{kjd-sys} Races, classes, and advancement

Hadsil <forumite.RemoveThis@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> Ok, I'm understanding a bit more of how you want to work things. I'm
> not quite convinced that the power of choice by itself is a big deal
> for humans, but I think at this point I'd have to see the actual
> numbers and options to make a final determination of opinion, i.e. I'd
> have to read the "book" you'll "write eventually". I'm in the same
> boat with respect to 4E.
>
> Maybe it's semantics/flavor text. You could say a human can easily be
> better than elves in martial fighting or easily be better than dwarves
> in magic if a human so chooses. A human can do this because he can
> put more feats, in total, into martial stuff than an elf or more
> feats, in total, into magic stuff than a dwarf. Humans are thus
> encouraged to specialize. They are very good at specializing; it's
> just that not all humans specialize in the same thing.
>
> The stick in the craw that has me not fully convinced is racial
> balance. Once a human makes his feat choices, by the numbers how does
> he fair compared to the other races. The elf goes full magic. The
> dwarf goes full martial. Is the human, regardless of his choice of
> full whatever, now made to feel like a chump or is he of equal worth?

My initial response, against what I wrote initially (with all medium
axes, all medium saves, but full selection for feats) is *damn* near.
The differences are small -- one feat less than the dwarf's martial or
elf's caster, one feat more than the dwarf's caster or elf's skill; +1
less base Fort than the dwarf or Reflex than the elf, +1 more Reflex and
the dwarf and Fort than the elf. Plus any racial modifiers (+2/-2) the
other races have.

IOW, really really close. Humans are more general as a race and each
can specialize in almost anything, very very well. Another race may
edge the human out in any particular thing that plays well with the
race's natural abilities (such as a dwarf tank or elven wizard), but
it'll be quite close (one feat that gets spent elsewhere, +1/-1 on two
saves, basically, and not counting racial ability score modifications --
which I might make other races pay for anyway, since +2 to what you want
is worth more than -2 to something you don't want... though not worth a
feat, IMO; something else might be needed as well).

OTOH, a human this way is very good at mixing benefits.


The other way, if humans can choose their axes and saves as they wish,
they can arrange to *always* (for each character, at least) reinforce
their class decision. If they get full choice over feats after that, I
have difficulty seeing why, from a power perspective, anyone would be
anything *but* human.

Still, if playing in a world where humans *are* the dominant sentient
species and are driving out the elves and dwarves, this'd work great.


Keith
--
Keith Davies I married the moonshiner's daughter
keith.davies.RemoveThis@kjdavies.org How could I go wrong?
keith.davies.RemoveThis@gmail.com The moonshiner's daughter
http://www.kjdavies.org/ Put some corn in the water
And makes me liquor all night long
-- Hayseed Dixie, _Moonshiner's Daughter_

Keith Davies wrote:

> Hi All,

Hi Jack.

> I've never been completely happy with how races and classes interact in
> D&D, not even in 3e. Race makes a big difference early on, but not so
> much as you level -- the difference between an elven fighter and a
> dwarven fighter is almost entirely down to roleplay.

That's turned up in 4e marketing too, but I've not found it to be
true in my games. Using standard or thereabout point-buy, an Elf often
has 4 HP/level less than the dwarf, and while the Dwarf can use Heavy
armour essentially for free and is slow regardless, the Elf is much
better as a mobile or ranged build, probably a longbow specialist.
Dwarves are better placed to hold a door against overwhelming odds,
especially moving into the Dwarven Defender; Elves more to dipping in Wiz
and going Arcane Archer. It's all quite reinforcing.

Of course, I mod the races so it's /more/ true; Elves with +10
balance and wilderness step, Dwarves with natural armour: but still.


Anyhoo, the racial substitution levels that were all the rage for a
while are a nice take on racial abilities, to my mind. Assume the class
progressions are a set of default options, and let the races pick
different things when those defaults don't suit.
Easier done if all the class abilities are stripped down to feats,
which isn't easily done, so easier overall to just fudge it.

> Goals
>
> I want race and class to have approximately equal weight in character
> design, over time.

I just want the builds within each class to match the racial
steriotypes. Dwarves should be good at holding ground against great odds,
Elves at trailing you through their woods and picking you off one at a
time, Halflings at cutting your nuts off and feeding them to the dogs.
It shouldn't really matter weather they're Druids, Barbarians,
Rogues, or Warlocks.

At the same time, I don't want to overly punish the Elf Fighter that
will have to hold ground when his friends can't run any more. It might
not be his thing, but he might still have to do it.

> I want to encourage racial archetypes. If most members of a race have
> levels in a particular class, I don't want it to be because the
> rulebook says so, but because they are good at it.

Stat mods in 3e are /really/ pushy in that way. Give Dwarves an Int
penalty to go with Cha and they won't produce many arcane spellcasters,
nor be great at it when they do.

> I want to allow characters counter to racial archetypes; if you want
> to play a half-orc sorcerer, you should be able to. It is not
> necessary that such a character be as good at it as one who plays to
> type, but he should be a *viable* character.

I've found having the stat mods only affect the minimum and maximum
works there. Though it greatly lessens the impact of stat mods pushing
races into certain classes, which you may or may not like.
Also helps lower or remove some of the level adjustments. Doesn't
work at all without a flat cost point-buy, but will using 27-25-23 (or my
75 points, 3 odd, too much dumping makes the baby jesus cry, okthx).



Oh, and I think the progressions of 3e are borken, way before the
epic caps arrive, and at the start too. Fighters should start with more
than +1 BAB over a Wizard, but don't ever need +10. The SWS/4e way, start
them at +4 and stay there; that's the goodness.
Easy to do with your system if you wanted it, though might screw with
your late-career multiclassing depending on what you're doing there.

You can totally build a 1st level PC on 14 feats too, if your feats
are powerful enough. Like, way better than the average 3e feat, but much
like the very best of them.

--
tussock

I'm like a box of chocolates; you never know what you're gunna get.