Understanding Race Design and Balance…

[Khaalis]

Understanding Race Design and Balance…

Understanding Race Design and Balance…

After going over the books, I am having trouble determining what criteria was used for balancing racial traits. There doesn’t appear to be any hard rhyme or reason to how these are determined. This is especially true if you look at the racial traits of monsters from the MM, most of which seem to gain less then PHB races.

• Ability Scores: Every race EXCEPT human gain a +2 bonus to 2 scores. I assume they feel the human bonuses make up for this.
• Speed: Varies from 5 to 7 for PC races. Is 5 considered a “negative” trait? Is a 7 considered a racial bonus trait?
• Vision: Is Low-Light vision or Darkvision considered a bonus racial trait?
• Languages: Most races have 2-3. Does the number of languages they know really matter in the balance of the race?
• Skill Bonuses: Some races have a +2 to 2 skills but some only have a +2 to one skill. What is the balance factor here?
• Defense Bonus: Some races have a defense bonus. Is this considered an equal weight to a racial ability?
• Racial “Abilities”: There is a wide variation from 2 racial abilities to 5 racial abilities? How are these balanced from one race to another?

Examples:

ELF
• Ability Scores: +2 to 2 Stats
• Speed: 7
• Vision: Low-Light
• Languages: 2
• Skill Bonuses: 2
• Racial Abilities: 5 (one is an encounter power)

vs. DROW
• Ability Scores: +2 to 2 Stats
• Speed: 6
• Vision: Darkvision
• Languages: 2
• Skill Bonuses: 2
• Racial Abilities: 2 (one is an encounter power)

vs. HALF-ELF
• Ability Scores: +2 to 2 Stats
• Speed: 6
• Vision: Low-Light
• Languages: 3
• Skill Bonuses: 2
• Racial Abilities: 3 (one is an encounter power)

Is it just me or are races really not balanced with any math like the rest of the system? Are races still basically an eye-ball rule? What makes a race worthy of 5 racial traits vs. another race that only gets 2?


On another race note…

I have also noticed that the design philosophy of Net Gain on racial design was taken to the extreme. No race appears to have any form of “negative” racial trait (such as say 3.5’s Light Sensitivity). What if I wanted to create a race that specifically has a mechanical “drawback”? Would I then balance that “negative racial trait” with 2 minor “positive” racial traits to maintain the net gain?

Example: Negative Trait
• Blood Lust: You take a -2 penalty to attack rolls for any attack that doesn’t include the nearest bloodied creature.

Example: Balancing the Negative Trait
• Blood Lust: You take a -2 penalty to attack rolls for any attack that doesn’t include the nearest bloodied creature. However, you gain a +1 racial bonus to attack and damage rolls against bloodied foes.

Does this seem correctly balanced for introducing a negative trait?


Anyone have thoughts on how to best proceed with racial design balance?

 

[Moon-Lancer]

if everyone picks a specific one, its too powerful, If no one picks it, its too weak. I would like a formula though.

 

[Graf]

Heh.
There was never a formula for 3.5.
What would make you think there was a formula for 4e?

And, yes, good vision and faster movement are definitely bonuses. The only one with slow speed (dwarf) gets a bonus to move in heavy armor though, which largely negates it.

The Human +2 goes anywhere, so that's a balancing factor.

And even +2/+2 isn't "balanced".
For example: Races with bonuses to Str/Con Int/Dex Wis/Cha overlap on defense (Fortitude/Ref/Will respectively). Having your bonuses out side of those two stats is relatively speaking more beneficial.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

On another race note…

I have also noticed that the design philosophy of Net Gain on racial design was taken to the extreme. No race appears to have any form of “negative” racial trait (such as say 3.5’s Light Sensitivity). What if I wanted to create a race that specifically has a mechanical “drawback”? Would I then balance that “negative racial trait” with 2 minor “positive” racial traits to maintain the net gain?

Example: Negative Trait
• Blood Lust: You take a -2 penalty to attack rolls for any attack that doesn’t include the nearest bloodied creature.

Example: Balancing the Negative Trait
• Blood Lust: You take a -2 penalty to attack rolls for any attack that doesn’t include the nearest bloodied creature. However, you gain a +1 racial bonus to attack and damage rolls against bloodied foes.

Does this seem correctly balanced for introducing a negative trait?


Anyone have thoughts on how to best proceed with racial design balance?

At the beginning of an encounter, there are unlikely to be any bloodied foes. The Blood Lust trait (either version) is overly punitive.

 

[Khaalis]

At the beginning of an encounter, there are unlikely to be any bloodied foes. The Blood Lust trait (either version) is overly punitive.

Good point. It would thus need to be reworded to get the proper intent.

Blood Lust: You take a -2 penalty to attack rolls for any attack that doesn’t include the nearest bloodied creature. If there are no bloodied creatures within 10 squares, you suffer no penalty to attack rolls.

 

[The_Fan]

It's funny you're comparing the drow negatively to other races, considering in other threads different people are saying it's overpowered.

I think it's too early in this edition to really tell what is overpowered and what isn't, unless you run into an obviously broken situation like the DDXP "Sir Robin" paladin. (bravely ran away away!)

