Racial Scores Fix

[Pale Jackal]

Finally, humans get a bonus feat and a bonus skill, (another huge bonus).

I'd say the bonus skill is offset by racial skill bonuses. This swings both ways, if you're getting an extra +2 (or two) to skills you value highly, then I'd say it's better. After all, Skill Focus for a +3 is a feat. If they're not valuable/trained skills, then you'd prefer that bonus skill.

Though I do agree with some of your other points: if I gave humans another +2, I'd certainly remove the +1 to F/R/W. That might be enough. I'd also let the other races have one flexible stat bump.

If I wasn't doing what Elric already suggested, of course. Only potential downside is the "Weapon Training" feats, which could probably be debuffed to +1 damage and proficiency if one really thought it's an issue, I'm not sure if it is. Humans, at least, compare roughly evenly. Maybe the downfalls of other races (in conjunction with Dwarven Resilience) might warrant a debuff of DWT.

 

[eriktheguy]

I'd say the bonus skill is offset by racial skill bonuses. This swings both ways, if you're getting an extra +2 (or two) to skills you value highly, then I'd say it's better. After all, Skill Focus for a +3 is a feat. If they're not valuable/trained skills, then you'd prefer that bonus skill.

Though I do agree with some of your other points: if I gave humans another +2, I'd certainly remove the +1 to F/R/W. That might be enough. I'd also let the other races have one flexible stat bump.

If I wasn't doing what Elric already suggested, of course. Only potential downside is the "Weapon Training" feats, which could probably be debuffed to +1 damage and proficiency if one really thought it's an issue, I'm not sure if it is. Humans, at least, compare roughly evenly. Maybe the downfalls of other races (in conjunction with Dwarven Resilience) might warrant a debuff of DWT.

Good point. Bonus skill about equal to two skill bonus (but choice = adaptive humans). Bonus feat about equal to racial encounter powers (but choice = adaptive humans). +1 to F/R/W is amazing though, probably better than +2 to another ability score.

 

[FireLance]

I was wondering whether it might be possible to tie this in with backgrounds. Say, the dwarves of one particular clan are known for its battleragers are stong and hardy, but not particularly wise. A dwarf PC who selects this background may gain +2 Strength and +2 Constitution instead of the standard dwarven ability score bonuses as a background benefit.

Or, the humans of a particular city are known for their education and refinement. A human PC who selects this background may gain +2 Intelligence and +2 Charisma instead of the standard human ability score bonus as a background benefit.

At the very least, the PC wil be somewhat more defined, flavor-wise, in exchange for a mechanical benefit.

 

[Blue]

I see the same thing - classes need two stats at a time, races give two stats, players match them up. It's an "obvious" thing to do.

That said, we've got two humans (out of six) in my current campaign. I'm playing a human bard and we've also got a human sorcerer. We're heroic tier where the extra feat is still felt, and we're both happy with the extra at-will.

I think some players will play matching race/class when they start, but then diversify with later characters.

 

[eriktheguy]

I was wondering whether it might be possible to tie this in with backgrounds.

This idea is a perfect house rule solution. When players choose a background, they may exchange one ability score bonus provided by their race with one associated with their background. Since most NPCs and civilians have the 'generic, regular member of my race' background this change their attribute bonuses and will not drastically alter the game world, but still gives the PCs some more flexibility.
The only problem with allowing non-human races to choose ability score bonuses is the obvious min-maxing issue. Suddenly every teifling warlock is taking their stat bonuses to Con and Int instead of the regular Int/Cha. This does not fix any problems with race/class restrictions (warlocks are good for infernal builds anyways) but allows characters to increase their min/max capabilities (suddenly teifling warlocks are becoming slightly more powerful).

Another option is to avoid additional house ruling at all. The current race/class combos don't prevent characters from making a dragonborn wizard, they only prevent it from being min/maxed. If every race suddenly becomes min/maxed at every class, rare race/class combos lose their uniqueness. The suggested house rule only really makes a difference for PCs that are min/maxing, and these PCs are probably the ones most likely to abuse the rule in the first place.

 

[Alisair Longreach]

My solution is that I use this ability score array: 18, 16, 14, 12, 11, 10 and ignore all racial ability adjustments.

Any race can be good at any class, no punishing a "sub-optimal" choice.

 

[Sigurd13]

Does anyone else out there think that the 4E ability score bonuses are too encouraging to run certain class/race combos?

I think that was kind of the point when they made the system. No offense. Certain races tend to have certain types of classes associated with them.

I mean, how often in literature, pop culture, or typical fantasy do you encounter Elven berserkers? Or Dwarven Rogues?

No one seems to run a human anything, and no one runs a character that is not +2 in a primary and secondary stat...

What is the argument against to allowing humans +2 to two abilities and letting choose one bonus freely and restrict them to taking at least one of the bonuses associated with their race?

Well, the argument (as others have said) is about balance. The humans have the best racial features besides stat bonuses HANDS DOWN. Bonus skill, bonus feat, bonus at will... a human wizard with 3 at wills is definitely an advantage over any other type of wizard who *might* have a better Int mod by +1. And especially since PHB2 and the new feats, this can quickly be accounted for. Heck, with the Human's bonus feat, it could be accounted for immediately. So the trade off is great features instead of great stats. Although I WILL agree that some of the racial stat choices for some of the races are a little bewildering (goblins have a +2 to Charisma? WTF?)

