concepts outright unless they're too disruptive. YMMV.)

 

[Klaus]

I believe those percentages relate to the character's total hit points.

 

[Henry]

Devil's advocate: I long ago accepted the balance of STR vs. the other stats. STR is very useful, no matter what character you are.

For the person who above said strength is useless to a wizard? STR is never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever useless to ANY character. it negates an equally high DEX and CON (actually overrides the CON by .5), it enhances the encumbrance by anywhere from 3 to 16 lbs (enough for a week's rations, en extra weapon, a rope, extra loot, etc.) and it is probably the most-used stat in the game. Even characters who don't fight often use their strength at least once every other game, in my experience, for aiding another in unsticking a stuck door, if nothing else. While DEX and CON both have their advantages, STR edges each one of them out by a slight amount. Why else would the halfling get not only a DEX bonus for a STR penalty, but a fear bonus, a save bonus, a thrown weapons bonus, AND a jump and climb and move silently bonus? (I'm not counting the size mods because those are generic to all small creatures). A STR bonus or penalty is a big deal because it modifies so many things.

By comparison, a dex bonus gives you a bonus to init, to hit with ranged weapons, a reflex bonus, and an AC bonus. One could argue it is the equal of strength, but because it only negates DEX, it is still slightly under the effectiveness of an equivalent STR.

CON gives hit points and a fort bonus, but that's really it. if anything, CON seems to be the weakest of the three physicals. Sure, hit points is life, but not getting hit matters even more.

If one feels that a double mental score penalty is too much, then the best option is to work with a DM to find an acceptable penalty - as Torm says, maybe even use a different race's stats? After all, a half-orc without an INT and CHA penalty is NOT the typical half-orc. Maybe they weren't raised in as harsh an environment, and perhaps they don't get the STR bonus because their muscles have not developed as much?

To say it can be house-ruled to fit your game style is one thing, but to say it makes no sense and should be removed from the default rules entirely is another thing - and a statement I can't agree with.