[Playtest 2] Races: Humans too good?

[Obryn]

I think it's fine, as is. Balance-wise, it strikes me as right on target.

I mean, look at dwarves... immune to poison, upgrade damage dice of some great weapons, low-light vision, and also either better hit dice or better AC.

Or elves? Better with ranged and melee weapons, no sleeping, advantage on the most common perception checks, and either a cantrip or increased speed.

A +1 to all your attributes means that you can turn odd numbers into even ones. In a standard-array game, this is valuable but not broken. In a point-buy game, ehhh... Still okay, but I'm going to guess the system will take it into account. Rolling scores? It's a crapshoot. Someone else could roll the same as that pretty easily.

-O

 

[billd91]

Here's a radical but hardly original suggestion: Is it finally time to get rid of racial adjustments to stats altogether, and move them to class?

Not only does that remove at a stroke a severe source of balancing issues, it makes the characters easier to construct. Pick fighter, you get bonuses useful to fighter (Con and then either Str or Dex at your choice, maybe). If a player is serious about mucking with that, they probably have a character concept so off-beat that they'll be pulling tricks with point buy or a non-standard array, anyway. Then you might still have very modest adjustments for more exotic races. Getting +1 or +2 Str as a minotaur really shines when most races don't get anything like that.

We are almost there. +1 to one stat for all the non-humans? Take that last little leap. Surely we can come up with something better for humans? Come on in. The water's fine.

No, I don't want to see racially based stat bonuses, independent of class, go away. I want to see players play characters against type sometimes as well as have paths of lesser resistance for characters of certain races. That said, I could probably get behind a system in which each provides a bonus of a sort. Suppose we give a couple of racial bonuses of +1 to each race (I would also recommend a -1 too). Then we also give a single stat bonus of +1 per class. You could end up with some very potent synergies, I suppose, but nothing would go above +2 net.

For example, give the elf +1 to Dex and Int. Give the big 4 their most obvious bonuses. You'd have an elf cleric with +1 Dex, +1 Int, +1 Wis. Or an elf wizard with +1 Dex, +2 Int.

Another alternative would be for the races to have a bonus or two and then have the class have 2 stats, pick one - or pick one that hasn't already been raised by the character's race. So if the fighter offers bonuses in Str and Con, the dwarf who already has a +1 Con can take the fighter's +1 Str and add it on to his character sheet (he already has the +1 Con). This could keep bonuses lower but still make them both race and class-oriented.


EDIT: And now that I'm reading in the class chapter, looks like I'm at least partially ninjaed by the game developers!

 

[TerraDave]

I also like it.

It goes back to the idea the best fighter, wizard etc (but not nec the best character) were human. But it uses ability scores instead of level caps.

Humans are clearly the most versatile, and would probably be the most popular. As it should be.

BUT, the other races, while more niche, have very good benefits. I could still see many strong charecters made with those races.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Another alternative would be for the races to have a bonus or two and then have the class have 2 stats, pick one - or pick one that hasn't already been raised by the character's race. So if the fighter offers bonuses in Str and Con, the dwarf who already has a +1 Con can take the fighter's +1 Str and add it on to his character sheet (he already has the +1 Con). This could keep bonuses lower but still make them both race and class-oriented.

This option help avoid the stacking issue. The stacking issue is when the adjustments become so good that they cross the line between "nifty advantage" to "punish those that don't conform". I like the former, the latter not so much.

A dwarf fighter with +1 Con and +1 Str is definitely helped, and gives the dwarf fighter a clear flavor. But it's not like he totally outclasses the human fighter with +1 Str and +1 Dex or the like. When you pick off a list, the further you go down the list, the less unbalancing it becomes (because a power gamer will pick the best stuff first, making later choices less valuable). So if everyone has a way to get the most important thing, but then the pick becomes the second most important thing, you've just used this fact to mitigate the worst excesses.

In that system, I'd just give humans +1 with any ability of their choice, still no stacking. That reflects extreme adaptability without netting all that much, since this +1 is always no more than the second most important stat.

 

[Salamandyr]

I in no way shape or form think it's unbalanced. I think it's just strong enough to make humans a worthwhile race to play... finally.

 

[nightwalker450]

I just found it odd from an attacks perspective. (I used standard array to avoid rolling issues)

I went to build an archer and was planning on elf -- 1d10 longbow, but only a 17 for stat (+6 attack, avg 8.5 dmg).
Then I realized that a human would actually be more accurate -- 1d8 longbow, 18 stat (+7 to attack, avg 8.5 dmg). So the human is the better archer, not the elf. The elf isn't even keeping up with the human.

Now the mountain dwarf Protector I built was better than human.
+1 AC in heavy armor, human's can't even get. But even the hill dwarf with it's potential +1 hp per level (since as I've seen Con isn't added in per level) human's can't get.

So basically it comes down to humans are the attacking specialists. If you're looking at attacks and damage humans are top, (Most) anything else the races features will probably put them above humans.

 

[billd91]

I went to build an archer and was planning on elf -- 1d10 longbow, but only a 17 for stat (+6 attack, avg 8.5 dmg).
Then I realized that a human would actually be more accurate -- 1d8 longbow, 18 stat (+7 to attack, avg 8.5 dmg). So the human is the better archer, not the elf. The elf isn't even keeping up with the human.

Not running exactly the same, no, but not keeping up? That's a pretty close contest there.

 

[triqui]

Humans didn't strike me as "to good". On the contrary i was more like "that's it?"
Looks more like last resort for those who rolled very low stats.

Or to make demigods to those who rolled high.

 

[Mallus]

All humans hail from Lake Wobegon!

I think I'm okay with the bonuses.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Aside from any balance objections or straight flavor reasons, +1 to all stats is kind of a goofy mechanic in character creation. Being comprehensive, it's like a math adjustment, to make up for something humans aren't getting. That immediately makes one wonder what this something missing is.

They might still have balance or flavor objections, but I'd think +1 to four or five ability scores would be superior on that count. Not being comprehensive, it becomes a real choice. It might not be much of a choice, but it is at least a bit of a choice.