Point buy and humans vs other races?

[Shard O'Glase]

A racial stat adjustment is one of the benefits of the race; it's already factored in. Humans get more benefits to make up for this lack.

I think that's bunk. Humans don't get any more benefits than other races. Point buy ends up benefiting non-humans more and giving them an edge. Sure bonus feat extra skill point a level, and can have any class that is prefered woo-hoo. Elf +2 to 3 very important skills, auto chance to detect secret doors within 5', low light vision, immune to sleep effects, +2 v all enchantment effects, an assortment of martial weapon proficiencies, only need 4 hours sleep. That seems balanced, a possible extra 4 points in point buy slides that balance away from humans(especially considering that 4 points easily can give whatever race at least+2 int so they also then get the humans so great +1skill point bonus)

Humans make decent anythings. Other races are either better than humans in certain roles or worse than humans in certain roles.

 

[Archer]

You could say elves get the shaft because you pay 16 pts for 18 con but you only get 16 con and if you pay 4 pts for 12 dex you get a 14 so you've lost 4 points in the deal.

Humans don't lose any sleep over various point buy scenarios, they are just loving their extra feat and bonus skill pts.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Definitely Option A (although in the game I run, I only have humans, orcs, and half-orcs).

In my gaming experience, I've had the opportunity to make about 7 point buy characters. 4 of them were human (Ftr/Wiz, Rgr/Clr, Wiz/Sacred Exorcist/Templar, Sor/Candlecaster/Elemental Savant). Two were dwarves (Wiz, Ftr), and one was an elf (Clr). Of these, the only one that has seen significant game time is the elven cleric. In the point buy Living Greyhawk environment, humans are also the most popular race (despite the stat benefit from racial bonusses being more significant in a deadly 28 point campaign). I suspect that the reason this is so is because the bonus feat and extra skill points and favored class:any make human a very attractive race--even without attribute bonusses. I know that the extra feat was a deciding factor in my choosing human for several of those characters.

So, all told, I think that point buy games serve to demonstrate that WotC did a good job of balancing human and demihuman races. The attribute bonusses and other benefits of being non-human don't mean that humans aren't worth playing. Nor do the various human benefits make demi-humans not worth playing. (The only possible exception is the half elf--I see very few half elvish characters and most of the ones I do see are heavily multiclassed rangers with human as a favored enemy (it's the only way to do that under the core rules and not be evil or have experience penalties).

 

[mzsylver]

poor half-elves

option a - humans get a bonus feat. 'nuff said.

however, i think half-elves got the SHAFT in 3e

 

[Zhure]

Elves vs Half-Elves

Elves: +2 Dexterity, -2 Constitution.
Half-Elves: no mods

Bonus partially to Elves, but it's close to a tie. A -2 CON is nothing to sneeze at. CON may be the single most useful all-around stat in 3e.

Elves: Proficient with either longsword or rapier; proficient with shortbow, longbow, composite longbow, and composite shortbow.

Bonus to Elves, but only for those classes which do not get martial weapons.

Elves: +2 racial bonus on Listen, Search, and Spot checks. An elf who merely passes within 5 feet of a secret or concealed door is entitled to a Search check to notice it as if she were actively looking for the door.
Half-Elves: +1 racial bonus on Listen, Search, and Spot checks.

Marginal bonus to Elves. The secret door thing is very useful though.

Elves: Bonus Languages: Draconic, Gnoll, Gnome, Goblin, Orc, and Sylvan.
Half-Elves: Bonus Languages: Any.

Half-elves come out ahead here. Especially useful for summoners and Bards who want a lot of languages.

Elves: Favored Class: Wizard.
Half-Elves: Favored Class: Any.

Winner for this category is the Half-elf, but Favored Class is really only important if you have more than two classes, or in other special cases, like when you want one high level class and one or more low level classes. Even then it can be worked around.

It seems close, albeit the Elf is a victor. Half-elves tend to be for players who want the image and style of an elf, but don't want to be restricted to Wizards as a favored class and don't want to take the hit on their CON.

Greg

 

[Plane Sailing]

You could say elves get the shaft because you pay 16 pts for 18 con but you only get 16 con and if you pay 4 pts for 12 dex you get a 14 so you've lost 4 points in the deal.

I don't think this is a likely scenario though, do you?

Reading the various things that have been written by Wizards people, I've often seen it mentioned that mechanical bonuses should not be "balanced" against things which are not likely to come into effect - a specific example is that something that reduces a wizards BAB in order to get a bonus isn't very good because they probably won't be using the BAB and won't miss it.

 

[Plane Sailing]

An interesting thought - the "bonus points" thing only crops up if a sliding scale is used for higher level attribute points.

Does anyone here use a non-sliding point buy system?

e.g. 72 points to spend exactly how you want?

On a non-sliding scale the addition of racial attributes gives a clear but equal bonus.

Cheers

 

[The Furious Puffin]

I used to use 72 or whatever spread as you wished, but I discarded it as I think it's vastly broken compared to the geometric increasing system in the DMG.

Some of that opinion is a hold over from 2e, where a 14 in dex was orders of magnitude more helpful than a 12, but I still *feel* than in 3E an 18 is of greater value compared to a 16, than a 12 compared to a 10, and hence feel that point-buy should reflect that.

However thats just IMHO.

However as the increase in stats usefulness is almost linear in 3e a sliding scale shouldn't do that much harm.

 

[shilsen]

An interesting thought - the "bonus points" thing only crops up if a sliding scale is used for higher level attribute points.

Does anyone here use a non-sliding point buy system?

e.g. 72 points to spend exactly how you want?

On a non-sliding scale the addition of racial attributes gives a clear but equal bonus.

Cheers

I currently use a non-sliding point buy scale. 80 points (high-powered) to divide among your attributes. My co-DM (much nicer guy than me) is using 84 points for a RttToEE campaign. No problems for either of us.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I don't think this is a likely scenario though, do you?

Reading the various things that have been written by Wizards people, I've often seen it mentioned that mechanical bonuses should not be "balanced" against things which are not likely to come into effect - a specific example is that something that reduces a wizards BAB in order to get a bonus isn't very good because they probably won't be using the BAB and won't miss it.

Good point.

But having an "effective" max of 12 Con is quite a limitation for survivability. Especially in low level campaigns. Especially if you are playing a Wizard, Sorceror, Rogue or Bard.

I was playing in a rough and tumble low-level, point buy campaign. After a number of fatalities and near fatalities, we decided that if your character drops after the first lousy arrow, we will loot your body and leave you for dead. If you want to travel we our posse, you better have a healthy Con bonus or take Toughness.