So I decided to go through all the races and made a note of only the +2 effects, not going into the various sub races, and I have noticed the obvious pattern, D&D doesn't really want to give out races that benefits spell casters much. Look at the list below and you will see that the main benefits races give out are Strength and Dexterity, which if you play Rogues or Fighters is brilliant. But if you want to play Druid or Cleric and want to play a race that favours that, you only really have one choice in Firbolg. If you want to play a Wizard and do the same, its a Gnome.
I know that you can play any class with any race and we have all had that thought of creating a character whose race doesn't match up with the class (Kobold Barbarian a good example). But I still find it a tad odd that with so many options available for Strength and Dex based heroes, they would really limit the options for the spell casters. And yes, I realise I am saying this with four races being created with Sorcerers in mind, but Clerics, Druids and Wizards are just as much fun to play and I would love to see more official races that benefits their main stats.
Don't forget to bring Feats into the equation, if you use those in your games. Spellcasting classes 'need' less of them, so they have a higher ratio of ability score increases open with which to boost their casting stat up to 20.
Also, it's worth considering that classes aren't exactly set on even footing when it comes to what their ability score does for them; a warrior type gets a higher accuracy and damage from their ability score - a spell caster gets that, plus often another spell option to have on hand, and their 'attack' 'hitting' isn't just dealing damage, it's applying a spell effect which is often more dramatic in effect.
You missed my point, I didn't count the +1's for a reason, that there isn't many races that are better suited for spell casting. The +1's are an afterthought to make the race a tad more distinct.
Let's take Aarakocra, you get +2 to Dexterity and +1 Wisdom. Now when you look at that, your first thought isn't going to be that this is a race that was built to be a Druid or a Cleric, you think this was a race designed to be a Rogue or a Ranger or a Monk, because you want to take advantage of that +2 to Dexterity. But if you want to play a Druid or a Cleric, it has to be one of the races you have to consider just so you have something that can improve your base spelling casting stat
That is the point that I am making. When the Tortle race was announced, I thought that would definitely be a race with +2 to Wisdom or Intelligence to signify the wise old turtle thing, but nope, it was another race with +2 to Strength, which as I proved above, we had more than enough of already.
There's not much practical difference in a +2 or a +1 to a stat that a character wants to have high, in my experience. Both can easily be a 16 at 1st level without having to have given up other important abilities to a large degree, assuming point buy, and even if assuming rolling there still isn't that much of an issue because rolled scores trend higher than point buy which means a +1 is even more likely to get a particular score to "high enough" levels, since the game doesn't actually require a maxed-out ability score in order to make a character feel suitably good at tasks related to that score.
I know that you don't need to have a maxed out score in order to have fun, that's a given. But it still doesn't explain why there are eight races dedicated to the Dex stat, six for Strength and only one for Wisdom.
Its just that Clerics and Druids are two of my favourite classes and it annoys me that if I want to create a new one, I only have one race to look to to properly boost Wisdom.
I know that you don't need to have a maxed out score in order to have fun, that's a given. But it still doesn't explain why there are eight races dedicated to the Dex stat, six for Strength and only one for Wisdom.
Its just that Clerics and Druids are two of my favourite classes and it annoys me that if I want to create a new one, I only have one race to look to to properly boost Wisdom.
My water genasi druid's spell attack bonus and spell save DC are just as high as those of your firbolg druid.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
I know that you don't need to have a maxed out score in order to have fun, that's a given. But it still doesn't explain why there are eight races dedicated to the Dex stat, six for Strength and only one for Wisdom.
Its just that Clerics and Druids are two of my favourite classes and it annoys me that if I want to create a new one, I only have one race to look to to properly boost Wisdom.
My water genasi druid's spell attack bonus and spell save DC are just as high as those of your firbolg druid.
But depending on rolls, the Firbolg could have a higher one, simply because of the +2.
If the dice falls in your favour and you were lucky enough to get an 18 on one of your stat rolls, you start out with 20 in your Wisdom and your Water Genasi can't do that at level one.
