Races of the Wild - First Impressions

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

I find that there is at best a weak correlation between what gets complained about on the boards and what proves to actually be a problem in play.

For any example of this, see the whole Mystic Theurge debate before any of us actually tried out the class and discovered that it was not, in fact, uber-munchkin powergaming of deathness.

 

[Eremite]

(snip) 2) WoTC has been releasing questionably playtested sourcebooks for some time now. I think the bashing they get here is by and large well-deserved. It's so bad that I can skim any new book they publish, and predict which feat/prestige class will be getting the bashing on EnWorld. (snip)

If I was a professional RPG designer, I would be more concerned with what the guys over at WotC's own Character Optimisation boards are going to do with the latest batch of creations. Those guys really know how to get the most out of any new feat, PrC, spell etc... and, if WotC had any sense, should be the ones engaged to playtest the new stuff before it goes for editing and printing.

I do think that playtesting is the answer for WotC's design problems (plus a revised development process that includes QA techniques). The playtesting needs to be far more rigorous and, preferably, external. Relying on staff and/or friends of staff only gets "yes men"-type feedback and that's something that WotC clearly does NOT need.

 

[Saeviomagy]

A couple of points:
1. Not having improved vision is a big penalty that only humans and halflings get. It affects every single class equally.
2. Having more skill points is not getting better at the core business of wizardry. Wizards get 2 skill points a level and basically MUST have a positive int, so concentration, k(arcana) and spellcraft are easily maxed - these skills are the core of wizardry.
3. Having another feat is not getting better at the core business of wizardry to the same degree as having an extra highest-level spell per day. The listed feats don't come close.
4. Not being able to specialise is not a penalty.
5. Wizards often end up using weapons when their offensive spells run out. Getting access to the longbow (arguably the best ranged weapon in the game) is a big benefit.
6. A +2 dex, -2 con is not a great penalty. Honestly - what GM forces you to play as you roll?

I really think this substitution level is a bad idea. "Here, have something that any wizard would kill for!" "Yeah, but what do I have to give up?" "Nothing at all!".

Yay.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

Hmm... I'm not as attached to the 'wizards don't heal' paradigm as most people, so the healing feat mentioned by Merric above doesn't really bother me.

That said, it should probably be noted in the feat that it can only be taken with DM approval, much like the Leadership feat.

Re: saeviomagy's comments:

You're right that the skill points don't benefit the wizard so much.

And I also agree with you that not being able to speciallize isn't a penalty. I think specialization as presented sucks, frankly. A specialist gives up forevery two spells off the following list:

wall of force (evo)
teleport (conj)
dominate person (ench)
improved invisibility (illus)
false life (nec)
scrying (divination)
polymorph (transmutation)
dispel magic (abjuration)

And I think that any wizard should know _all_ of these spells. A sorcerer certainly would!

But the bonus feat humans get helps a lot. When I make wizards, I never end up having enough feats. I know that as a 10th level wizard, if forced to choose between spell penetration say, and a feat that gives me an extra spell in my highest level, that would be a tough choice for me!

And I think that -2con/+2dex is a _big_ penalty. And yeah, most GMs I know use point buy, where this penalty _really_ matters. It's important for a wizard to have a 14 CON, for enough hit points to not get taken out by fireballs and the like. If you want a CON that high with a -2 penalty you have to point buy it up to 16, which pretty much precludes maxing out your INT.

And wizards running out of spells and shooting a bow? Maybe when they're level 1 or 2. Hardly happens in my game, other than that. At lvls 8 and above, show me a wizard plinking away with a bow and I'll show you a poorly played wizard.

Ken

A couple of points:
1. Not having improved vision is a big penalty that only humans and halflings get. It affects every single class equally.
2. Having more skill points is not getting better at the core business of wizardry. Wizards get 2 skill points a level and basically MUST have a positive int, so concentration, k(arcana) and spellcraft are easily maxed - these skills are the core of wizardry.
3. Having another feat is not getting better at the core business of wizardry to the same degree as having an extra highest-level spell per day. The listed feats don't come close.
4. Not being able to specialise is not a penalty.
5. Wizards often end up using weapons when their offensive spells run out. Getting access to the longbow (arguably the best ranged weapon in the game) is a big benefit.
6. A +2 dex, -2 con is not a great penalty. Honestly - what GM forces you to play as you roll?

I really think this substitution level is a bad idea. "Here, have something that any wizard would kill for!" "Yeah, but what do I have to give up?" "Nothing at all!".

Yay.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

OK, that's a good point. But the Mystic Theurge had its defenders in the day.

In fact, I argued with both Monte Cook and Sean Reynolds about the Mystic Theurge on Monte's board about this. At the time, Sean thought the Theurge was broken. Monte didn't comment on this as I recall, but felt that the MT was an example of bad prestige class design because it lacked flavor. That's the only time I can recall disagreeing with both of them about a rule.

Now, where are the passionate defenders for the Frenzied Berserker? The Hulking Hurler?

Ken

For any example of this, see the whole Mystic Theurge debate before any of us actually tried out the class and discovered that it was not, in fact, uber-munchkin powergaming of deathness.

 

[MerricB]

Now, where are the passionate defenders for the Frenzied Berserker? The Hulking Hurler?

Playing them and having fun, I think. Not getting involved in debates on messageboards.

Cheers!

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Playing them and having fun, I think. Not getting involved in debates on messageboards.

Cheers!

Yep.

Thing about Frenzied Berserkers is that most groups that I've encountered end up getting rid of that PC...since they start killing everyone. That sure balances out in the end. As for Hulking Hurler...not many PC races are large. So again, its not nearly as common as is debated on our wonderful boards.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Now, where are the passionate defenders for the Frenzied Berserker? The Hulking Hurler?

Ken

The Frenzied Berserker in our last game was kind of offset by the Apostle of Peace.

Calming the Frenzy was kind of fun.
I was a Psychic Warrior/Psychic Weapon Master, and I was probably more powerful than the FB, but then he was Half Fiend too.

 

[Vocenoctum]

That said, this particular bashing doesn't seem on-target. The elf wizard changes seem balanced and useful, if Sun Elves/Grey Elves aren't allowed to get them.

The problem for me, is that there is no balance to it. It's justified by saying "the elf wizard is weaker vs the human wizard", when it should be saying "the elf wizard with sub level is equal to the elf wizard without sub level, but he's more elvish!".

The gnome illusionist stuff works for me, you get a bunch of illusion spells at a reduced spell level, but must select a school from th short list that's not banned already, and are -1 caster level. Given that you're already an illusionist with two banned schools, that can be a stiff penalty at low levels.

The Gnome Bard and Half Elf bard are also good examples, swapping a bard power for one more appropriate.

But really beefing up generalist wizard and saying you can't specialize? That's a poor trade off IMO. It might be balanced if they lost any One School, sort of a "half specialized" type thing or something.

 

[MerricB]

The problem for me, is that there is no balance to it. It's justified by saying "the elf wizard is weaker vs the human wizard", when it should be saying "the elf wizard with sub level is equal to the elf wizard without sub level, but he's more elvish!".

If you balance and don't look at the game at a whole, you miss the point.

Balancing a race/class combination that isn't played against another race/class combination that isn't played is stupid.

You need to balance things against those things that are used.

Gnome Wizard (Illusionist) and Human Wizard are common. The Gnome gets that +1 DC to illusions, the Human gets the bonus feat. Both make them superior wizards, so they get played.

The Elf gets nothing to help his wizardry, so doesn't get played very often, despite apparently being a great wizard. Go figure.

Cheers!