Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Estlor" data-source="post: 5827042" data-attributes="member: 7261">I'm a fan of making races count so a dwarf feels different than a human or an elf or a halfling.&nbsp; I'm not in favor of that being tied to ability scores, which it often seems it strongly is.I like 4e's attempt, but I think the underlying math of the system makes the bonuses too valuable.&nbsp; Playing a dwarf with a bonus to Strength will always be inherently more optimal as a Fighter than, say, playing an elf or a tiefling.&nbsp; And heaven forbid if you don't allocate at least a 16 to Strength for that elf/tiefling fighter or else your ability to hit will fall progressively behind the assumed curve.Here's an example of what I mean, using 4e as the base since that's the version of D&amp;D I've had the most contact with of late.My extensive houseruling of 4e would choose a single, static ability modifier that a race has and then give it a +2 to an ability score of it's choice, thus ensuring they always get a bonus to the primary stat of a class.&nbsp; (Yes, I realize that dilutes the benefit of human, but I am of the mindset that the +1 to your NADs is more than enough to offset this.)In place of the ability score differentiation, I'd chop out most of the class utilities and expand the skill and racial utility powers so most of your choices come from those buckets.&nbsp; This means an elf is always going to feel a little different from a dwarf because a good 2 or 3 of their powers will be unique and distinctly &quot;elven&quot; in nature.&nbsp; This also gives the player the ability to decide how much they want their race to impact how their PC plays.Of course, in the scope of 4e, how effective this works is dependent on the presence of competitive racial utility power choices.&nbsp; But then again, I've always been in favor of sharing powers by role or power source instead of having lots of duplicate powers with different names.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Estlor, post: 5827042, member: 7261"] I'm a fan of making races count so a dwarf feels different than a human or an elf or a halfling. I'm not in favor of that being tied to ability scores, which it often seems it strongly is. I like 4e's attempt, but I think the underlying math of the system makes the bonuses too valuable. Playing a dwarf with a bonus to Strength will always be inherently more optimal as a Fighter than, say, playing an elf or a tiefling. And heaven forbid if you don't allocate at least a 16 to Strength for that elf/tiefling fighter or else your ability to hit will fall progressively behind the assumed curve. Here's an example of what I mean, using 4e as the base since that's the version of D&D I've had the most contact with of late. My extensive houseruling of 4e would choose a single, static ability modifier that a race has and then give it a +2 to an ability score of it's choice, thus ensuring they always get a bonus to the primary stat of a class. (Yes, I realize that dilutes the benefit of human, but I am of the mindset that the +1 to your NADs is more than enough to offset this.) In place of the ability score differentiation, I'd chop out most of the class utilities and expand the skill and racial utility powers so most of your choices come from those buckets. This means an elf is always going to feel a little different from a dwarf because a good 2 or 3 of their powers will be unique and distinctly "elven" in nature. This also gives the player the ability to decide how much they want their race to impact how their PC plays. Of course, in the scope of 4e, how effective this works is dependent on the presence of competitive racial utility power choices. But then again, I've always been in favor of sharing powers by role or power source instead of having lots of duplicate powers with different names. [/QUOTE]

Verification