@Tonio No, I'm saying that with points buy it is points you don't really have to spend else where. Things like strength and particularly dexterity and constitution are still quite useful for casters. However with a point buy system those don't need to be paid for to get up to the 10 mark for no penalties if you have a racial bonus to them. This leaves more points to spend on getting those mental stats to a higher point as well.
With rolling it can also mean you have places to put those lower stats and get that low end mitigated by the racial bonuses, thus leaving more moderate stats for other useful places as well.
I do agree that finesse and/or rogues got a huge boost in the combat department from previous editions (not sure on 4th) with the stats adding to damage as well now.
It makes me sad that everything is shuffled down to just attribute bumps. Like, don't people look at racial bonuses? Must have 18 in main stat, or GTFO!
It makes me sad that everything is shuffled down to just attribute bumps. Like, don't people look at racial bonuses? Must have 18 in main stat, or GTFO!
I know I've discussed the attribute bonuses in this thread, but outside of this context I am FAR more interested in racial abilities than attribute bonuses for the races. Whether a race can do something fun and/or is interesting conceptually is my main deciding factor in using it. For example, the kobold grovel ability- I actually didn't care if it was "good" or not, it's just so ridiculously funny, it makes the race awesome and it's the best version of a kobold PC race I've ever seen in any edition!
@Tonio No, I'm saying that with points buy it is points you don't really have to spend else where. Things like strength and particularly dexterity and constitution are still quite useful for casters. However with a point buy system those don't need to be paid for to get up to the 10 mark for no penalties if you have a racial bonus to them. This leaves more points to spend on getting those mental stats to a higher point as well.
With rolling it can also mean you have places to put those lower stats and get that low end mitigated by the racial bonuses, thus leaving more moderate stats for other useful places as well.
I do agree that finesse and/or rogues got a huge boost in the combat department from previous editions (not sure on 4th) with the stats adding to damage as well now.
I disagree with your point, though. Or rather, I don't think it's an argument either way, since it can be made for every class. Regardless of what your focus stat is, unless your character is MAD, you're mostly going to be looking at one core stat: Fighters will be looking at STR for offense, nothing for defense (they'll get it from armor), or DEX for offense and defense (finesse based), Rogues and Rangers will be DEX for offense and defense. Sorcerers and Warlocks will look to CHA for offense, and nothing for defense (either spells or positioning). Wizards are INT for offense, nothing for defense (spells/positioning). Druids and Clerics go WIS for offense, nothing for defense (spells, armor, wild shape, etc). Barbarians, Monks, and Bards are somewhat different: Barbarians need STR for offense, and CON for defense, Monks use both DEX and WIS for offense and defense, and Bards, well, certainly CHA, possibly DEX, too, depending on subclass. Paladins are also different: both STR and CHA for offense, mostly armor for defense. So out of the 12 classes, 8 can focus on a single stat and have both offense and defense covered, 3 focus on 2 stats to cover both, and 1 focuses on 2 stats to cover offense.
Basically, most classes really need to focus on a single stat, but spellcaster stats are underrepresented.
It makes me sad that everything is shuffled down to just attribute bumps. Like, don't people look at racial bonuses? Must have 18 in main stat, or GTFO!
To be honest, I had actually not considered that! But do racial abilities (as in "other than stat bonuses") benefit casters more than non-casters? Or do they benefit all classes more or less equally? If the former, then that might balance it out. If the latter, then there's still a variety problem.
To be honest, I had actually not considered that! But do racial abilities (as in "other than stat bonuses") benefit casters more than non-casters? Or do they benefit all classes more or less equally? If the former, then that might balance it out. If the latter, then there's still a variety problem.
With the exception of dwarves, I find that the racial (and sub-race) bonuses do tend to be class specific. Like, take the forest gnomes. That +2 Int is a huge nod towards being a wizard, yes, but also? The resistance to mental effects is classical wizard, the ability to cast another wizard cantrip is big, and the ability to talk to small animals? That'd be your familiar, so you can get better details from it when you send it out to scout. The rock gnome is more artificer or transmuter, but its the same idea - you can model small spells with the tinker toys, and you specialize in identifying magical items.