I know that you don't need to have a maxed out score in order to have fun, that's a given. But it still doesn't explain why there are eight races dedicated to the Dex stat, six for Strength and only one for Wisdom.
Its just that Clerics and Druids are two of my favourite classes and it annoys me that if I want to create a new one, I only have one race to look to to properly boost Wisdom.
My water genasi druid's spell attack bonus and spell save DC are just as high as those of your firbolg druid.
But depending on rolls, the Firbolg could have a higher one, simply because of the +2.
If the dice falls in your favour and you were lucky enough to get an 18 on one of your stat rolls, you start out with 20 in your Wisdom and your Water Genasi can't do that at level one.
True--if you roll for your stats. But that's another debate.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
I know that you don't need to have a maxed out score in order to have fun, that's a given.
...I only have one race to look to to properly boost Wisdom.
These two statements seem to be at odds to me. What's "properly boost" mean if not to get a score high enough to have fun, when it is clearly not meant to mean "maxed out"?
I know that you don't need to have a maxed out score in order to have fun, that's a given.
...I only have one race to look to to properly boost Wisdom.
These two statements seem to be at odds to me. What's "properly boost" mean if not to get a score high enough to have fun, when it is clearly not meant to mean "maxed out"?
Because it's the difference between playing as an average character and playing a God level character. You can have fun playing with a character playing with the standard stats, but you have more fun playing with rolled higher stats because it means you are more likely to succeed on rolls
I know that you don't need to have a maxed out score in order to have fun, that's a given.
...I only have one race to look to to properly boost Wisdom.
These two statements seem to be at odds to me. What's "properly boost" mean if not to get a score high enough to have fun, when it is clearly not meant to mean "maxed out"?
Because it's the difference between playing as an average character and playing a God level character. You can have fun playing with a character playing with the standard stats, but you have more fun playing with rolled higher stats because it means you are more likely to succeed on rolls
I feel that is a debatable and quite subjective feeling. I find "flawed" character tend to be more interesting than a "God" level one, as the higher the chances of failing (granted we are talking about something you still want to be above average in [average being 10-12]) the higher the thrill and feeling of accomplishment when you succeed.
But that's my point of view, which I think it's as valid as yours, if I can say so myself :)
To take the comparison to other systems, there are people who like Exalted, and others who like Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. Both systems have their merit and both playstyles are worthy of enjoyment, but they come from diametrically opposed points of view in term of character "power".
Because it's the difference between playing as an average character and playing a God level character. You can have fun playing with a character playing with the standard stats, but you have more fun playing with rolled higher stats because it means you are more likely to succeed on rolls
In practical examples, a character with a 16 in a stat and a character with even a 20 in the stat don't actually play all that differently - especially since we human folks aren't all that able to see exactly when that slightly higher modifier was the difference between success and failure vs. when it was the roll of the dice that was the difference; we just notice whether we are succeeding more often than not or failing more often than not, which is something it only takes a 16 (or even just a 14 in many cases) to accomplish the desired effect.
So saying "I know you don't need to have a maxed out score in order to have fun, that's a given" and "you have more fun playing with rolled higher stats" is entirely contradictory - both of yourself for having made both sentences, and the second sentence contradicting the reality of not actually being able to tell the difference to that fine of a degree.
Don't forget to bring Feats into the equation, if you use those in your games. Spellcasting classes 'need' less of them, so they have a higher ratio of ability score increases open with which to boost their casting stat up to 20.
Also, it's worth considering that classes aren't exactly set on even footing when it comes to what their ability score does for them; a warrior type gets a higher accuracy and damage from their ability score - a spell caster gets that, plus often another spell option to have on hand, and their 'attack' 'hitting' isn't just dealing damage, it's applying a spell effect which is often more dramatic in effect.
It is much the same on the hitting side of things for both casters and non-casters. Spells are just defined by 2 mechanics for their accuracy; an attack roll (for when armour matters) or a savings throw for avoidance (for when armour doesn't matter), rather than the singular mechanic (the attack roll) for weapon attacks.
