D&D 3E/3.5 Which race "got the shaft" in 3.5

[Shin Okada]

As a halfling (she's human) she would have better saves and two higher attack bonus, but would lose the bonus feat (which is worth as much as the save bonus roughly, if you use the FR subraces, you can even have the bonus feat like the human instead of the save bonuses!) and some skill points (would gain some weaker skill bonuses in exchange). The small size would be no real hindrance, as she cannot escape a grapple or trip attempt anyways, but would offer some more advantages (better hide, and AC).

If she is a halfling, she will have slower speed. That will make her a little bit harder to get into "right position for shooting". I have seen this happen many times for various small shooters. Because of cover rules, positioning is more important for shooters than for usual spell casters. In my experience, combination of slow speed and the lack of low-light/dark vision often hurts a halfling shooter (read as wasting a round to reach a viable position to shoot). Which can never be compensated by +2 bonus for shooting (or only +1, as human can have extra weapon focus/point blank shot).

Also, there are times when short halflings can't see the other side of, say, a 3-4 foot tall cover (like those on castle walls). Most buildings are built medium-sized character in mind.

And, there always be a moment when being medium or small means life and death. My play group have lost a halfling rogue in the middle of fire-top mountain. Because of a large worm which can swallow small characters but not medium characters. Being small is a hard way. Sigh.

 

[Shin Okada]

argo,

I think +2 con (+1 bonus) is more important for d4 spell casters than for classes with bigger hit die types. The average of a d4 is 2.5. 1 hp is about 40% of them. On the other hand +1 bonus is only about 15 % of an average d12 roll. This difference actually changes the number of hits a critter need to kill a wizard.

Members of my group has tried wizards of all the core races. And the coclusion is "A Wizard must be Dwarf or Gnome".

 

[Thanee]

Or a human and pick up Improved Toughness (at 6th).

30 ft. base move *and* +1 hp/lvl, how good is that?

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

TBH, tho, I think the race is almost irrelevant for a wizard, once you get beyond the starting levels.

Bye
Thanee

 

[jeffh]

They don't need. IMHO Gnome is OK. But halfling? Small damage (both from weapon size and low strength) is no good as an archer. And as offensive spell caster, lack of low-light or dark vision really hurts when going through dark dungeon. And IMHO high Con is more important than high Dex for an arcane caster.

Small damage? With most missile weapons, the Halfling basically trades 1 point of damage for +2 to hit. Under most circumstances, that's a trade I'm very happy to make.

Low-light or darkvision? Rarely seen it matter - the rest of the party needs to be able to see!

Con vs Dex - I saw someone work this out and surprisingly, for most AC values it turns out to be true. I'd have thought it would be the other way 'round. But don't forget that the Dex bonus stacks with the +1 for size - +2 AC is pretty good for arcane types.

Your best point so far on halflings is the slow speed messing them up when it comes to flanking. That really hurt the halfling rogue in my own recently-ended campaign.

 

[Shin Okada]

Small damage? With most missile weapons, the Halfling basically trades 1 point of damage for +2 to hit. Under most circumstances, that's a trade I'm very happy to make.

Small longbow does d6 damage compared to d8 damage of medium longbow. And with -2 str, a halfling archer has 1 less str bonus. Thus, -2 damage in average, not -1. Say, d6+2 against d8+3. I prefer bigger damage since now DR had become more complex thing (many special materials). Using a magic bow (or magic arrows) does not ensure you to penetrate DR 5/Silver or DR 5/Good.

Low-light or darkvision? Rarely seen it matter - the rest of the party needs to be able to see!

Hmm. I have been thinking that visibility is very important for an archer type (and for an offensive spell caster). An archer cannot shoot at an opponent when he cannot see it. Maybe your adventures are mostly done in close quarters and/or under daylight? I often DM (or play) adventures involving big dark dungeon or night-time wilderness encounters.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

I've been told by multiple gamers that they feel the Halfling got the short end of the stick.

 

[LeapingShark]

Yep halflings always have the shortest sticks.

 

[argo]

argo,

I think +2 con (+1 bonus) is more important for d4 spell casters than for classes with bigger hit die types. The average of a d4 is 2.5. 1 hp is about 40% of them. On the other hand +1 bonus is only about 15 % of an average d12 roll. This difference actually changes the number of hits a critter need to kill a wizard.

Members of my group has tried wizards of all the core races. And the coclusion is "A Wizard must be Dwarf or Gnome".

Yeah, but in the case of the smaller hit die the precentages don't matter nearly as much as the actual HP. A Wiz 10 with Con 10 has an average of 22HP, with a Con 12 he has an average of 32HP. Thats nearly 50% more but guess what? Neither of them will last two rounds in melee (and probably not even one). When you have a d4 HD your HP exist only to give you half a chance of surviving the occasional area effect attack or trap the rogue missed. Your defensive strategy in battle has to focus on not getting hit at all because if you do I guarantee you are toast regardless of your Con.

I do admit that Gnomes make better arcane casters than Halflings but that's mostly because of the low light vision and +2 to illusion DC. But that is a long way from saying Halfling casters are useless and Gnome casters roxor. That is a broad generalization you just can't support.

And although its a pain to be a scout without low-light or darkvision I have never seen a Halfling rogue who failed to impress. I wouldnt' want a Con penalty as a rogue but I think for a typical thief I would take a Dex bonus over a Con bonus any day.

Later.

 

[Guilt Puppy]

Looking at it race by race:

Humans: Not shafted, not one bit. None of the racial mods match the bonus feat.

Dwarves: Definitely not shafted... As many have pointed out, they're pretty much the best race mechanically. The only downside in 3E was speed... And that's largely removed in 3.5.

Elves: I wouldn't quite give them the shaft mechanically... That -2 Con is unappealing, but +2 Dex is better than most people give credit, and then there are a whole slew of racial abilities to follow. I think they're a bit above average, mechanics-wise.

Gnomes: Also close to average. The -2 Str is a big penalty, even for Wizards, but size bonuses, miscellaneous racial abilities, and the vaunted +2 Con all make up for it just fine.

Half-elves: Mechanically, I think they might be at a slight disadvantage, but not as much as most people really make 'em out to be... Really, I think it's just a lack of distinguishing goodies which makes them seem so shafted.

Half-orcs: Probably the most shafted. Not as much as some people argue, I'd say -- that +2 Str is worth the extra minuses and lack of extra goodies, for a tank... The main reason they feel so shafted, though, is that while they slightly outclass, say, a human in one specific character build (after you take into account the lack of bonus feat, et cetera), they fall far behind everyone if you try to use them for any other character type. Monks and Rangers are pretty much the only non-tank classes they can be competitive at, and they're still at a slight loss (for lack of extra skills, racial abilities, et cetera)

Halflings: Second only to dwarves. Not shafted a bit.

So, I'd have to declare Half-Orcs the winner of my most-shafted award... But really, the more I look at it, the more I have to say the races are pretty well-balanced.