Races of the Wild - First Impressions

[FireLance]

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.

I think there are a number of assumptions being made here which are neither fair nor accurate:

1. WotC does not playtest its material before releasing it.
2. The game is currently perfectly balanced, and there are no underpowered options.
3. Everyone has the same definition of balance.

If there are underpowered options, then making those options stronger makes the game better balanced, not less. Even the feat that you mention may seem balanced to some as a high-level fighter feat (say, prerequisites: Fighter level 16, Greater Weapon Specialization) if they feel that spellcasters dominate higher levels of play.

[RANT]Frankly, I've noticed that there is a tendency to call books bad because of a single questionable feat, spell, PrC or other rule, and it's starting to annoy me. I have my problems with individual elements of WotC books. I wouldn't allow the Frenzied Berserker PrC from Complete Warrior or the Shivering Touch spell from Frostburn in my games, and I would have used a different system to effect the Sudden Metamagic feats in Complete Arcane, but I've found plenty of other useful material in those books to justify the price I paid for them.

What is more, I applaud the spirit of innovation and the willingness to try something new and different that I've seen in recent WotC books. Without that, we wouldn't have the warlock, the spellthief or the scout base classes, or the Ascetic and Devoted series of feats. [Trivia: did you know that the scout's skirmish ability originally appeared in the Peregrine Runner PrC in Races of Stone?] Things that are new are not always refined or to everyone's taste, but in my view, the alternative - lack of creativity, stagnation, and the slow decline of gaming as a hobby - is much worse.[/RANT]

 

[Psion]

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,"

That's a strawman. Nobody has said elves should be superior. But they should be at least as good as a human at the class that they supposedly good at.

 

[Psion]

I think there are a number of assumptions being made here which are neither fair nor accurate:

1. WotC does not playtest its material before releasing it.
2. The game is currently perfectly balanced, and there are no underpowered options.
3. Everyone has the same definition of balance.
(...)
Frankly, I've noticed that there is a tendency to call books bad because of a single questionable feat, spell, PrC or other rule, and it's starting to annoy me.[/RANT]

True dat.

Of course where there are abberations like the hulking hurler, pointing it out so that DMs can make the right call is a good thing. But yeah, no reason to throw out the baby with a thimble of brackish bathwater.

The point that everyone has the same definition of balance is also very well taken. Different GMs has different styles, and different campaigns will have different challenges.

 

[Sammael]

One bonus feat does not make humans better wizards than elves. By that logic, there should be a feat that makes halflings better rogues than elves, because one can argue that elven penalty to Constitution means less to rogues than halflings' penalty to Strength.

 

[Psion]

One bonus feat does not make humans better wizards than elves.

Unless elves have some racial ability that will give elven wizards the same utility as a bonus feat and bonus skill points, yes it does. And they do not.

By that logic, there should be a feat that makes halflings better rogues than elves, because one can argue that elven penalty to Constitution means less to rogues than halflings' penalty to Strength.

Non sequitir.

There is no stated or implied principle that all races has to be equally competant at all classes. You should not strive to make half orcs good wizards, for example. Halfling rogues pretty much ARE better than elven rogues. That's okay.

 

[Flyspeck23]

My wizard chose Elf Dilettante (can make all skill checks even untrained, and a +1 on all untrained skill checks); it's a slightly better Jack of All Trades, but it fits the elf longevity really well. He also chose to take the three Elf Wizard substitution levels - the first, which is a form of non-specialisation power-up (an extra spell gained per level and can prepare one more spell of the highest level) actually finally makes elf wizards more magically inclined... though I'm interested in the balance implications.

First off, I'm not an elf lover. And I'm not familiar with any "Races of" book, as it just ain't my cup of tea (Races of Eberron will change that, though, because of the fluff included ).

That said, the balance seems about right.
Elf Dilettante doesn't sound like a Jack of All Trades at all, because that character barely is good at what she does (a +1 to a skill you haven't invested any ranks in? big deal). If anything, that feat might be a little underpowered (probably not at low levels, though), as DCs creep up considerably over the course of a campaign. The feat'd be fine by me.

One more free spell per wizard level merely saves the wizard some money - again, no big deal. One more spell per day of the highest level might be too good initially (when the wizard gains access to a new spell level), therefore I might tone that down a bit (for instance: the wizard needs to be able to cast two spells per day of the highest spell level (not counting bonus spells) before she gets the additional use). But it's by no means unbalanced IMHO.

Unless elves have some racial ability that will give elven wizards the same utility as a bonus feat and bonus skill points, yes it does. And they do not.

Exactly.

Humans make arguably the best wizards of all the basic player races. And they shouldn't necessarily be that.

 

[Sammael]

I still don't see how a bonus feat and skill points make humans better wizards than elves, but I am obviously in the minority here. Enjoy the book, and I won't be bying it. That settles it.

 

[Zephyrus]

Bah. The extra feat at first level makes very little difference for wizards. It makes a much greater difference for fighters, or even rogues, but wizards gain virtually no immediate benefit from it. The only thing it's worth for is qualifying for a PrC faster, and that has nothing to do whatsoever with being a wizard.

Here's a few reasons why that bonus feat makes a 'BIG' difference.

Spellcasting Prodigy
Bloodline of Fire
Greyhawk Method
Mind over Body

Thats just to name a few... feats that are available only at 1st level. Haing TWO of these at 1st level makes for an impressive caster. wizard or not.

Thanks to the rebuild they gave Elemental Savant so its now possible to do it as a Sorcerer reasonably I can rebuild Simon Pheonix. My strongheart Halfling Sorcerer Elemental Savant of Fire (with Spellcasting Prodigy and Bloodline of Fire. All Spells known are Evocation spells and are Fire Spells (or make use of Energy Substitution to change it to fire).

Multiple Feats at 1st level is a big deal. Expecially when making use of 1st level only spells or trying to get Feat Combo's faster. such as being able to take Sudden Maximize at 1st level cause it only requires any other metamagic as a pre-req.

 

[ivocaliban]

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.

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.

 

[Remathilis]

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," [snip]

That someone would be Tolkien.