Elves are interesting, because they're built to be gish-types. High elf Eldritch knight/Bladesingers/Arcane Tricksters, wood elf Rangers, and drow Rogues. You see this in not just the stats (physical and mental), but the abilities - darkvision and perception for scouting, resistance to Charms, the most common mental effect, physical stats and weapon training. Then sub-race leans you towards a specific type - wizardly (cantrip and language to decode magic books), nature (mask of the wild), and breaking through magical traps (drow high magic).
Aasimar have abilities that lend themselves to being paladins and cleric types, just as the default tiefling magic pretty much is built to be a warlock. Half-orc abilities? Their extra critical damage and ability to stand back up from damage is pretty much stealing directly from the barbarian class features. Even variant humans, who get a feat? That's the main benefit of going fighter, all the extra ASIs, and that's the most popular build right there.
EDIT - my point kind of got away from me. The point is that, there's a lot of abilities tied into races that give you advantages to make you more sneaky, or smarter, or better at doing something than just the attributes. You want to be a sneaky druid type? Or, heck, even sneaky cleric? Wood elf will give you the ability to blend in and hide almost in plain sight. Races give you lots of abilities to customize your character in one direction or another, and I find that they're all rather relevant.
To be honest, I had actually not considered that! But do racial abilities (as in "other than stat bonuses") benefit casters more than non-casters? Or do they benefit all classes more or less equally? If the former, then that might balance it out. If the latter, then there's still a variety problem.
With the exception of dwarves, I find that the racial (and sub-race) bonuses do tend to be class specific. Like, take the forest gnomes. That +2 Int is a huge nod towards being a wizard, yes, but also? The resistance to mental effects is classical wizard, the ability to cast another wizard cantrip is big, and the ability to talk to small animals? That'd be your familiar, so you can get better details from it when you send it out to scout. The rock gnome is more artificer or transmuter, but its the same idea - you can model small spells with the tinker toys, and you specialize in identifying magical items.
Elves are interesting, because they're built to be gish-types. High elf Eldritch knight/Bladesingers, wood elf Rangers, and drow Rogues. You see this in not just the stats (physical and mental), but the abilities - darkvision and perception for scouting, resistance to Charms, the most common mental effect, physical stats and weapon training. Then sub-race leans you towards a specific type - wizardly (cantrip and language to decode magic books), nature (mask of the wild), and breaking through magical traps (drow high magic).
Aasimar have abilities that lend themselves to being paladins and cleric types, just as the default tiefling magic pretty much is built to be a warlock. Half-orc abilities? Their extra critical damage and ability to stand back up from damage is pretty much stealing directly from the barbarian class features. Even variant humans, who get a feat? That's the main benefit of going fighter, all the extra ASIs, and that's the most popular build right there.
So, basically, we still have the problem, since the racial abilities complement the stat bonuses. You're still going to want +INT races for Wizards, +DEX races for Rogues, etc.
Although I'm not sure how I feel about "extra cantrips are best for casters". I'd argue the other way: a race offering cantrips is best for non-casters, since they get an ability they otherwise wouldn't have (at least not without multi-classing); which would exacerbate the problem: at least some classic "caster" classes are now more attractive to non-casters, since they can now cast some cantrips. Being able to cast a cantrip is more useful to a non-caster than getting extra critical melee damage for a caster.
So, basically, we still have the problem, since the racial abilities complement the stat bonuses. You're still going to want +INT races for Wizards, +DEX races for Rogues, etc.
Although I'm not sure how I feel about "extra cantrips are best for casters". I'd argue the other way: a race offering cantrips is best for non-casters, since they get an ability they otherwise wouldn't have (at least not without multi-classing); which would exacerbate the problem: at least some classic "caster" classes are now more attractive to non-casters, since they can now cast some cantrips. Being able to cast a cantrip is more useful to a non-caster than getting extra critical melee damage for a caster.
Sort of. I spoke vastly in terms of generalities. In general, abilities line up with the attributes, but the whole idea that you need a +2 in a stat to be a good "caster race" is flawed; there's a lot going on, a lot of moving parts.
