Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guilt Puppy" data-source="post: 566285" data-attributes="member: 6521">Re: Re: Size ChartNail: The problem with using the size progression tables from the Monster Manual is that they're intended to correspond to creature advancement, and are not universal size differences... A creature moving from small to large not only increasing in size, but developing physically (growing up, essentially). I don't think those tables were ever meant to be used to measure changes between species (or to be the basis for new species: I don't see anywhere where it specifies that a creature's strength is derived from a size bonus and a racial bonus...)Re: Str -2 Int +2 Cha +2, quoth the DMG: "Notice that sometimes the bonus/penalty tradeoff doesn't always work both ways. For example, a bonus in Strength is roughly equal to a penalty in Constitution, but a bonus to Constitution is not equal to a penalty in Strength."Unfortunately, it doesn't give any examples for what a mental stat bonus is worth in terms of physical stat penalties. I have a feeling that even a Cha +2 Str -2 might not be balanced, because the Cha-based classes make little to no use of Strength. (The fact that the core races have no bonuses to mental stats says a lot: It is difficult to avoid over-powering a spellcaster.)That said, I'd probably allow a one-to-one trade-off of mental stats versus physical stats... Definitely not a two-to-one or three-to-two, however. So Str -4 Int +2 Cha +2 would be reasonable. Str -4 Con -2 Int/Wis/Cha +2 might even be okay... When you start getting into bonuses of >+2 to a single stat, though, things really get tricky (the disparity between Str and Cha, for instance, is magnified -- doubled in fact, meaning such a race would be twice as imbalanced as a +2/-2 Cha/Str race.)Also, don't forget that racial abilities, and even favored class can play into all this. Short-change such a race on stocking-stuffers (as was done to the half-orc) to keep it balanced.Further, this really only matters when you're trying to be reasonably fine-tuned about game balance. There's a difference between "that's not balanced" and "that's bad"... If your campaign doesn't require a really exacting game balance, it probably wouldn't have a noticable effect, beyond being an interesting race and a possibly fun option.(Edit: Back to the original topic, heh...)An Air-Touched Elf should only have a +2 to Dexterity, unless somebody knows of a reference for racial bonuses stacking.This seems odd, indeed, but look at it this way: Would a half-gnome/half-halfling have a -4 strength? Why should it be weaker than either of its parents?Or, why would an Orc-blooded Dragon be stronger than its full-blooded Dragon parent?Ideally, you'd want to take the average of the parents' racial bonuses... Unfortunately, this can't be done via feats of this sort (unless applied to humans, or other races with no racial modifiers.) Also, it needs to apply to all stats... If a creature with a high Wisdom mates with an Elf (average Wisdom), their child should have a mix of the two parents bonuses (+4, let's say, +0 for the elf... Averaging to +2).Instead of feats, I would just propose a general system for modifying races: Average racial bonuses, find some way of dealing with the odd numbers, and then find some way to "average" the racial qualities (no easy task). But the feats present a problem for any race other than humans, as written.</blockquote>

Verification