Why are elves inferior spellcasters./why gnomes are better.

[gizmo33]

And, quite seriously, do people even use the multiclassing XP penalty rules? I've never considered them worth paying any attention to, and I don't think any game I've ever played in has used them.

I think that the 3E designers were aiming for a certain quality that demi-humans had (due to level limits and such) but couldn't really do it the way that 1E/2E did it, so they invented this favored-class rule for multiclassing. IMO the experiment has run it's course though - I don't really use the rule.

 

[crazy_monkey1956]

Differing perspective...

Favored Class: Wizard could just mean that a lot of elves dabble in wizardry for a level or two but focus on other things, like ranger or rogue.

Just a thought.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

+2 Dex -2 con - this is a primary reason I will not play elves as anything other than a ranged attacker,that con penalty kills, especially as a wizard.

And wizards are always in the thick of melee?

Wizards seem to survive despite the low HD, and for a reason: They're a lot better at avoiding losing HP than your average arrow-thrower. They have mirror images, invisibility, fly, and a dozen other little spells to make it work.

one well placed fireball or ray spell and you are toast

Unless you cast your protection from energy.

not to mention if something gets past your front line, even for one round.

... and sees you. And actually hits you, despite all your defense spells.

proficiency with swords and bows- completely wasted on a wizard

No. Completely wasted on a fighter. They already get proficiency with everything martial. Wizards get next to nothing, so they will not complain about free weapon proficiencies. Especially that bow can be useful at low levels.

Low light vision- nice but hardly ever bcomes up, at least for me I cannot remember the last time a dm busted out the shadowy illumination rules or that lowlight vision came up.

Your characters never outside except in broad daylight? They never use torches or candles?

+ 2 bonus to search spot and listen checks and an automatic search check to find secret doors- not useful for a wizard at all

Spot and listen are always useful.

i dunno i guessi think of elves as being good wizards and they just arent.

I can't agree with this:

Beyond the fact that grey elves / gold elves (one a subrace from the very core rules, the other from the biggest D&D world out there) get a bonus to int (not too many other races get an int bonus with any of their sub-races), the dex is quite useful for ranged-touch-spell slinging, lightly armoured wizards, and since wizards are quite good at avoiding HP loss, the con will not be quite that bad.

dwarves make much better wizards.

Huh? That you have to explain to me.

1.) Dwarf( they are naturally strong where wizards are naturally weak and give up almost nothing. Plus stonecunning + Knowledge skills = awesome and just as good as the ability to detect secret doors only better. Th appraise bonus fits well flavorfully for wizards, + 2 bonus on saves vs spells and spell-likes is incredible)

Well:
1) Dwarves are overpowered and should be cut down to size.
2) Appraise isn't necessarily something for wizards, they just cast a divination spell or two.
3) +2 Bonus against magic - good for everyone, and also see my 1)

So how do you fix elves as wizards- even grey elves with their int bonus do not really seem to do the trick becus of how stacked against them rest of thier abilities are

So stuff like +2 to search, spot and listen, detect secret doors, immune to sleep and +2 to enchantment saves means that even with +2 Int (something your average wizard would sell his mother for), they are bad wizards? You just completely lost me.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

The core stats suggest they all are, at root.

They have keen senses. That doesn't equal "treehugger".

Obviously, one can layer whatever culture one wants to atop the stats, but just stripping away all the fluff and looking at the crunch, nothing about elves suggests they'd be a magical race, other than that weird appendix of a favored class description.

Remember that not every character needs to be a twink, min-maxed to his role.

And always consider that the rules could have been messed up.

but, how often had you rolled one good stat and the rest mediocre.

Who rolls stats?

 

[crazy_monkey1956]

Who rolls stats?

Well, me, for one, and all of my players in my campaigns. The only time I use point-buy is for play-by-post. Rolling the dice is perhaps one of the most fun, nostalgia for gaming days gone by, things I do as part of this hobby. I wouldn't give it up for all the D&D books ever printed.

Getting back on topic here, I agree with everything else you said about elves being decent wizards. I also agree with another post that says dwarves make good wizards. The +2 to Con helps immensely for those rare occassions when you can't avoid the hit-point abuse.

 

[delericho]

+2 Dex -2 con - this is a primary reason I will not play elves as anything other than a ranged attacker,that con penalty kills, especially as a wizard.

As I mentioned in another thread, in my experience that Con penalty doesn't actually equate to a reduction in Con. Invariably, a player will either assign a higher stat, or more stat points, to the Con attribute, reducing the dump stats for the class accordingly.

Consequently, I see a lot of Elven Wizards with very low Str and Cha.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

They have keen senses. That doesn't equal "treehugger".

Being able to spot secret doors and resist the fey doesn't equal wizards, either.

Remember that not every character needs to be a twink, min-maxed to his role.

No, but unless there's a very capricious god responsible, the things that a race is good at naturally flow from their role/niche.

A race with keen senses, the ability to resist the fey and that's natually good with the bow and the rapier sounds like many interesting things, but spellcasters, as a race, ain't it.

And always consider that the rules could have been messed up.

If we're going to play this card, we might as well not have this conversation.

 

[Gez]

The elves just don't make sense. They never have.

AD&D2: "Elves are in tune with nature and respect it more than any other race. Elves cannot be druids. Elves have more powerful magic than any other race. An elven wizard can't go past level 15."

Yeah, great.

Background fluff: "Elves have large, rigid monarchies with immutable, millenia-old traditions. They are highly xenophobic and will not let non-elves enter their cities. The exception, Myth Drannor, was an experiment that disastrously failed as it ended with genocidal pogroms before the city was finally destroyed by demons. Elves are usually chaotic and good."

Hmm, sure.

"The elves' role in the racial lineup is to be the race with strong affinity with the fey, nature and magic. The gnomes, with their ability to talk to animals, innate cantrips, and knack with illusions, are just chopped liver more apt to go build contraptions that go boom."

Of course.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Wizard was a strange choice, though, unless elves are supposed to keep spellbooks in the hollow of a tree. Sorcerer would make more sense, and would represent an intuitive connection to magic. But, as was said, ranger would make even more sense.

In my homebrew setting, I gave elves +2 Charisma, so they actually were prettier on average. (Sure, Charisma is not all looks, but looks are a part of charisma), and gnomes got back the +2 int they always had. I also was working on combining wizard & sorcerer, basing DC & highest known off Charisma, while Intelligence governed bonus spells & spells known.

So, Gnomes knew more spells, Elves cast spells more powerfully, and humans' bonus feat made them more versatile.

 

[Drowbane]

Does that 20 hp lost over the carreer of a 20th level character really make that much difference?

It hasn't in my experience.

Yes, absolutely... especially when your class only gets 1d4 hp (+con ) per level. And especially compared to a dwarf or gnome who is getting that extra +20 hp over 20 levels.