Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thamewolf" data-source="post: 4275306" data-attributes="member: 68243">Hey, thanks for the input.As for the gnomes, I can see how the bonus to both Int and Wis might normally be a bit of a stretch (even though DMG says giving -2 to both of those is equivalent to a +2 in strength, so if it doesn't work the other way around they aren't really "equivalent"). However, the fact that those bonuses will never work towards higher save DCs or bonus spells in this campaign weakens them significantly. Their effect is almost exclusively to skills (except the will saves from Wis). While skills are important in this campaign, there will be definite combat periods, so I wanted to make up their failing there on the skill side. Also, I have the removed spell-like abilities and random favored enemy combat bonuses to make up for. What do you think about dropping the tradeskill bonuses to +2 for one and +1 to the others?Regarding the dark elves, others I've talked with (as well as myself) seem to go back and forth between thinking they are too weak and thinking they're too powerful. In a perfect world, that would mean they're just right, but I have a feeling they need some tweaking yet. Some points:1) Fire Resistance- some think it is too strong, some think it balances, and some find it unimpressive. In this campaign there aren't going to a lot of mages slinging fire spells left and right. They might only encounter 2-3 NPCs capable of casting fireball as a spell-like ability in the first 10 levels of play, probably less. Oh, and those NPCs will only be able to cast their fireballs once a day (maybe twice if they've harnessed a place or ritual of great power). This would lean toward fire res being weaker. However, there are a fair amount of traps, a few of which might be fire, though most are poison, and alchemically made flaming arrows are not out of the question. Thus, I'm not really sure.2) Ability bonuses/penalties- again, people can't seem to agree on this. As I've stated previously, they follow DMG equivalencies (a trade of +2 Str for -2 Int and -2 Cha, as well as a trade of +2 Dex for -2 Con as per the standard elf). As for the "too weak" argument, I can see how the -2 Con would hurt the combat-type roles. However, those abilities would still make for a pretty good finesse oriented fighter, a decent ranger, and an excellent barbarian. These are pretty much the types of dark elf traditions that will exist in the culture of my campaign. Removing the -2 to Con would pretty much separate them from their elvish heritage and make them too powerful beyond a doubt.As for the "too strong" argument, this is a decent point in that there are no casting classes that make great ability use of the Int and Cha skills. However, these abilities will have a large affect on power accumulation in the RP parts of the campaign, and the dark elves might suffer there depending on how low they let those drop. I agree that the dark elves are more powerful than Half-Orcs. Thank you for pointing that out. It reminds me of another change I've got to make. I have always thought Half-Orcs were unbalanced and far weaker than the other races (possibly even a step behind the Half-Elves). They trade strength bonus for Int and Cha penalties as DMG equivalencies suggest, but in addition to abilities, all races have certain other special bonuses. The Half-Orc's sole bonus is darkvision (I don't consider the bloodline stuff a bonus). Compare this with the dwarf's long list of pretty good bonuses and there's no way you can say it's balanced. But I digress.I am probably going to keep the ability bonuses/penalties on these races as is, but I am certainly on the lookout for specific suggestions on balancing them with relation to the other racial bonuses. Thanks again for your suggestions and help.</blockquote>

Verification