Technik4, I'll address your points in order.
Technik4 said:
I just don't see the point. Maybe the fact that I began playing with 1e and 2e, where 18/00 strength represented the maximum human potential was ingrained in my head is the reason.
I also started back in the '70s, and I actually HAD an 18/00 character at one point (Half-Ogre Fighter, from the second Dragon Magazine version, the Best Darned Door-Opener There Is.)
If an 18/00 gave you +3 to attack and +7 to damage (or was it +6? I forget), while a 17 gave only +1/+1, then the difference in 3E terms is effectively a ~+3 modifier, meaning +6 STR. If you honestly believe that a +4 STR can't possibly be balanced, then there's no way 18/00 ever could have been, because it's even more severe of a power increase.
Or maybe I don't think ANY race should have have +4 in ANYTHING if they are LA +0 and it's just a personal bias.
That IS a bias, but it's not really personal. It's just that a +4 doesn't really fit with the design philosophy of the stock D&D races. They're all +0, +2/-2, or +2/-2/-2 races, and none of them have noticeable built-in vulnerabilities (other than the -2 stats and the "Orc Blood" type of abilities, none have ANY negatives, really). As a "core" system, that's not a bad design philosophy; a new player won't really cripple himself if he picks an unusual combination.
Throwing a single +4 race into the mix could inevitably make a core race obsolete, if there was enough overlap. For a +STR race, that means you need to avoid making the Half-Orc obsolete. The core Half-Orc, as written, would have a problem with that, since it really doesn't have many other abilties as it is; its +2 STR is really its only selling point. But what if the Half-Orc was beefed up just a little? For instance, we gave all Half-Orcs Low-Light Vision (x2), which paired with their Darkvision makes them excellent scouts. We let them take Minor Scent as a Feat (it's like Scent, but 1/3rd the range, +5 to DCs, and you can't localize targets to a single square). We switched their favored class to Ranger, and gave them Weapon Familiarity with a few orcish weapons (like the double axe!). None of these were big changes, but the end result was an excellent Ranger race (pretty good Rogues, too). If the Half-Orc was boosted like that, it wouldn't automatically be made obsolete by a +4 STR race, especially if the latter had some serious penalties.
But it's like saying that no one would ever play a Human or Dwarf fighter because the Half-Orc has higher STR; it's true that they have the higher STR, but that's not the only consideration you account for when building a tank. If +2 STR doesn't obsolete +0 STR, then why would +4 STR automatically obsolete the +2?
I've also played in a system where MANY of the player races had been reworked to have a +4 in one stat, with larger penalties to offset (using both negative stats AND other stuff). In some ways it worked better; the existing +2/-2 means that every race can still have every class, and many people (too many, IMO) love playing the "unpopular" or "outsider" combinations (Dwarven Wizard, Halfling Paladin, CG Drow Ranger, etc.) By making the bonuses and penalties larger, this just doesn't happen as much.
So no, I don't think it's impossible to balance an LA+0 STR+4 race.
But I bet any such race created that is balanced was made to mechanically fill a hole or as a creative exercise (can it be done?!) rather than to fulfill the objective of one of the campaign's stories.
I'm not sure I see your point. IMO, new races (and non-PrC classes, and most Feats) SHOULD be made to fill a gap in the game's mechanics, and not just be made for campaign-specific reasons. We added another +STR race because we felt the game needed it, no more, no less. If you're adding new races just to flesh out a campaign story, then you end up with far too many races and too little balance. And if you're actually using campaign-specific story elements to "balance" the race, then it's not really usable in other campaigns without a lot of modification...