If diversity is your goal, have you considered just adding more stat points at character creation rather than changing the racial bonuses?
Consider what it would mean if you added 5 points to the starting pool for a total of 27, instead of 22;

You're most diverse array is 14 13 13 13 13 13
drop an additional 5 points on that array, shift some of the points around and you can get-
15 14 14 13 13 12 before racials are applied.

Alternatively, the most specialized array is 18 14 11 10 10 8. Adding 5 gets you-
18 16 12 10 10 8 before racials are applied.

Depending on how the 5 points are spent, it ranges between a +1 and +3 net attribute gain across up to 3 scores- so to balance this (if you feel 3 points across more than one stat is even WORTH balancing) you could remove the ability score bonus achieved at level 28 to make the earlier levels feel more epic, while retaining the balance at higher level.

This way you are not messing with the core races or classes, per se, which maintains the relative power balance between them. Also, you give the players the option to have higher overall stats (+1 to 3 stats) or allow them to become slightly more powerful in one specific area (approximately +1 to a single stat).

This should ease the "race/class" predictability and allow for more variety without damaging the balance of the system. At the same time, you'd be encouraging diversity over specialization since it's cheaper to point-buy a +1 mod in 3 stats rather than dumping those points into one stat.

The only drawback to this method is when dealing with certain types of monstrous races. There seems to be an overabundance of monstrous races that have stat bonuses to STR & CON. This is EXTREMELY unfortunate as it really only makes that race capable of being some sort of melee combat monkey. Two high stats governing the same defense make them extremely vulnerable, plus there are not a proportional number of classes that make use of both STR and CON effectively through its features and powers. These monsters may need further scrutiny.

 

[Obryn]

IOf course, neither feat scales with tier. I have no idea why Goliaths get excellent Barbarian stat bumps, AND a feat like Dwarven Weapon Training (for two handed weapons) which DOES scale with tier.

Goliath Greatweapon Prowess is theoretically nice, but I honestly don't think too many Barbarians will use it. It's far weaker than (at least) the Dwarven Weapon Training feat. IMHO, it's weaker than the Eladrin one, too, given the existence of the Greatspear.

Goliath Greatweapon Prowess only helps martial two-handed weapons. It doesn't do anything for superior weapons. And really, with how many [W]'s a barbarian is swinging around, they want those superior weapons very badly.

-O

 

[Pale Jackal]

Goliath Greatweapon Prowess is theoretically nice, but I honestly don't think too many Barbarians will use it. It's far weaker than (at least) the Dwarven Weapon Training feat. IMHO, it's weaker than the Eladrin one, too, given the existence of the Greatspear.

Goliath Greatweapon Prowess only helps martial two-handed weapons. It doesn't do anything for superior weapons. And really, with how many [W]'s a barbarian is swinging around, they want those superior weapons very badly.

-O

Well, I took a brief look at the PHB1 and PHB2, I guess you're talking about Adventurer's Vault. To be blunt: if that was how WotC balanced Goliath Greatweapon Prowess, that's dumb. So in order to balance the PHB1 and PHB2 feats, I need Adventurer's Vault? Yeesh. Correct me if I'm wrong. Alternately, if they thought Dwarves were poor fighters, making up for it with AV isn't the way to do it, IMO. But given the PHB2 stealth errata, I suppose that might be how they did it.

I think that was kind of the point when they made the system. No offense. Certain races tend to have certain types of classes associated with them.

I mean, how often in literature, pop culture, or typical fantasy do you encounter Elven berserkers? Or Dwarven Rogues?

Heh, I'm thinking of a few MtG Elven Berserker type cards, or how awesome scurvy-looking dwarves are. PCs are, almost by definition, exceptions. I don't see the need to rope them into certain archetypes based on race. Besides, certain racial powers already reinforce "Dwarves are tough! Elves are accurate," etc., and if you don't allow them complete freedom with their stat bumps, you still retain some of the racial flavor. That's my personal preference, I just hate when RPGs make it mechanically suboptimal for certain combinations. For example, if I want to play a Dragonborn Wizard, don't punish me for it!

 

[eriktheguy]

My solution is that I use this ability score array: 18, 16, 14, 12, 11, 10 and ignore all racial ability adjustments.

Any race can be good at any class, no punishing a "sub-optimal" choice.

Again, your solution makes humans significantly more powerful than the other races. This array is (almost) equivalent to a race with two ability score bonuses, humans are only supposed to get one. If humans have the same ability scores as other races, in addition to their extra feat, skill, at-will, and +1 to F/R/W they are just too good. Humans are balanced around having slightly lower ability scores by being given these bonus defenses. If you are going to use the array you presented, you should either make it lower for humans, or reduce/remove the human race's F/R/W bonus. My suggestion would be to continue giving the players the array you suggested, but giving them only +1 to a single F/R/W defense of your choice.

Note: Your solution is actually 2 points greater than the standard array
Standard array: 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10
+2 to two: 18, 16, 13, 12, 11, 10
The 14 costs 2 more points than the 13, however, this is a matter of taste and DM decision, so its totally up to you.

PS: I do like your solution of giving the players a boosted array.