A hit for a spell is just highly variable in what that effect (the spells 'damage') does and usually independent of the casters stats. Thus caster stats often don't play into that effect at all, leaving casters with mostly just an accuracy boost for higher stats.
------------------
As to physical vs mental stats: In the case of point buys, it works itself out as it gives the casters more points to spend on their stats where their race can cover the physical side of things. I suspect it is that way as it is simpler for physicality to really alter a character outcome more so than any factor of innate mental acuity.
A hit for a spell is just highly variable in what that effect (the spells 'damage') does and usually independent of the casters stats. Thus caster stats often don't play into that effect at all, leaving casters with mostly just an accuracy boost for higher stats.
What I was trying to get at is the significant difference between a +1 to hit and damage with a weapon and a +1 to the save DC to resist a spell like polymorph or hold person, which means it's not actually unbalanced or unfair (or at least not unbalanced or unfair to the detriment of the spell caster) for it to be more common to get a larger bonus to Strength or Dexterity than to a spell-casting ability score.
A lot of this is really subjective (and also probably endlessly debated everywhere since the game was invented). Maybe another way of looking at it is not whether certain PCs are balanced or good or bad, blah blah blah - but instead see that there's some design space that can be filled. There's an opportunity there to have more Int-boosting and Wis-boosting races.
Another way to slice the data to account for the +1 and +2's is to look at the total bonuses available. A quick count (done really quick at work, so likely off by a couple, and I made assumptions like not counting penalties, the lame DMG aasimar, or half-elf floating bonuses, etc. etc.) and I got: Str 20 Dex 31 Con 27 Int 13 Wis 12 Cha 18
Which basically shows that taking a group where there is one of each PC sub/race, it would definitely be crazy dexterous and tough, but not nearly as smart or wise. :) Not sure how meaningful that is, other than maybe WotC designing some Int-boosting races and Wis-boosting races might round things out more. At the very least, more options would probably be a good thing! Our mass of 43ish PCs needs some brains!
As to physical vs mental stats: In the case of point buys, it works itself out as it gives the casters more points to spend on their stats where their race can cover the physical side of things. I suspect it is that way as it is simpler for physicality to really alter a character outcome more so than any factor of innate mental acuity.
Not sure whether I'm misunderstanding... but are you saying that it all works out, because casters just have to focus on one stat, while non-casters need to focus on more than one? If so, I'll have to disagree: "finesse"-type melee and ranged non-casters just need to focus on DEX for both offense and defense, STR-based melee mostly need to focus on STR (and depend on heavier armor, with lower or no DEX bonus, so DEX isn't a focus), with Barbarian and Monk as exceptions (Barbarians need CON, Monks need WIS). Casters mostly need their caster stat for offense, but either rely on spells for defense (which cuts into their offense, less slots), and/or DEX as well.
Not saying casters are worse off than non-casters regarding stat focus (not saying they're not, either, though), but having less racial options to boost their primary stat is an issue.
The fact that some people enjoy playing "flawed" characters more than "god" characters is immaterial: fewer options is fewer options. The system caters to people who enjoy playing flawed characters, and people who enjoy playing optimal non-casters. There's a hole for people who enjoy playing optimal casters. I'm not saying it's a humongous problem (I don't think it is, but then I tend to gravitate to humans anyway), but it's there.
Okay, some more numbers: the number of races (counting each subrace and variant as a separate race, except the tiefling's Devil's Tongue, Winged, and Hellfire variants and the variant human) that can have a bonus to the ability score(s) each class cares about, as shown on the Multiclassing Prerequisites table.
Monk (Dex and Wis): 6 Paladin (Str and Cha): 5 Ranger (Dex and Wis): 6
That is interesting. As someone considering getting some stuff on DMs Guild, this is very useful to see. Thank you!
Although it is all of the dual stat ones that are low. It'd be interesting to see how common each of the 30 stat combos are. If someone else doesn't beat me to it, I'll probably crunch those numbers later. Doesn't really lend itself to certain classes, of course, but it is relevant to multiclassing and even just certain character concepts.