 

[Mengu]

I don't think the races were balanced against each other in a vacuum. Clearly some races are better suited for certain classes. I think it is these combinations that were balanced to make sure no race/class combo was more powerful than another, when they made some fairly ideal choices. So they would balance the Dwarf Fighter against the Dragonborn Paladin, the Elf Ranger against the Halfling Rogue, etc.

Since there are so many choices, it's not possible to balance the weak choices against the strong choices. All you can do is make sure there are many optimal choices instead of a single obvious one. The races and racial feats, as well as class features, were likely designed with this philosophy in mind, to provide as many "good" options as possible. If you want to play a Rogue, Halfling should not be the immediate answer, and thanks to a number of build options, it is not.

The MM races were probably not tested nearly as much (if at all), and as such I don't expect them to have any sort of balance against the PHB races. If a GM allowed every monster race available in MM, the race/class selection meta would likely favor a different set of combinations, than if only the PHB races were used. This should not be a surprise. I personally do not intend to allow any MM races.

 

[DSRilk]

I think it was done similarly to base class features. It's an overall... "it feels right" situation. The problem with both racial and class features is that some things are obviously worth more than others. If you assigned a point value to everything, +1 language would certainly rank lower than most powers. Then again, each power would probably be a little different in terms of value as well.

There's also the situation in races where you can have several powerful abilities as long as they don't work well together. For example, giving a bonus to AC when wearing heavy armor plus a bonus to melee attacks is much more powerful than giving a bonus to AC when wearing heavy armor along with a bonus to stealth when in light armor since the first pair work well together while the second pair are mutually exclusive.

When it comes to penalties, I think you have to be VERY careful - especially when it comes to "balancing" them with benefits. I've always been very much against the whole "X flaws = Y benefits" systems. My (decades of) experience has been that virtually every flaw can be worked around, leaving you with just the benefit. Either that or it's up to the DM to really make it impact the character, which is often hard to do even for a good DM (as you'll probably have several characters all with a variety of flaws you'll have to "make" come into play). In your example, it's extremely easy to bypass the flaw entirely simply by attacking bloodied things. In general, the creature you want to attack is the one everyone's already attacking, thus it'll be the first one bloodied - and thus it'll be the main target anyway, eliminating the downside leaving you with just a bonus that is now no longer balanced against anything. The solution, I believe, is pretty much what they've done in 4e. Benefits balanced against other benefits. E.g. one race gets a benefit against bloodied opponents which is balanced by... every race getting some kind of equally powerful benefit (well, really it's not balanced one v. one in a vacuum, so it's really the composite benefits of one race balanced against the total benefits of another being roughly equal).

My advice? Figure out what your goal is (e.g. having a race that finds itself drawn to blood once it's been spilled), then give role-playing advice and mechanical benefits to help guide the player in that direction. This will naturally give the benefit you desire - i.e. the character attacking things that are bloodied because it has an advantage against them. If they're RP-driven players, they'll do it for that reason alone, and if they're power-ish gamers they'll do it because they know that the math is more in their favor if they do.

 

[Toryx]

The problem with adhering to balance in everything is that it makes the D&D worlds of 4e a fair world. In my opinion, it shouldn't be one. There shouldn't be a perfect balance between the races or the classes either mathematically or thematically.

What's the point of choosing between races and classes if they're all perfectly balanced? So that you have different names for your attacks and benefits even if they do essentially the same thing? I think that Elves and Eladrin should have nifty little abilities that makes them more powerful than other races. Dwarves should have something that makes them somehow greater than your standard halfling or human. And there should be options in the game that are not inherently as powerful as other choices to add to the challenge and the luster of playing something disadvantaged and succeeded despite that.

I personally don't want perfect balance. I want my human to have a little less than the elder races. IMO, part of the problem with 4e is that it's too balanced. If they focused a little more on the time honored characteristics of the race and a little less on the mathematical equality of each one, that'd be a rare good point in its 4e's favor for me.

 

[FireLance]

The problem with adhering to balance in everything is that it makes the D&D worlds of 4e a fair world. In my opinion, it shouldn't be one. There shouldn't be a perfect balance between the races or the classes either mathematically or thematically.

What's the point of choosing between races and classes if they're all perfectly balanced? So that you have different names for your attacks and benefits even if they do essentially the same thing? I think that Elves and Eladrin should have nifty little abilities that makes them more powerful than other races. Dwarves should have something that makes them somehow greater than your standard halfling or human. And there should be options in the game that are not inherently as powerful as other choices to add to the challenge and the luster of playing something disadvantaged and succeeded despite that.

I personally don't want perfect balance. I want my human to have a little less than the elder races. IMO, part of the problem with 4e is that it's too balanced. If they focused a little more on the time honored characteristics of the race and a little less on the mathematical equality of each one, that'd be a rare good point in its 4e's favor for me.

Fairness is generally considered to be a desirable quality in a game, unless, of course, the objective of the game is to discover and select the most powerful options (e.g. the 3e "System Mastery" design principle).

Of course, if you do not consider D&D to be first and foremost a game, then we are approaching the issue from completely different angles and will probably just have to agree to disagree.