Racial Scores bonuses.

[airwalkrr]

I think it underscores the fact that the author of the DMG did not understand his own game very well. There are a number of aspects that come into play when designing a race, particularly what the race is good at.

Any race that gets a bonus to Con is going to have an advantage in most campaigns; the exception to this is campaigns that have relatively little combat, but I believe these are few. So a boost to Con is a significant bonus in any respect. I imagine if there were a race that had no other racial traits except a bonus to Con it would be favored by many players.

A race that receives a boost to physical combat like the dwarf's exceptional stability and racial bonus to hit orcs and goblins that is paired with a bonus to Int is not as substantial a benefit as a race with a bonus to save DCs of one school of magic (like the gnome) or a bonus to Spellcraft paired with the same Int bonus.

In other words, what is important is looking at what the race is good at and what the race is not very good at. Half-orcs are good at melee combat because they are the only race in the Player's Handbook that gives a bonus to Str. So the fact that they have a penalty to both Int and Cha, stats that are generally unimportant to melee combatants, is negligible. To determine whether a race is balanced, look at what role or type of class that race is naturally going to gravitate towards. If it looks like it is going to be significantly better than the options in the Player's Handbook then it probably deserves a LA or toning down of abilities. But if it is only marginally better or has a significant drawback, then it is probably balanced enough for government work.

 

[xigbar]

I think it underscores the fact that the author of the DMG did not understand his own game very well. There are a number of aspects that come into play when designing a race, particularly what the race is good at.

Any race that gets a bonus to Con is going to have an advantage in most campaigns; the exception to this is campaigns that have relatively little combat, but I believe these are few. So a boost to Con is a significant bonus in any respect. I imagine if there were a race that had no other racial traits except a bonus to Con it would be favored by many players.

A race that receives a boost to physical combat like the dwarf's exceptional stability and racial bonus to hit orcs and goblins that is paired with a bonus to Int is not as substantial a benefit as a race with a bonus to save DCs of one school of magic (like the gnome) or a bonus to Spellcraft paired with the same Int bonus.

In other words, what is important is looking at what the race is good at and what the race is not very good at. Half-orcs are good at melee combat because they are the only race in the Player's Handbook that gives a bonus to Str. So the fact that they have a penalty to both Int and Cha, stats that are generally unimportant to melee combatants, is negligible. To determine whether a race is balanced, look at what role or type of class that race is naturally going to gravitate towards. If it looks like it is going to be significantly better than the options in the Player's Handbook then it probably deserves a LA or toning down of abilities. But if it is only marginally better or has a significant drawback, then it is probably balanced enough for government work.

But that's missing my point. Yes, races will gravitate towards certain classes, but the problem is that melee classes are generally weaker, yet racial score bonuses make it harder to have bonuses to scores that melee combat.

 

[cjosephs1s]

Maybe this will shed some light on the subject. I'm not saying this is what the author intended its just my opinion on why this system works and is "balanced" in the DMG.

Ok first off throw out this idea that one class is better than another (i hate this idea to the core). In WotC world all classes start off balanced. Yes we all know a wizard will kill a warrior at 20th level but I think we all would agree that most DMs goal is not to just flat out kill the party or have constant PVP contests. So the base assumption is all classes are equally useful in a campaign and you want to have a somewhat balanced party. No melee means your casters are getting the crap beaten out of them. No casters means less damage and utility. No healers means your melee may die and will much more cautios before charging that dragon. No utility means traps, locks, and other fun things can easily halt your dungeon crawl or kill a party member. It doesn't matter how you get the 4 but you want one of each or more than one of each.

Ok now why are physical stats "more expensive" than mental stats? Its about utility of the stat. Add STR to any toon and they get a benefit. They can carry more, they have a better chance to hit, they do more physical damage. Every toon benefits from this. Add Con to any toon and they get more HP, their Fort save goes up. Add Dex to any toon and their Initiative goes up, their ranged attack goes up, their reflex save goes up. These three stats are all very useful to every class in the game even casters (yes at low levels casters run out of spells and need to attack or make touch attacks so STR is still important and decreases over time but you get the bonus in the beginning when its most useful).

