The minuses of pluses, the pluses of minuses.

[Incenjucar]

Incenjucar and Jack99- you both mention the elf (wizard) being suboptimal., I'm assuming because of the -2 CON. Is that penalty to HP not offset by the +1AC due to the +2 Dex? I had always thought that statisically a better AC is better than HP, but perhaps I'm wrong.

It makes for the glass cannon effect. It's not that elf wizards were bad, it's just that they take the primary weakness of a wizard and make it worse.

It's like if you had a fighter with a race that reduced their Will save to 75% efficiency.

Every time an enchanter showed up everyone would start freaking out about the fighter turning on them.

 

[Gort]

I always thought elves were underpowered in 3rd ed anyway. A hit to CON is a big penalty that's felt by absolutely every class. A bonus to DEX is only really felt by rangers, barbarians (who aren't much cop due to the CON penalty), and rogues. Fighters and paladins don't need DEX because of their plate armour, likewise clerics, bards and monks are just rubbish so I'm not even going to consider them, and a wizard or sorcerer who's being directly attacked is in a bad way anyway, +1 AC or not.

The only big problem I can see with the idea that races only get racial bonuses is the halfling strength modifier. Unless every other race is getting a strength bonus, halflings are way too strong for their size. They're four feet tall for goodness sake!

 

[Aust Diamondew]

The only big problem I can see with the idea that races only get racial bonuses is the halfling strength modifier. Unless every other race is getting a strength bonus...

Exactly what I thought. If a race should be less than everyone else at a given task then the only way to do that is a penalty or a bonus to everyone else. Halflings should be weaker.
On the otherhand perhaps the small size penalties represent this well enough. A large penalty (like 3e) to grapple, trip etc and a reduction to carrying capacity.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Exactly what I thought. If a race should be less than everyone else at a given task then the only way to do that is a penalty or a bonus to everyone else. Halflings should be weaker.
On the otherhand perhaps the small size penalties represent this well enough. A large penalty (like 3e) to grapple, trip etc and a reduction to carrying capacity.

They at least ensure that a Halfling is a suboptimal choice for anyone entering a melee at higher levels, since too many monsters have Improved Grab (while dealing awesome amounts of damage in it)

 

[Kyrail]

...clerics...are just rubbish so I'm not even going to consider them...

Hard to take the rest seriously after reading this.

 

[glass]

...clerics...are just rubbish so I'm not even going to consider them...

Hard to take the rest seriously after reading this.

I assumed that is was a word-order error, and the clerics were supposed to be in the 'don't care due to heavy armour' list.


glass.

 

[Wolfspider]

Well, I guess there is a point there, that now you can run a dwarf sorceror or some other combo without starting off nerfed. But won't that just transition into 'why play a suboptimal dwarf cleric (assuming no Wis bonus) when I can play an elf cleric with a +2 Wis?'
Like Doug said, it's all relative. The +2 bonus becomes the standard, instead of a +0. So instead of being pigeon holed into not playing a race/class combo due to the penalty, you'll be pigeon holed into playing one due to the bonus.

I actually think this is a very good point.

 

[Dormammu]

Only because [humans] probably are going to get a floating ability score bonus* in 4E.

Is this just speculation? I would actually think it's more likely Humans will get fixed bonuses, which would be cool for a change.

 

[glorm]

Well, I guess there is a point there, that now you can run a dwarf sorceror or some other combo without starting off nerfed. But won't that just transition into 'why play a suboptimal dwarf cleric (assuming no Wis bonus) when I can play an elf cleric with a +2 Wis?'
Like Doug said, it's all relative. The +2 bonus becomes the standard, instead of a +0. So instead of being pigeon holed into not playing a race/class combo due to the penalty, you'll be pigeon holed into playing one due to the bonus. (assuming your optimizing)
Besides, the whole point of having a bonus is to set something apart from the norm (aka human). If everyone gets a bonus, what's the point?

You have a good point in that the elf's ability bonuses say "play a ranger to be optimal." However, ranger's have always been dependent on multiple attributes. If we consider the four classes that traditionally have one primary attribute -- rogue, wizard, cleric and fighter -- then having only +2 bonuses and no negative bonuses will make more combinations reasonable.
A elf probably will be a better rogue than a dwarf, and probably a better cleric than a halfling, but the difference would only be +2 with respect to any race and not +4 as it could be with -2 and +2 allowed.
For classes that be depend on multiple attributes, there would be a +4 difference between the best race for a class and the worst races, but it would be split between 2 attributes, rather than just one.

Another possibility is that the focus on single attributes for particular classes might be diluted; Bo9S had warblades caring about intelligence, PHB2 had fighter feats where wisdom mattered, and races and classes mentions intelligent rogues, sneaky rogues, athletic rogues and charismatic rogus.

So having pairs of bonuses might slant particular races towards either classes where both attributes matter (rangers for elfs) or particular styles of other classes (not that I can think of a rogue for whom wis matters, but perhaps a dexterous, even lighter armored cleric.

 

[Ahglock]

Well, I guess there is a point there, that now you can run a dwarf sorceror or some other combo without starting off nerfed. But won't that just transition into 'why play a suboptimal dwarf cleric (assuming no Wis bonus) when I can play an elf cleric with a +2 Wis?'
Like Doug said, it's all relative. The +2 bonus becomes the standard, instead of a +0. So instead of being pigeon holed into not playing a race/class combo due to the penalty, you'll be pigeon holed into playing one due to the bonus. (assuming your optimizing)
Besides, the whole point of having a bonus is to set something apart from the norm (aka human). If everyone gets a bonus, what's the point?

I like flaws, I think they define a charter just as much as there strengths do. And while I agree with what you are saying, when there are no penalties and just bonuses the difference in ability is just a 2 attribute swing. When its a bonus and a penalty the difference in swing can be a 4 point swing. So basically yeah you might not be the optimal choice but at least its not a below average choice.

I do think that with just bonuses it will promote a more diverse spread of class/race combos. And voerall I consider that a good thing.