Races of the Wild - First Impressions

[Krieg]

I'm pretty sure he was talking about the D&D incarnations.

Tolkien didn't create those either.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I think that the only way these things are broken is if you allow new material for only one race, while banning it for the rest. For instance, if you allowed Humans to take Able Learner, Heroic Destiny, Fearless Destiny and Protected Destiny from Races of Destiny, but then you ruled that Elves couldn't have the new feats granted them in Races of Wild...that would be broken.

It seems to me the real problem here is a dislike of Elves and a fear that Humans might no longer be the best choice for a Wizard. Heaven forbid that Elves, whose favored class is Wizard, could actually be better at it than Humans! Besides, to say that the extra feat Humans get doesn't matter is rather silly, because (within reason) no matter what a Human Wizard takes it's something he won't need to waste another feat on further down the road. Not only does a Human Wizard get a headstart, but he/she will pretty much always be in the lead when it comes to feats and skill points.

I also don't buy into the Elves have more PrCs than any other race argument and here's why: Sure, Elves can choose almost any PrC a human can take and still have access to Elven PrCs, but it's pretty clear that many open-to-all PrCs weren't designed with Elves in mind. While it's certainly not impossible, I wouldn't expect to see too many Elven Reaping Maulers, for example.

You don't see many human reaping maulers either. In fact, you don't see a lot of any prestige class unless it's particularly beneficial for the concept.

All said and done, it's been shown several times that Dwarves based on race alone are "broken" when compared with the other races, but I suspect no one is too concerned with that one. I'm willing to allow Elves what they need to be a superior Wizard, since they're going to be inferior or maybe break even in most other positions.

I'm still bothered by the 3.5 dwarves, but they're not too broken, so I have to ignore it when I play in core rules games. In general, I think that making elves the "best wizards" and dwarves the "best fighters" and halfings the "best rogues" would be a bad thing for D&D in general. One of my favorite elements of 3e was that the typical party, at least for a while, ceased to resemble a circus sideshow (here's the elf, here's the dwarf, there's a half-elf, an Aasmar, a halfling, etc and maybe one token human in a land where humans supposedly make up 80-90% of the population). Now, most characters are human unless there's a particular reason to be something else. And I think that's a good thing. (In Living Greyhawk, I frequently see or play at tables of five humans and a dwarf or five humans and an elf and I like that kind of mix).

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

I do not trust blindly in the "ingenuity" of WotC designers, many of whom couldn't balance the rules if their lives depended on it. (this includes both current and former employees)

Besides, most of my house rules were made after excessive playtesting, something WotC doesn't seem to do anymore.

What ridiculous comments to make. That swishing sound is your credibility going down the toilet.

 

[dagger]

I do not trust blindly in the "ingenuity" of WotC designers, many of whom couldn't balance the rules if their lives depended on it. (this includes both current and former employees)

Besides, most of my house rules were made after excessive playtesting, something WotC doesn't seem to do anymore.

After excessive playtesting since Aug 2000, my group has (and several others I have played with) asked me too announce that clerics are just fine and need no adjustments. [applause]

 

[Turjan]

This discussion whether clerics or dwarves are too strong and "broken" goes a bit out of hand. It's ridiculous to deny the fact that clerics and dwarves came out a bit on the overpowered end, compared to the other classes or races. On the other hand, I find it somewhat over the top to speak from "broken" in this regard. For me, this power difference is in a range where it does not really matter during the game. Others may differ *shrug*. No need for a religious war over this .

The question was whether elf and wizard make for a good combination, and whether "Races of the Wild" makes the right corrections. In my opinion, I say no to the first question (despite the flavour text that suggests otherwise), and I'm not sure regarding the second. Let's wait for some actual play experience to decide this dispute.

 

[Banshee16]

No.

See, this is exactly what led to the mess we had at the end of AD&D second edition. Somebody had a bright idea that elves should be "superior," which resulted in the Complete Book of Elves, which remains one the most horribly broken books published by TSR/WotC to date.

I don't care that you have to be an elf in order to take Elven Dilettante. Being an elf is not a penalty unto itself. Elves get a host of abilities, including having the most racial items and prestige classes of all races.