Monk (Dex and Wis): 6 Paladin (Str and Cha): 5 Ranger (Dex and Wis): 6
That is interesting. As someone considering getting some stuff on DMs Guild, this is very useful to see. Thank you!
Although it is all of the dual stat ones that are low. It'd be interesting to see how common each of the 30 stat combos are. If someone else doesn't beat me to it, I'll probably crunch those numbers later. Doesn't really lend itself to certain classes, of course, but it is relevant to multiclassing and even just certain character concepts.
Here you go. Same parameters as the last one.
Str & Dex: 3 Str & Con: 9 Str & Int: 2 Str & Wis: 4 Str & Cha: 5 Dex & Con: 5 Dex & Int: 7 Dex & Wis: 6 Dex & Cha: 5 Con & Int: 5 Con & Wis: 5 Con & Cha: 4 Int & Wis: 2 Int & Cha: 4 Wis & Cha: 4
I think maybe your 30 forgot to account for the pairs not being ordered.
Subtracting 2 from each number to stop counting human and half-elf gets potentially more usable data.
Str & Dex: 1 Str & Con: 7 Str & Int: 0 Str & Wis: 2 Str & Cha: 3 Dex & Con: 3 Dex & Int: 5 Dex & Wis: 4 Dex & Cha: 3 Con & Int: 3 Con & Wis: 3 Con & Cha: 2 Int & Wis: 0 Int & Cha: 2 Wis & Cha: 2
So I decided to go through all the races and made a note of only the +2 effects, not going into the various sub races, and I have noticed the obvious pattern, D&D doesn't really want to give out races that benefits spell casters much. Look at the list below and you will see that the main benefits races give out are Strength and Dexterity, which if you play Rogues or Fighters is brilliant. But if you want to play Druid or Cleric and want to play a race that favours that, you only really have one choice in Firbolg. If you want to play a Wizard and do the same, its a Gnome.
Strength: 6
Dexterity: 8
Constitution: 4
Intelligence: 1
Wisdom: 1
Charisma: 4
I know that you can play any class with any race and we have all had that thought of creating a character whose race doesn't match up with the class (Kobold Barbarian a good example). But I still find it a tad odd that with so many options available for Strength and Dex based heroes, they would really limit the options for the spell casters. And yes, I realise I am saying this with four races being created with Sorcerers in mind, but Clerics, Druids and Wizards are just as much fun to play and I would love to see more official races that benefits their main stats.
Don't forget to bring Feats into the equation, if you use those in your games. Spellcasting classes 'need' less of them, so they have a higher ratio of ability score increases open with which to boost their casting stat up to 20.
Also, it's worth considering that classes aren't exactly set on even footing when it comes to what their ability score does for them; a warrior type gets a higher accuracy and damage from their ability score - a spell caster gets that, plus often another spell option to have on hand, and their 'attack' 'hitting' isn't just dealing damage, it's applying a spell effect which is often more dramatic in effect.
+1s work, too. Counting subraces and variants this time, but only when the bonus isn't part of the base race:
Strength: 6*
Dexterity: 4
Constitution: 8
Intelligence: 7
Wisdom: 10
Charisma: 5
*Mountain dwarves get +2 Strength, but are counted anyway, because you said you didn't count subraces.
Adding my results to yours:
Strength: 12
Dexterity: 12
Constitution: 12
Intelligence: 8
Wisdom: 11
Charisma: 9
And I did not count humans or half-elves, because it would have been rather pointless. I'll go ahead and do it anyway, though:
Strength: 14
Dexterity: 14
Constitution: 14
Intelligence: 10
Wisdom: 13
Charisma: 10
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
You missed my point, I didn't count the +1's for a reason, that there isn't many races that are better suited for spell casting. The +1's are an afterthought to make the race a tad more distinct.
