Flavor Mish-mash and favored classes (what 4e got wrong)

[Aus_Snow]

I understand that it was a design goal. I also think it was a flawed goal.

I agree. In fact, I would go so far as to say, it was just plain dumb. IMO, etc., blah.

Happily, it is a dumb feature that is trivially easy to remove.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

My group ended up going with Con/Int for Tieflings, although we haven't figured out how to make the racial power into something we like yet.

I could totally see different stats for Male and Female Drow, but, on the other hand, I can also see that Dark Pact Warlock makes a lot more sense than the cleric class for Drow adventurers.

There was talk - in the DMG? -, however, of letting evil clerics use some other power source than radiant, which would do a lot to address the disconnect there.

I like dwarves as they are. The dwarf shaman really appeals to me - Stonespeakers for the win! - and they make really excellent fighters in terms of qualifying for completely bitchin feats.

 

[xechnao]

This problem is a double-edged sword. If the mechanics made every race the best choice for some archetype-role, I would suspect to see in most games choices that reflect this, especially in 4e that archetypes-roles are fairly important in the game, mechanics wise. Eventually this would come down to be as if the race-class approach of basic d&d was in play. But if they explicitly did something like that they would probably risk higher ranks of disfavor among the players of the previous 3.xe.

On a different note, some times I feel like I do not understand the fundamental appeal of the game about playing fantasy races as player characters. Wouldn't it be better if the fantasy races were limited as respect worthy NPCs game wise?

 

[Aus_Snow]

On a different note, some times I feel like I do not understand the fundamental appeal of the game about playing fantasy races as player characters. Wouldn't it be better if the fantasy races were limited as respect worthy NPCs game wise?

I know how you feel - or at least I think I do - regarding some kinds of D&D campaign. I suppose D&D, as a whole, has always fallen somewhere between say, Pendragon and the World of Darkness, in that way. However, IMO, in very recent times the balance has shifted more t'ward the latter. Mileage is, so I hear, variable.

 

[jasin]

Ehh, doesn't bother me at all, I think the Racial Ability Scores should make sense for the race and that is it.

Which is why goblins are more charistmatic than devas.

 

[RyvenCedrylle]

I didn't see this posted anywhere, so forgive me if I'm rehashing..

Consider that the devs know what iconic class/race combinations are and wrote the bonuses to specifically play against it. Given the ferocity of min-maxing in D&D ::raises hand:: if the Dwarf was built to play a fighter, you would probably see 90% dwarf fighters and only a smattering of other classes. By writing the stats against type, it encourages those of us who game primarily because we like math to try a wider variety of class/race combos.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

On a different note, some times I feel like I do not understand the fundamental appeal of the game about playing fantasy races as player characters. Wouldn't it be better if the fantasy races were limited as respect worthy NPCs game wise?

No because some people want very much to play something that isn't human.

 

[xechnao]

No because some people want very much to play something that isn't human.

I can understand the appeal for this but I find it only reasonable for something highly dramatic and thus almost definitely much shorter than an ever-going campaign that is supposed to get you from the beginning of your career to retirement.

Comic books for example or cinema films could do justice to this, but not a 1 to 30 level game.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

My group ended up going with Con/Int for Tieflings, although we haven't figured out how to make the racial power into something we like yet.

I'm thinking of going to Con/Int for tieflings as well. I like how it makes them good arcanists, but in a different way from Eladrin. I was also going to change their racial skill bonuses to Arcana and Intimidate. I'm thinking of leaving Infernal Wrath as is. It'll give some extra benefit to the tiefling who invests in Cha.

I could totally see different stats for Male and Female Drow, but, on the other hand, I can also see that Dark Pact Warlock makes a lot more sense than the cleric class for Drow adventurers.

Yeah, I think there is a difference between small "c" clerics and capital "C" Clerics. One is a setting thing, the other is a class. Ideally the setting matches up with the mechanics, but it doesn't always work out that way. I'm happy with drow priests being warlocks or something like that.

I like dwarves as they are. The dwarf shaman really appeals to me - Stonespeakers for the win! - and they make really excellent fighters in terms of qualifying for completely bitchin feats.

I agree. I don't understand the dwarf complaints. Dwarves have an innate connection with stone, so it seems reasonable to me that they would be able to wield primal power.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

I can understand the appeal for this but I find it only reasonable for something highly dramatic and thus almost definitely much shorter than an ever-going campaign that is supposed to get you from the beginning of your career to retirement.

That's because your equating the experience with drama, when another angle is contemplation of what the life of a different kind of creature would be like. You can contemplate both the nature of having a different kind of physiology and what that would do to a creature's psychology and even further into aspects such as their society. Contemplation of a self is not a short one-shot deal, it's the action of an entire lifetime and would fit perfectly well in a long campaign.

Plus some people are acutely aware of what it's like to be human and don't see a reason to bother pretending anything if they're just going to replicate the experience of their real life all over again.