Cantrips alone aren't best for spellcasters; you have to look at the sum total of everything. I spoke of Eldritch Knight specifically in the case of high elf because the class is designed to take advantage of those cantrips. You have to look at the whole. Other fighters aren't designed to take advanage of it, and, to be honest, even stumble a bit when dealing with it. Sure, it may be advantageous of for non-casters to poach a simple cantrip, but others are suited to take stronger advantage of it than a non-caster.
So, basically, we still have the problem, since the racial abilities complement the stat bonuses. You're still going to want +INT races for Wizards, +DEX races for Rogues, etc.
Although I'm not sure how I feel about "extra cantrips are best for casters". I'd argue the other way: a race offering cantrips is best for non-casters, since they get an ability they otherwise wouldn't have (at least not without multi-classing); which would exacerbate the problem: at least some classic "caster" classes are now more attractive to non-casters, since they can now cast some cantrips. Being able to cast a cantrip is more useful to a non-caster than getting extra critical melee damage for a caster.
Sort of. I spoke vastly in terms of generalities. In general, abilities line up with the attributes, but the whole idea that you need a +2 in a stat to be a good "caster race" is flawed; there's a lot going on, a lot of moving parts.
Cantrips alone aren't best for spellcasters; you have to look at the sum total of everything. I spoke of Eldritch Knight specifically in the case of high elf because the class is designed to take advantage of those cantrips. You have to look at the whole. Other fighters aren't designed to take advanage of it, and, to be honest, even stumble a bit when dealing with it. Sure, it may be advantageous of for non-casters to poach a simple cantrip, but others are suited to take stronger advantage of it than a non-caster.
I definitely agree you don't need to min/max to have a "good" character, and consequently you don't need a +2 in your caster stat to be a good "caster race". But some people do enjoy min/maxing (or optimizing) their characters. For that group, there are less options to pick from when choosing a race for their caster. For people who enjoy less optimized characters, there has never been a problem, not since (I think) 3rd edition, when racial restrictions were (mostly) lifted.
To be clear, I'm not saying the game's broken, or that there's a huge problem, or anything of the sort. I'm just pointing out there's a shortage (not a total lack) of optimal choices for certain groups of players (specifically those who enjoy optimizing builds and want to play casters).
Regarding cantrips for non-casters... Any class would benefit more or less equally from "general utility" cantrips like Mage Hand, Minor Illusion, Friends, etc. Ranged damage cantrips are useful for all classes other than those specialized in ranged weapons. Sure, a STR-based Fighter might deal more damage with a thrown axe than with a Firebolt, but how many axes can they carry? Firebolt's an easy replacement for secondary ranged weapons, and one that can't be taken away, and which also scales with level. So yeah, a High Elf Arcane Archer won't benefit much from Firebolt, but then again they can always pick Prestidigitation or Minor Illusion for general utility.
Anyway, I pretty sure we agree on that there are a lot of "optimal" race/class pairings. I'm not sure whether we agree on whether there are fewer optimal race/class pairings for casters, and on whether those optimal race/class pairings for casters are as "optimal" as those for non-casters. You would probably consider High Elf to pair well with Wizard, but High Elf benefits Wizard less than it does Rogue, for example. A Rogue gets an extra +1 in their main stat, gets the ability to cast a cantrip, and gets proficiency with longbows. Additionally, the extra language can certainly be useful for non-combat, traditionally Rogue-ish activities (spying, influencing, etc.). Wizards get an extra +1 in a secondary stat (not as good as a primary stat), an extra cantrip (not as good a new ability), and an extra language with which to decipher spellbooks. The weapon proficiencies aren't useful, since the wizard will probably not be fighting a lot in melee. Darkvision is useful for both, but more so for the Rogue, since the wizard can eventually get it via spells. The rest is about as useful for both, I think.
So while a High Elf Wizard is nowhere near a "bad" combo, it's probably not as good as High Elf Rogue.
So, basically, we still have the problem, since the racial abilities complement the stat bonuses. You're still going to want +INT races for Wizards, +DEX races for Rogues, etc.