A bonus feat is a very significant benefit, and it has to be - because if humans didn't have a significant benefit, then nobody would play them. I participated in a large number of campaigns during late AD&D. Nobody ever played a human, unless they wanted to play a paladin or a specialty priest of some sort (and let's not even get started on AD&D specialty priests). So, in 3E, humans get a bonus feat. Big deal. Humans are now merely balanced with other races, and not overshadowed by them.

So, now we get into the manner of racial sterotypes. By your logic, elven wizards need help because "elves favor the wizard class." Even if I am inclined to agree with this (and I may be), the help provided cannot be in a form that messes up already established rules.

The problem with elven mage substitution level is not the extra spells known - that's not a big deal unless the DM is running the kind of game where wizards can't buy scrolls or acquire enemy wizards' spellbooks. No, the problem is that benefit coupled with an ability more powerful than Extra Slot, a rather well-balanced feat. So, elven wizards get to exchange something (probably the quite worthless and hazardous familiar) for the benefit of roughly two and a half extremely useful feats? Nope. Sorry. That's broken. Maybe not as broken as the frenzied berserker, or Karmic Strike, or Divine Metamagic (as written in CD), or 3.0 haste, but broken nonetheless.

Races of X series has been horrible so far. Races of Stone is a mediocre book, particularly when compared to some other d20 books on the same subject. Races of Destiny is horrible book. I haven't bought either one, but I've had the chance to take a long, good look at both. So, if Merric bought Races of the Wild, and his first post indicated that he managed to significantly increase his elf wizard's power by using only two things from the book, guess what impression I am going to have about it?

Of course, you haven't read the book, and don't know what he's trading away to get that racial level, but know it's not balanced?

More power to you..

Banshee

 

[ivocaliban]

You don't see many human reaping maulers either. In fact, you don't see a lot of any prestige class unless it's particularly beneficial for the concept.

That was just an example. It's hard to imagine that they had Elves in mind for the Bear Warrior or the Purple Dragon Knight either for that matter. (Yes, I'm aware of Cormyr.)

I'm still bothered by the 3.5 dwarves, but they're not too broken, so I have to ignore it when I play in core rules games. In general, I think that making elves the "best wizards" and dwarves the "best fighters" and halfings the "best rogues" would be a bad thing for D&D in general.

I would argue that giving these races those favored classes and (often) racial abilities that make those classes even more attractive is already a means of making them the "best" at that particular class. After all, is it really better that Humans should be the "best" everything?

One of my favorite elements of 3e was that the typical party, at least for a while, ceased to resemble a circus sideshow (here's the elf, here's the dwarf, there's a half-elf, an Aasmar, a halfling, etc and maybe one token human in a land where humans supposedly make up 80-90% of the population). Now, most characters are human unless there's a particular reason to be something else. And I think that's a good thing. (In Living Greyhawk, I frequently see or play at tables of five humans and a dwarf or five humans and an elf and I like that kind of mix).

I should probably mention that there are several sections of Greyhawk where Humans are the minority, but overall I agree with you that it's a good thing to have a mostly Human party in a mostly Human world. However, all that really requires is a DM to say "No" when someone decides to play a Half-Fiend Trollblooded Dracotaur or what have you.

 

[beaver1024]

For the extra spell known and extra highest level spell per day what exactly is the disadvantage in taking Generalist Elf Wizard?

 

[beaver1024]

Based soley on your determination? We don't exactly have a consensus that it "looks too good."

I rather think Merric rather has a point. A bonus feat is pretty much a boost to all classes. If we were talking elves or halflings receiving major boosts as a rogue, for example, I think you would have a point; their racial abilities already play strongly for rogues. But for elven wizards? Nah. There's room for improvement in elven options, especially considering elves' favored class is wizard.

Really? Sun Elf anyone?

 

[beaver1024]

Are you serious? I am not about to pay for a book so I can playtest it for WotC. If something looks too good, it usually is - particularly when compared to pre-existing materials. If I made a feat that grants a +4 bonus on all damage rolls with all melee weapons, I think it's pretty clear that it's broken, since we have Weapon Specialization to compare it with. The two abilities Merric mentions are 100% better than existing abilities that do pretty much the same thing, and this makes them broken.

Writing broken rules is not fair to DMs, either, and RPG writers do it all the times.

Agreed. Looks like the Races line of books are complete duds.