Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Million Dollar TTRPG Crowdfunders
Most Anticipated Tabletop RPGs Of The Year
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Getting rid of ability bonuses/penalties for races
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="doctorhook" data-source="post: 4908451" data-attributes="member: 58401"><p>Yes, overall my houserule does make many characters (especially Humans) a little bit more powerful. However, the net effect should be that most characters are approximately as powerful as one another, regardless of whether or not the character is an archetypical race/class combination -- Dwarf Fighters become approximately as capable as Dwarf Psions, example. Thus, my houserule balances a whole bunch of "suboptimal" options by making everyone a little bit more powerful.</p><p></p><p>As for the specfic case of the Dwarf Fighter, remember that he's not getting that +2 Strength bonus for free; he trades away a +2 bonus to one of his secondary abilities for it. The trade might not be totally even -- Strength might be more useful than Wisdom, for example -- but I did admit that this houserule <em>does</em> make most characters a little bit stronger. Additionally, remember that even though this houserule makes Dwarves potentially even more attractive as Fighters, it also makes a lot of other races more attractive as Fighters as well. (The intention is that now a player can choose his character's race based upon what kind of character he wants to be and what racial power he wants to have, instead of getting hung up on the ability bonuses.)</p><p></p><p>It seems like it, but no, that's not really what it's about. The actual purpose of this houserule is to make "suboptimal" race-class combinations approximately as viable as the "optimal" ones. In a way, that's sort of like wanting to weaken stereotypes, but strengthening certain stereotypes isn't necessarily contrary to the the goal. For example, Drow Clerics and Kobold Sorcerers are good examples of stereotypical race-class combinations that aren't very "optimal" in 4E RAW, but which probably ought to be moreso. (Although the Kobold Sorcerer has an additional problem: he still sucks at Dragon Sorcery, which would otherwise be the most obvious thematic choice for him. Personally, I recommend some kind of Kobold racial feat to solve this, though I won't worry about it much until Kobolds get a PC race write-up.)</p><p></p><p>Basically, yep, that's the idea; Dwarves still make great Fighters (and now Clerics, Paladins, Warlocks, Druids, Barbarians, Psions, Invokers, Wizards, and probably a bunch of other classes too), but now most other races can also make great Fighters, too. You can pick your favorite racial power and not worry about stats anymore!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="doctorhook, post: 4908451, member: 58401"] Yes, overall my houserule does make many characters (especially Humans) a little bit more powerful. However, the net effect should be that most characters are approximately as powerful as one another, regardless of whether or not the character is an archetypical race/class combination -- Dwarf Fighters become approximately as capable as Dwarf Psions, example. Thus, my houserule balances a whole bunch of "suboptimal" options by making everyone a little bit more powerful. As for the specfic case of the Dwarf Fighter, remember that he's not getting that +2 Strength bonus for free; he trades away a +2 bonus to one of his secondary abilities for it. The trade might not be totally even -- Strength might be more useful than Wisdom, for example -- but I did admit that this houserule [I]does[/I] make most characters a little bit stronger. Additionally, remember that even though this houserule makes Dwarves potentially even more attractive as Fighters, it also makes a lot of other races more attractive as Fighters as well. (The intention is that now a player can choose his character's race based upon what kind of character he wants to be and what racial power he wants to have, instead of getting hung up on the ability bonuses.) It seems like it, but no, that's not really what it's about. The actual purpose of this houserule is to make "suboptimal" race-class combinations approximately as viable as the "optimal" ones. In a way, that's sort of like wanting to weaken stereotypes, but strengthening certain stereotypes isn't necessarily contrary to the the goal. For example, Drow Clerics and Kobold Sorcerers are good examples of stereotypical race-class combinations that aren't very "optimal" in 4E RAW, but which probably ought to be moreso. (Although the Kobold Sorcerer has an additional problem: he still sucks at Dragon Sorcery, which would otherwise be the most obvious thematic choice for him. Personally, I recommend some kind of Kobold racial feat to solve this, though I won't worry about it much until Kobolds get a PC race write-up.) Basically, yep, that's the idea; Dwarves still make great Fighters (and now Clerics, Paladins, Warlocks, Druids, Barbarians, Psions, Invokers, Wizards, and probably a bunch of other classes too), but now most other races can also make great Fighters, too. You can pick your favorite racial power and not worry about stats anymore! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Getting rid of ability bonuses/penalties for races
Top