New Race for critique

[jayaint]

Stoic Racial Traits

+2 WIS, +2 CHA, -2 STR, -2 INT: Stoics are quiet and contemplative, with generations upon generations striving for enlightenment. They are plain-spoken and honest, and trusted as mediators in almost any scenario for their foresight. Long periods of meditation, however, have sapped their bodily strength. Their culture is an oral one, and they maintain their heritage without the written word, or books of any kind, mistrusting the written word. All Stoic characters begin as Illiterate, no matter which player-class they choose.

Medium sized: They are usually tall and gaunt, with long limbs and smooth, pale skin. Both genders are hairless, and given their proclivity to wear monastic robes, hard to tell apart.

Speed: 30 ft.

Stoic characters gain a +2 on Diplomacy and Sense Motive checks. Their insight of the inner workings of a being help them understand motives and relationships.

Stoic characters receive a +2 morale bonus to saving throws vs. Fear. Their ponderous nature and calm visage keep the Stoics free from panic.

Weapon Restriction: Stoics eschew the use of any bladed weapon, favoring only blunt, handheld weapons. The race will normally try to subdue opponents first, feeling that killing is counter-productive to enlightenment. At any honest threat to their life or their region will awaken a long martial tradition, however.

Alignment: Almost always lawful, and just as rarely evil. But beware the Neutral Evil Stoic.

Languages, Automatic: Common Bonus: Any regional.

Favored Class: Monk

Naming: Short, thick sounding names, with few vowels, replacing Y for most. No noticable difference between genders. Examples: Xyth, Pyrn, Thrys, Alyll

Level adjustment: +0


Just looking for some input, before I take it to the DM as a possibility. Asked in a DnD Rules thread about a +2 WIS race with no LA... and it turned into quite a goose chase. So... make your own, right?

Thanks for checking it out.

 

[Piratecat]

I'm not sure I understand the weapon restriction. It sounds like a roleplaying limitation instead of a mechanical one, and that's usually a no-no in 3e design.

I'd be hesitant to add a race into my game that has stat bonuses to the spellcasting attribures. I think I'd possibly accept it if I axed the +2 to to charisma, but kept the other penalties. (I might be overly harsh in this regard.)

 

[Rhun]

I personally wouldn't have problem allowing a race like this into my game, but I think a lot of people here will have a problem with a race that seems to be custom built for the Cleric class. Going strictly by numbers, though, the character is balanced fairly well. Maybe a bit on the weak side if you are a subscriber to the "Strength is more valuable than other stats" philosophy.

 

[jayaint]

Pirate- Basically it is just a "blunt weapons only" restriction much like the old cleric used to be, the rest is just flavor text. They are not subject to Non-violence any more than any other race or class. Maybe some italics or something would clarify, hehe.
And thanks for the input on the +'s. I look at the aasimar that gets two +2's and no minuses as well as other minor abilites at a +1 LA, and figure that with the Stoic's illiteracy, and the skill point loss, they would not be OVERLY powerful at +0, and they would be WEAK at +1.

Rhun- As long as the race is balanced, I don't think it should cause too many problems. (which you said you thought it was ok, in that regard) I mean, Elves make the archer "type" character powerful, too, right? lol

Thanks for the help. As always... EN is my editing staff.

 

[domino]

I don't know how I like the illiteracy part. It makes sense for barbarians, and maybe some classes.

But if you can't read, how do you get a Stoic Wizard, for example?

Or what are they contemplating without books to record other people's thoughts? A verbal tradition just ain't gonna cut it.

 

[jayaint]

I don't know how I like the illiteracy part. It makes sense for barbarians, and maybe some classes.

But if you can't read, how do you get a Stoic Wizard, for example?

By taking literacy, the same way any 1st level barbarian who wanted to multi-class as a wizard... or who just wanted to be able to read. The Bouminiarr (or somesuch) from the planar handbook is a non-speaking race and you have to take a feat in order to be a wizard that can cast spells with a verbal component. *shrug* They do have a +2 CHA, so they would make excellent arcane casters... just as sorcerers, not wizards.

Or what are they contemplating without books to record other people's thoughts? A verbal tradition just ain't gonna cut it.

People were contemplating LONG BEFORE they were writing things down, and "recording other people's thoughts" is what an oral tradition does, though not in the way we would consider it recorded today. Oral cultures just do it with memory and stories.

Basically I thought that the illiterate starting point made for an interesting role-play chance, in order to go along with the flavor of the race, as well as a kind of flaw to use as balance.

 

[Nyaricus]

This race seems a bit.. I dunno, flat to me. It's balanced at LA +0 (just lookie at dwarves) but they seem to be, in general, just a little on the boring side.

Maybe some extended flavour text would be in order? Otherwise, they look fine by me

 

[Land Outcast]

I'll have to second PC in the weapon restriction... like elves not using axes or hammers... If you get what I mean.

but: what do you mean by "weapon restriction"? What happens if they use a bladed weapon? *gasp*

 

[Bront]

Yeah, I don't like the weapon restriction line. There's no mechanical reason for it, and there is no mechanical penalty for choosing to use such a weapon.

Also, that restriction doesn't detract from many of the members of the race either. Only Rogues, Warrior classes, and bards tend to use Bladed weapons. And honestly, the weapons are balanced in such a way such a restriction is meaningless as a mechanical flaw.

I think they're a bit flat, and they seem too set to be a particular class (Cleric)

 

[jayaint]

Yeah, I don't like the weapon restriction line. There's no mechanical reason for it, and there is no mechanical penalty for choosing to use such a weapon.

Also, that restriction doesn't detract from many of the members of the race either. Only Rogues, Warrior classes, and bards tend to use Bladed weapons. And honestly, the weapons are balanced in such a way such a restriction is meaningless as a mechanical flaw.

I think they're a bit flat, and they seem too set to be a particular class (Cleric)

I'm not sure I'm quite clear on the whole flat character issue. I put something in this race for flavor (i.e. not using bladed weapons, so that they can attempt to incapacitate foes, unless their life is truly threatened) and it gets singled out as having "no mechanical reason for it". But then "they're a bit flat". Do they need to dance a jig on every third new moon to be less flat? But there is no mechanical reason for them to do that.

And what is the mechanical penalty if I move my human character 40 ft in a round? *gasp* If "you can't do that" is the given answer, then I would ask you to point out a mechanical penalty as written that supports your point. The class and race restrictions are just that. They are the restrictions that govern the game, and without them... anarchy.

Also, 8 of the 11 "starting packages" in the PHB include a bladed weapon, and 2 of the 3 that don't include ranged weapons, which I intended to "restrict" as well by using the word handheld, though I did not specify that.

And by this argument, may I protest that Half-Orcs seem too set in their predisposition to be fighters? Or that Elves seem too much like ranged fighters?

Not trying to be smirky... just honestly feel like "they feel flat" isn't really constructive criticism. "Do you have some background/flavor text?" might be more appropriate, right?