Your mental stats: Wisdom adds to your will save for everyone. That's it. and for casters it adds bonus spells and increases save DC but not damage, duration, or anything else to do with the spell. Int only adds skill points to all characters. Some toons don't get crap for skills anyway and don't care while others get enough skill points to make up for it so the small bonus isn't something they are worried about compared to their main stat. Only INt based casters gain a benefit from it and the same as Wis..bonus spells and higher DC. Cha only effects CHA based casters and is effectively the "dump stat" for everyone else.

Then there is opportunity cost associated with these. For a warrior he really doesn't care if he takes a -2 to INT and Cha if he gets a +2 to STR. So what if hes a little dumber has 1 less skill point and has a huge scar on his face...thats just cool for us. Just like the Wizard wants that bonus to INT and Cha and more than likely will give up the +2 STR, extra weight, and the chance to hit to increase his spell slots, DCs, skill points and make him a tad more charming when trying to negotiate that deal with the other wizard for their latest mission.

Now not all stat combinations are equally inviting as these to all classes. That's why you don't see many dwarven sorcerers or half orc wizards, but nothing is stopping a PC from doing it. Maybe they want their caster to be touch based and need the extra STR and don't want to waste one of their very precious feats on weapon finesse?

So is the system balance? Well its been working for how many DECADES??? Is this tier system correct? probably but its based on certain assumptions that don't correlate well with WotC assumptions and since its based on different rules doesn't agree with gameplay mechanics (think of trying to incorporate a d10 system like Mage and playing by DnD rules..its just won't work well).

Maybe my perspective on how its supposed to work will shed some light on why its set up the way it is.

 

[xigbar]

Not even WotC made the classes balanced, actually. They have been quoted as intentionally making certain options more powerful than others. Also, not only will it kill the fighter at 20th, but it can also avoid getting hit, erasing the need for a meleer, and a healer, and cast spells that allow it to be better at finding/disabling traps than a rogue, and it can do that all at once. While it's a nice thought that everyone will play a class of equal power, this is generally not the case.

 

[cjosephs1s]

Also, not only will it kill the fighter at 20th, but it can also avoid getting hit, erasing the need for a meleer, and a healer, and cast spells that allow it to be better at finding/disabling traps than a rogue, and it can do that all at once. While it's a nice thought that everyone will play a class of equal power, this is generally not the case.

Well the point was to show how the stat system works, not to lose your entire party and play your all powerful caster by yourself. But I guess we all have fun in different ways right?

 

[xigbar]

Well the point was to show how the stat system works, not to lose your entire party and play your all powerful caster by yourself. But I guess we all have fun in different ways right?

I agree, that IS the way fun should be had, where everyone gets there time to shine. In fact, my whole point is that physical stats should be given less of a priority specifically to give them a break against the already overpowered casters.

 

[NilesB]

Any race that gets a bonus to Con is going to have an advantage in most campaigns;

A pathetic falsehood; con and dex are the least valuable Attributes to get bonuses to.

 

[Dandu]

A pathetic falsehood; con and dex are the least valuable Attributes to get bonuses to.

Partially correct. Con is usually the second most important stat on any character since it creases fort saves and HP.

 

[NilesB]

Partially correct. Con is usually the second most important stat on any character since it creases fort saves and HP.

And all the others (save possibly dex) are the single most important for a significant subset of PCs. Yeah Grey elves make terrible fighters but they make overpowered wizards, so they are an overpowered race.

 

[Dandu]

Actually, Grey elves make good wizards. Not overpowered wizards. I present to you Treantmonk's Guide to Wizards, which discusses racial choices for wizards. There is also Dictum Mortum's Wizard Handbook and The Logic Ninja's Guide to Being Batman. Neither consider Grey Elves broken.

You're welcome.