What stat bonuses do you expect the non-elves will get?

[Green Knight]

On the other hand, if your race gets +2 Str, +2 Con, you don't make a bad wizard. You just make a better fighter.

This is exactly why I love this change. What were previously bad race/class combos are suddenly possible. Half-Orcs, for instance, made for bad Bards, Paladins, Sorcerers, and Wizards (Clerics, too, at least when it came to turning undead). That's one-third of the classes in the PHB which were pretty much out-of-bounds for the Half-Orc. Dwarves made for bad Bards, Paladins, and Sorcerers. Gnomes and Halflings made for bad Fighters. Now somebody can play one of those race/class combos and not completely gimp themselves in the process.

 

[infax]

@Green Knight:
My bad. I didn't pay enough attention to that paragraph, it seems. And then, it makes me wonder. No penalties for player races - ever!?!? Seems like a really serious design constraint. Even if it was no penalties for races in PH1 I would think it was a bit too much, but ever? Seriously?

As for the bonus at every even number, it has never been stated clearly that it will continue to be so and with the clear statement that abilities always give a positive modifier, I just assumed that we wouldn't have +9 modifiers for attributes at 18 from the start. Seemed liked something of a creeping in the direction of very high numbers (not necessarily a power creep if the math is the same across the system). You think it will be so?

It would be a really bad idea to play a race who gets -2 int and choose wizard as a class when int determines your plus to hit with your spells (what used to be your DCs), your damage with your spells, and possibly other class based effects. On the other hand, if your race gets +2 Str, +2 Con, you don't make a bad wizard. You just make a better fighter.

I never bought into that philosophy. I can see where it comes from but a wizard who rolls a 16 instead of an 18 in Int isn't an useless wizard as I see it. He even isn't "worse than everybody else" as far as wizards go. But that may be just me. I played a wizard halfling with 12 on every stats and had a blast with that character (and I managed to be one of the most active and efficient characters at the game table).

 

[Green Knight]

As for the bonus at every even number, it has never been stated clearly that it will continue to be so and with the clear statement that abilities always give a positive modifier, I just assumed that we wouldn't have +9 modifiers for attributes at 18 from the start. Seemed liked something of a creeping in the direction of very high numbers (not necessarily a power creep if the math is the same across the system). You think it will be so?

Check out the stats for the Spined Devil.

Note that he's got stats of 14 and 15, yet they provide the very same bonus. It isn't the same bonus that you get from 3E stats, but it still follows the same pattern (bonuses increase at even numbers).

I never bought into that philosophy. I can see where it comes from but a wizard who rolls a 16 instead of an 18 in Int isn't an useless wizard as I see it.

Try playing with Point Buy. Wasting 10 points to get an Int 14 for your Wizard sucks.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

As for the bonus at every even number, it has never been stated clearly that it will continue to be so and with the clear statement that abilities always give a positive modifier, I just assumed that we wouldn't have +9 modifiers for attributes at 18 from the start. Seemed liked something of a creeping in the direction of very high numbers (not necessarily a power creep if the math is the same across the system). You think it will be so?

Never seen any clear statement that abilities always give positive modifiers. There was a poster who said that was true and that he read it in Races and Classes about a month ago but then when asked he said that he was just guessing based on the stats listed for the Spined Devil.

Races and Class on the other hand DOES say that all classes get to add half their level as a bonus to all their skills and defenses(AC, Reflex, Fort, and Will) and that the BAB of all the classes is equal to half their level as well.

I doubt that it is a coincidence that if you take all the stats listed on the Spined Devil card and add half its level to the modifiers you get from having those stats in 3rd Ed that you get the modifiers listed on the card. My guess is that modifiers due to stats stay exactly the same.

I never bought into that philosophy. I can see where it comes from but a wizard who rolls a 16 instead of an 18 in Int isn't an useless wizard as I see it. He even isn't "worse than everybody else" as far as wizards go. But that may be just me. I played a wizard halfling with 12 on every stats and had a blast with that character (and I managed to be one of the most active and efficient characters at the game table).

It's possible to make up for small disadvantages, true. However, stats appear to be even more important in 4th Ed.

Currently in 3.5 if you are using point buy and you are playing a half-orc wizard while someone else plays a grey elf wizard and you both put enough points into int to get an 18, the half-orc ends up with a 16 and the grey elf ends up with a 20. Assuming that they both can get the same magic items, feats, classes, etc. The difference will always be 4 points. Which is a 10 percent chance to affect enemies with spells. Plus the elf can cast another couple spells per day(and they are the higher level ones). Which is a fairly big deal. It's not impossible to play that half-orc wizard but you will always be (at least)10% worse than the grey elf.

