Re: Re: Re: Re: Size Chart
Nail said:
I disagree with your premise. There is no difference between balancing stats for spell casters vs fighting-types. For example, a fighter has little use for Cha, and yet it is often used to balance against the fighter-type attributes of Str (1/2 orc) or Con (dwarf).
True. I would equate a +2 Cha for a Sorceror to a bonus in Strength more than Constitution for Fighter-types, however... I think the DMG is somewhat inaccurate when it says some stats are more important: In truth, some stats are more
exploitable, by specific classes.
+2 Constitution is good for Fighters, but not much more than it is for everyone... Basically, it means:
- Fort save increases by +1 (net saving throw increase: +1/3)
- +1 hp/level (meaning you can take one more weak hit)
Fighter-types don't really get much more mileage out of this than other classes, I'd argue... Esp the bonus to hit points (same logic as Wizards being the only people to take Toughness). It's still worthwhile, but in a pretty universal sense. (The only class which really exploits it, in particular, is the Barbarian -- and that's an extra round of Rage. Limited by number of Rages per day to a benefit that applies to six rounds at most, before Epic Levels.)
+2 Strength means, for everyone:
- +1 attack, +1 (possibly +2, if using a 2-handed weapon) damage to melee attacks
That applies to anyone who makes melee attacks. However, the Fighter types maximize this in a number of ways:
- They are more likely to hit. That +1 to damage occurs significantly more often for a Fighter; they benefit more from it.
- They are apt to have Power Attack. If so, you can always convert that +1 to damage, meaning that (as a race) they have +0 to attack, +2 to damage. Considering how often they'll hit regardless, still more significant to them than other classes.
So that +2 bonus to Strength is more exploitable than a +2 to Constitution.
Now +2 Charisma, for everyone, means:
- Bonus to some skills
Now, what do Sorcerors get out of this:
- 1 (in rare cases, more) Bonus Spell (at increasing spell levels!)
- +2 to maximum spell level they can cast
- +1 to save DCs (compare to Con's +1/3 to saving throws.)
Or, even, what do Paladins get out of this:
- +1 hp/level of healing (about equivalent to what +1 Con gives everyone)
- +1 to all saves (three times as much as Con gives everyone)
In this case, Charisma is clearly more beneficial than Con... In most cases, it is not. (I chose Charisma because it's the shortest example to illustrate... Int and Wis give other classes
much more bang for their collective buck.) The point of the tables in the DMG seems (at least to me) to be that you need to optimize for the worst-case scenario: If a stat bonus can be particularly exploited by a class or classes, assume that members of race are going into that class, and balance accordingly. That doesn't mean a race can't be
better at one class than others: Lord knows that Half-Orcs make the best Barbarians. You just need enough penalties to make the other races a viable option (again, assuming you're trying to balance versus metagamers: Worst-case scenario and all.)
Anyway, bonuses to mental stats are probably harder to balance than bonuses to Strength: Fighter-types need more than just Strength, but casters rely almost solely on one stat. In other words, the difference between an 18 Cha sorceror and a 16 Cha sorceror is greater than the difference between an 18 Str Fighter and a 16 Str Fighter. Another way of looking at it: Halfling fighters are better off than Dwarven sorcerors.
Your race is a special case, though, because of bonuses to all three mental stats: Short of multi-classing between casters (rarely efficient from a metagame standpoint), they're not going to be able to fully exploit
all their stats. In that case, I'd say the primary one would be worth a -2 Str, and the other two non-primaries might be worth another -2 Str (although dumping them into the same stat is, again, a little odd). They'll have really mega penalties associated with carrying capacity (small AND 6 Str average), and melee (-1 attack after size modifier, -2 damage), in exchange for an extra maxed-out skill, +1 bonuses to some good skills, and +1/3 saves to boot --
before they exploit class benefits. Or, non-combatants get a big bonus, combatants get a big penalty (the bonuses/penalties only even out for those in between the two categories, such as Rogues and even Monks). While it's "balanced" in that sense, it's much more polarized -- something you
generally want to avoid in creating player races, because when something is force-fit to a certain class, suddenly the penalties which don't apply to that class disappear.
Or, to look at it simply: You can assume people taking this race will be spell-casters, to at least the same extent you can assume Half-Orcs will be fighter-types (which is to say, in the vast majority of cases.) Like the fighter-races, the penalties disappear because they're shelved into "throw-away" stats. So Half-Orcs get a +2 Str. These guys get +2 Int, +2 Wis, and +2 Cha (one of which alone is going to be as important to the caster as the Str bonus is to the fighter.) See the discrepancy? -2 Str and -2 Dex might work alright (casters can use the AC, and the Ranged Touch), as might -2 Str -2 Con (hit points are also always important), although the net +2 bonus still seems suspect...
But then, this is a sidetrek, so I don't want to carry it on too long (although it's been worthwhile, since both sides of the argument have gotten me to look a lot closer at the way stats balance with each other -- as well the way balance works in general, which is interesting.)
Originally posted by Hashmalum
One possible solution I thought of that might work for randomly rolled attributes (although not point-buys) is to have the player choose race and class, then assign attributes blindly. What I mean by this is to have the DM roll up 6 scores, then have the player assign scores from highest to lowest to abilities without knowing what the scores are. You don't need to know specific scores in order to work out a basic character concept, but you do need to know those scores in order to min-max with odd racial ability modifiers. You could use this with ability-modifying "racial" feats too, provided that these had to be chosen at the same time as the base race.
That definitely would work (and I may just employ that rolling method in the future
) but it would be nice to have a mechanic that fits regardless of the method used to get the ability scores.
One option is simply to round off... In which case you have four options:
- Round up (+3 becomes +4, -3 becomes -2, etc)
- Round down (+3 becomes +2, -3 becomes -4, etc)
- Round toward zero (+3 becomes +2, -3 becomes -2, etc)
- Round away from zero (+3 becomes +4, -3 becomes -4, etc)
Rounding toward/away from zero tends to be more balanced (you're not always better or worse off), but it's hard to say which is preferable... Rounding away keeps things more polarized (bigger penalties and bigger benefits, kind of fits in with the above), which results in a "shakier" balance.... On the other hand, rounding toward zero has the weird inevitability that inter-species breeding tends toward producing humans
You could even have different rounding rules for each stat, on some weird genetic basis (ie, the presence of strength is slightly more likely to be inhereted than its absence, so you always round up)... But there's something strange about that too
Fun thread though.