Let's take Aarakocra, you get +2 to Dexterity and +1 Wisdom. Now when you look at that, your first thought isn't going to be that this is a race that was built to be a Druid or a Cleric, you think this was a race designed to be a Rogue or a Ranger or a Monk, because you want to take advantage of that +2 to Dexterity. But if you want to play a Druid or a Cleric, it has to be one of the races you have to consider just so you have something that can improve your base spelling casting stat
That is the point that I am making. When the Tortle race was announced, I thought that would definitely be a race with +2 to Wisdom or Intelligence to signify the wise old turtle thing, but nope, it was another race with +2 to Strength, which as I proved above, we had more than enough of already.
There's not much practical difference in a +2 or a +1 to a stat that a character wants to have high, in my experience. Both can easily be a 16 at 1st level without having to have given up other important abilities to a large degree, assuming point buy, and even if assuming rolling there still isn't that much of an issue because rolled scores trend higher than point buy which means a +1 is even more likely to get a particular score to "high enough" levels, since the game doesn't actually require a maxed-out ability score in order to make a character feel suitably good at tasks related to that score.
I know that you don't need to have a maxed out score in order to have fun, that's a given. But it still doesn't explain why there are eight races dedicated to the Dex stat, six for Strength and only one for Wisdom.
Its just that Clerics and Druids are two of my favourite classes and it annoys me that if I want to create a new one, I only have one race to look to to properly boost Wisdom.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
- Loswaith
What I was trying to get at is the significant difference between a +1 to hit and damage with a weapon and a +1 to the save DC to resist a spell like polymorph or hold person, which means it's not actually unbalanced or unfair (or at least not unbalanced or unfair to the detriment of the spell caster) for it to be more common to get a larger bonus to Strength or Dexterity than to a spell-casting ability score.
A lot of this is really subjective (and also probably endlessly debated everywhere since the game was invented). Maybe another way of looking at it is not whether certain PCs are balanced or good or bad, blah blah blah - but instead see that there's some design space that can be filled. There's an opportunity there to have more Int-boosting and Wis-boosting races.
Another way to slice the data to account for the +1 and +2's is to look at the total bonuses available. A quick count (done really quick at work, so likely off by a couple, and I made assumptions like not counting penalties, the lame DMG aasimar, or half-elf floating bonuses, etc. etc.) and I got:
Str 20
Dex 31
Con 27
Int 13
Wis 12
Cha 18
Which basically shows that taking a group where there is one of each PC sub/race, it would definitely be crazy dexterous and tough, but not nearly as smart or wise. :) Not sure how meaningful that is, other than maybe WotC designing some Int-boosting races and Wis-boosting races might round things out more. At the very least, more options would probably be a good thing! Our mass of 43ish PCs needs some brains!
Okay, some more numbers: the number of races (counting each subrace and variant as a separate race, except the tiefling's Devil's Tongue, Winged, and Hellfire variants and the variant human) that can have a bonus to the ability score(s) each class cares about, as shown on the Multiclassing Prerequisites table.
Barbarian (Str): 14
Bard (Cha): 13
Cleric (Wis): 12
Druid (Wis): 12
Fighter (Str or Dex): 30
Monk (Dex and Wis): 6
Paladin (Str and Cha): 5
Ranger (Dex and Wis): 6
Rogue (Dex): 19
Sorcerer (Cha): 13
Warlock (Cha): 13
Wizard (Int): 12
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
Str & Dex: 3
Str & Con: 9
Str & Int: 2
Str & Wis: 4
Str & Cha: 5
Dex & Con: 5
Dex & Int: 7
Dex & Wis: 6
Dex & Cha: 5
Con & Int: 5
Con & Wis: 5
Con & Cha: 4
Int & Wis: 2
Int & Cha: 4
Wis & Cha: 4
I think maybe your 30 forgot to account for the pairs not being ordered.
Subtracting 2 from each number to stop counting human and half-elf gets potentially more usable data.
Str & Dex: 1
Str & Con: 7
Str & Int: 0
Str & Wis: 2
Str & Cha: 3
Dex & Con: 3
Dex & Int: 5
Dex & Wis: 4
Dex & Cha: 3
Con & Int: 3
Con & Wis: 3
Con & Cha: 2
Int & Wis: 0
Int & Cha: 2
Wis & Cha: 2
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)