This is made even worse in 4e, since there appears to be spells and abilities that do things like 2d6+(2 x Int bonus) in damage. Meaning that you are MORE than 10% worse than a more efficient build. Also, in 3e you can get around some of the disadvantage of having a low stat by casting spells with no save. From everything I've seen of 4e, you need to make an attack roll with ALL spells, none of them appear to be no save.

This is all assuming two optimal builds(for their race). If you get someone in your group who decides to play a half-orc wizard and only put a 14 into their int and have it lowered to a 12, they will soon discover just how much difference there is between them and the optimal 20 int build.

Now, of course, you can't eliminate human error(or people choosing suboptimal choices) entirely. But you want to minimize it because most people really hate feeling that their character is useless or close to it. I know, I've felt that way when I played a character who was suboptimal and I've had players in my games come to me and ask me to switch characters when they realized that they were not powerful enough to feel like they were equals of the rest of the group.

One way you can minimize this is by recommending classes based on race choice (like they show in the elf description) so that people who don't know any better can be more likely to choose a class that their race works well with. Another way is by minimizing the effect of a bad choice. You do this by not giving races negative modifiers to reduce the difference between the best at something and the worst at something.

 

[pawsplay]

On the other hand, if your race gets +2 Str, +2 Con, you don't make a bad wizard. You just make a better fighter.

That's the same thing. The same exact thing.

 

[med stud]

I don't think they will have, but I think Strength and Intelligence boni would be fitting for humans.

*Strength because humans are generally the biggest of the races. Now with dragonborn that might change, but in 1st and 2nd edition humans were easily the biggest.

*Intelligence because humans are described as being the most dynamic and creative of the described races. They accomplish more in a century than dwarves and elves accomplish in a millenium.

 

[Green Knight]

On the other hand, if your race gets +2 Str, +2 Con, you don't make a bad wizard. You just make a better fighter.

That's the same thing. The same exact thing.

No, because stat penalties can very nearly knock out your class abilities if it reduces your stat enough. Take a Half-Orc Wizard using 25 Point Buy and the standard array. Even if he puts the 15 into Intelligence, that reduces it to a 13. If he dumps every stat increase from level 4 to level 20 into Intelligence, that still only gives him Int 18, which means he won't get access to Level 9 spells. On top of which, he'll get 6th-level spells one level later, 7th-level spells three levels later, and 8th-level spells five levels later. And that, my good man, sucks.

 

[infax]

@Green Knight:
From the Spined Devil Stats, what you can't say is that every even number would give a character a +1 modifier. 14/2 = +7 modifier but the Spined devil has +5 as a modifier to his stats at 14. It works out perfectly if you state it as +1 modifier at every even number above 3, although I would find that a little inelegant. It may be that. But you could surmise other options, however. From 14 to 19 you have a 5-point stat interval and +2 modifiers, the math could range wildely (although I agree it can very well be a +1 at every even number from there). Its just not clear for me so far.

As for playing with point buy, in 80% of the games that I played or GMed characters were built with point-buy. Doesn't really suck for me as long as every character was created using the same system. I usually invested up to 16 on my main stat and had a very easy time reaching 19 before being able to require level 9 spells. You simply didn't start with any 18s most of the time, which was fine by me (although some of my fellow players hated not having the "racial maximum" for the stats of their heroic characters).

Never seen any clear statement that abilities always give positive modifiers. There was a poster who said that was true and that he read it in Races and Classes about a month ago but then when asked he said that he was just guessing based on the stats listed for the Spined Devil.

Races and Class on the other hand DOES say that all classes get to add half their level as a bonus to all their skills and defenses(AC, Reflex, Fort, and Will) and that the BAB of all the classes is equal to half their level as well.

I doubt that it is a coincidence that if you take all the stats listed on the Spined Devil card and add half its level to the modifiers you get from having those stats in 3rd Ed that you get the modifiers listed on the card. My guess is that modifiers due to stats stay exactly the same.

If it has never been said stats don't give negative modifiers, I admit I may have read too much in other enworlders' posts (or that I stopped reading that thread from the guy with R&C before he admitted he was guessing from the Spined Devil).

From the second part of that statement, what you are saying is that you think the modifiers will stay exactly the same (mod = (stat-10)/2)? It would be strange to present the Spined Devil's abilities in that way, then, wouldn't it?