Although I'm not sure how I feel about "extra cantrips are best for casters". I'd argue the other way: a race offering cantrips is best for non-casters, since they get an ability they otherwise wouldn't have (at least not without multi-classing); which would exacerbate the problem: at least some classic "caster" classes are now more attractive to non-casters, since they can now cast some cantrips. Being able to cast a cantrip is more useful to a non-caster than getting extra critical melee damage for a caster.
Sort of. I spoke vastly in terms of generalities. In general, abilities line up with the attributes, but the whole idea that you need a +2 in a stat to be a good "caster race" is flawed; there's a lot going on, a lot of moving parts.
Cantrips alone aren't best for spellcasters; you have to look at the sum total of everything. I spoke of Eldritch Knight specifically in the case of high elf because the class is designed to take advantage of those cantrips. You have to look at the whole. Other fighters aren't designed to take advanage of it, and, to be honest, even stumble a bit when dealing with it. Sure, it may be advantageous of for non-casters to poach a simple cantrip, but others are suited to take stronger advantage of it than a non-caster.
I definitely agree you don't need to min/max to have a "good" character, and consequently you don't need a +2 in your caster stat to be a good "caster race". But some people do enjoy min/maxing (or optimizing) their characters. For that group, there are less options to pick from when choosing a race for their caster. For people who enjoy less optimized characters, there has never been a problem, not since (I think) 3rd edition, when racial restrictions were (mostly) lifted.
To be clear, I'm not saying the game's broken, or that there's a huge problem, or anything of the sort. I'm just pointing out there's a shortage (not a total lack) of optimal choices for certain groups of players (specifically those who enjoy optimizing builds and want to play casters).
Regarding cantrips for non-casters... Any class would benefit more or less equally from "general utility" cantrips like Mage Hand, Minor Illusion, Friends, etc. Ranged damage cantrips are useful for all classes other than those specialized in ranged weapons. Sure, a STR-based Fighter might deal more damage with a thrown axe than with a Firebolt, but how many axes can they carry? Firebolt's an easy replacement for secondary ranged weapons, and one that can't be taken away, and which also scales with level. So yeah, a High Elf Arcane Archer won't benefit much from Firebolt, but then again they can always pick Prestidigitation or Minor Illusion for general utility.
Anyway, I pretty sure we agree on that there are a lot of "optimal" race/class pairings. I'm not sure whether we agree on whether there are fewer optimal race/class pairings for casters, and on whether those optimal race/class pairings for casters are as "optimal" as those for non-casters. You would probably consider High Elf to pair well with Wizard, but High Elf benefits Wizard less than it does Rogue, for example. A Rogue gets an extra +1 in their main stat, gets the ability to cast a cantrip, and gets proficiency with longbows. Additionally, the extra language can certainly be useful for non-combat, traditionally Rogue-ish activities (spying, influencing, etc.). Wizards get an extra +1 in a secondary stat (not as good as a primary stat), an extra cantrip (not as good a new ability), and an extra language with which to decipher spellbooks. The weapon proficiencies aren't useful, since the wizard will probably not be fighting a lot in melee. Darkvision is useful for both, but more so for the Rogue, since the wizard can eventually get it via spells. The rest is about as useful for both, I think.
So while a High Elf Wizard is nowhere near a "bad" combo, it's probably not as good as High Elf Rogue.
So, what race--if any--makes a better wizard than rogue?
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
. For that group, there are less options to pick from when choosing a race for their caster.
And I'm saying for min-maxers, there's this popular idea that +2 stat is everything. Or the feat. Its not. Even when min-maxing a wizard, there are other options to consider, depending on the goal.
And another problem with the whole +2 stat is that its assuming that 1) we're going with rolling dice, and 2) have a 16 rolled. Rolling an odd number, or going with point buy / array makes that entirely meaningless.
So while a High Elf Wizard is nowhere near a "bad" combo, it's probably not as good as High Elf Rogue.
Depends on what you're trying to do, honestly. Sometimes, yes, sometimes no. There are times when high elf wizard beats forest gnome wizard. High elves do make good arcane tricksters, but so do others, and there are often better options for the rest of the rogue subclasses.