As for playing the half-orc compared to the grey elf wizard: yes, certainly if you take a race with a penalty and another with a bonus to a stat you'll have an easier time fulfilling your expected role. The maxed out Grey Elf will have more options and deliver more often as a wizard, there is no doubt about that. At low levels, there are advantages, if you run out of spells and have to defend yourself with a club, the Half-Orc has more chances of survival, but pretty soon that advantage disappears.

The thing is I mostly don't play maxed out characters. I don't sink all the character's money in stat-enhancing magic items and don't mostly prepare buffing spells. I played characters with Cloak of Arachne, having more than one Alter Self spell prepared and starting a mid-level game (level 12) with a necklace of fireballs. Sure, the gamemaster can't pit an unnusual group blindly against CR equivalent monsters without some careful consideration first, but you can have slightly different games.

A 10% difference chance is not-trivial but if for every 10 spells the Grey Elf casts that affects targets the Half-Orc only succeeds in affecting 9, it doesn't seem so terrible, does it?

But, perhaps all this could be reduced to one argument:

Now, of course, you can't eliminate human error(or people choosing suboptimal choices) entirely. But you want to minimize it because most people really hate feeling that their character is useless or close to it. I know, I've felt that way when I played a character who was suboptimal and I've had players in my games come to me and ask me to switch characters when they realized that they were not powerful enough to feel like they were equals of the rest of the group.

I usually don't play optimal characters and find it a bit bland when I have players playing solely optimal builds, after all, usually they end up looking a bit too much like one another, since they are all approximately the same build. Also, when situations arise that were not thought for the optimal character (for instance, when it comes to the wizard without spells to try to break down the door since the fighter is unconsious or it is the barbarian trying to overhear what a pair of NPCs two tables over are saying in the noisy tavern while the rogue is flirting at the bar) optimized builds have fewer options.


Anyway, trying to come back (slightly more) on topic:

One way you can minimize this is by recommending classes based on race choice (like they show in the elf description) so that people who don't know any better can be more likely to choose a class that their race works well with. Another way is by minimizing the effect of a bad choice. You do this by not giving races negative modifiers to reduce the difference between the best at something and the worst at something.

Negative penalties are only worse psychologically, I think. You have the same problem, mathematically, if you give the half-orc -2 Int and the Grey Elf +2 Int than if you give the Dragonborn a +0 bonus to Int and the Eladrin a +4 Int bonus (more so, since it is likely the Human, the Halfling and the Dwarf, at the least, will have a +0 Int racial bonus as well).


If this has been too much of a thread hi-jack, I apologize.

 

[jaer]

On the other hand, if your race gets +2 Str, +2 Con, you don't make a bad wizard. You just make a better fighter.

That's the same thing. The same exact thing.

No, it's not. Before, you had three options: a race that made a good wizard (int bonus), a race that made a pretty good wizard (no int modifier), and a race that just did not do well with wizardry (int penalty).

Wizard has made it so no PC race makes for a "not so good" anything. Your race either more inclined to it (bonus), or is on the same footing with everyone (no bonus).

I believe the article on the paladin mentioned classes being more focused on a prime stat, which means there will be even less difference amongst races that don't have the prime stat (races without a dex bonus will be on fairly similar footing for a ranger class for instance), and classes with the bonus will most likely have an appreciable advantage (a elf will make a noticibly better ranger than other non-dex races).

 

[jaer]

Negative penalties are only worse psychologically, I think. You have the same problem, mathematically, if you give the half-orc -2 Int and the Grey Elf +2 Int than if you give the Dragonborn a +0 bonus to Int and the Eladrin a +4 Int bonus (more so, since it is likely the Human, the Halfling and the Dwarf, at the least, will have a +0 Int racial bonus as well).

Again I am disagreeing.

Mathmatically, the Eladrin vs Dragonborn have a 4-point difference, just as the grey elf and the half-orc do.

Half-orc is a worse mage than the dwarf, the human, and the halfling in 3E example.

The dragonborn is on the same footing as the dwarf, the human, and the halfling in the 4E example.

In 3E, one race was superior, most of the others were equal, and one race sucked.

In 4E, one race is superior, the rest are equal.

That is more than psychological. The half-orc wizard was actively worse than any other wizard class. It's not the 4 points under the grey elf that made the half-orc suck: it was the 2 points under everyone else.

Each race will be awesome in one or two classes, and average in the rest. WotC removed the suckage, which is what 4E is supposed to be about any way.