Something that many people forget in white room power builds is that power gaming requires you to have a level of metagame knowledge about the GM, the rest of the party and the campaign, and adjust the character appropriately. While there are generalities we can agree with, different games will put different weight on things like the importance of a Perception skill, darkvision, or racial resistance. Different weights. There's no one solid answer.
So, what race--if any--makes a better wizard than rogue?
Gnome?
Forest gnome is just as good as high elf as an arcane rogue, so that's debatable. I find that most other subclasses of rogues tend to vector towards other races / subclasses that don't resonate with wizard as well.
Honestly, though, that's going at things backwards, at least for a power gaming standpoint. You want to start out by looking at what class you want first, then pick race and background to supplement your choice of abilities. The overwhelming majority of D&D games out there tend to reduce everyone to "funny looking humans" in practical terms. Race doesn't really impact story that much in a high number of games. In general, min-maxers don't think "what's the best class for a high elf," they think, "what's the best race to play an eldritch knight as?"
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.
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.
Yes, thank you. Someone gets what I was trying to say when I started this thread.
Interesting numbers, certainly. I would say that there is no real bias among the physical stats, nor among the mental stats, but the mental stats as a whole are slightly less well-represented than the physical stats. Whether the difference is great enough to worry about, I cannot say.
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
Another thing that should (could?) be considered is the ratio of races with one particular stat bump to classes which use that stat. Looking at the breakdown above, it's obvious that INT is less represented than other stats. But, INT is also the least required stat: only one class and two subclasses. On the other hand, CHA is used by 4 classes, and still only only slightly more represented than INT.
I suppose the argument could be made that since Wisdom is used in the most useful skill, to the point a passive version of it is separate on the character sheet, they would want to limit bonuses to it
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
@Tonio
No, I'm saying that with points buy it is points you don't really have to spend else where. Things like strength and particularly dexterity and constitution are still quite useful for casters. However with a point buy system those don't need to be paid for to get up to the 10 mark for no penalties if you have a racial bonus to them. This leaves more points to spend on getting those mental stats to a higher point as well.
With rolling it can also mean you have places to put those lower stats and get that low end mitigated by the racial bonuses, thus leaving more moderate stats for other useful places as well.
I do agree that finesse and/or rogues got a huge boost in the combat department from previous editions (not sure on 4th) with the stats adding to damage as well now.
- Loswaith
It makes me sad that everything is shuffled down to just attribute bumps. Like, don't people look at racial bonuses? Must have 18 in main stat, or GTFO!
"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)
Gnome?
Forest gnome is just as good as high elf as an arcane rogue, so that's debatable. I find that most other subclasses of rogues tend to vector towards other races / subclasses that don't resonate with wizard as well.
Honestly, though, that's going at things backwards, at least for a power gaming standpoint. You want to start out by looking at what class you want first, then pick race and background to supplement your choice of abilities. The overwhelming majority of D&D games out there tend to reduce everyone to "funny looking humans" in practical terms. Race doesn't really impact story that much in a high number of games. In general, min-maxers don't think "what's the best class for a high elf," they think, "what's the best race to play an eldritch knight as?"
I will now count the number of races that can get a bonus to each stat, not counting races with subraces once for each subrace.
Strength: 14
Dexterity: 12
Constitution: 14
Intelligence: 9
Wisdom: 12
Charisma: 10
Interesting numbers, certainly. I would say that there is no real bias among the physical stats, nor among the mental stats, but the mental stats as a whole are slightly less well-represented than the physical stats. Whether the difference is great enough to worry about, I cannot say.
"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)
Another thing that should (could?) be considered is the ratio of races with one particular stat bump to classes which use that stat. Looking at the breakdown above, it's obvious that INT is less represented than other stats. But, INT is also the least required stat: only one class and two subclasses. On the other hand, CHA is used by 4 classes, and still only only slightly more represented than INT.
I suppose the argument could be made that since Wisdom is used in the most useful skill, to the point a passive version of it is separate on the character sheet, they would want to limit bonuses to it