Phill
Originally posted by PhreakHoux
Anyone else notice how the Kagonesti in the new Dragonlance Campaign book seem to be broken? A +2 Dex shouldn't equal two negatives on attributes. I personally think the Kagonesti are not balanced for the game, compared to the Sylvanesti and Qualinesti. Anyone else think this way, or is this a misprint that will only be on the first print maybe?
Phill
I believe the DMG states somewhere that a bonus to one stat may equal a negative to one or two stats.
Phill
Originally posted by PhreakHoux
Anyone else notice how the Kagonesti in the new Dragonlance Campaign book seem to be broken? A +2 Dex shouldn't equal two negatives on attributes. I personally think the Kagonesti are not balanced for the game, compared to the Sylvanesti and Qualinesti. Anyone else think this way, or is this a misprint that will only be on the first print maybe?
Phill
I'm a little confused here. By "broken", do you mean that the Kagonesti are more powerful than either the Silvanesti or Qualinesti? Or weaker?
Bottom right hand table on p. 173 of the DMG 3.5 points out that an ability score bonus to Dex is appropriately balanced by similar penalties to Intelligence and Charisma.
I don't necessarily agree with that (as INT is vastly more imporant than STR to a Wizard)...but that's the way the DMG laid it out.
Originally posted by PhreakHoux
Anyone else notice how the Kagonesti in the new Dragonlance Campaign book seem to be broken? A +2 Dex shouldn't equal two negatives on attributes. I personally think the Kagonesti are not balanced for the game, compared to the Sylvanesti and Qualinesti. Anyone else think this way, or is this a misprint that will only be on the first print maybe?
Phill
Good grief! No they are not "broken".
~B4Real
Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by PleaseStop!
The same ones that are crying that it is broken will be the same ones that have a surprised look on their face when they announce 4th edition and say it is a response to their complaining.
Uh, right...dude, I think you need to back off the defensiveness a little bit. It's pretty bad form to come into a new board, list, etc and just start insulting people left and right.
No one was complaining here...the guy had a simple question, and you're jumping all over him. I could quote what you said to Cam on a previous post...but I think you get the picture.
Originally posted by Brimstone
Uh, right...dude, I think you need to back off the defensiveness a little bit. It's pretty bad form to come into a new board, list, etc and just start insulting people left and right.
No one was complaining here...the guy had a simple question, and you're jumping all over him. I could quote what you said to Cam on a previous post...but I think you get the picture.
Did I ask you to speak to me ?
Originally posted by Brimstone
Uh, right...dude, I think you need to back off the defensiveness a little bit. It's pretty bad form to come into a new board, list, etc and just start insulting people left and right.
No one was complaining here...the guy had a simple question, and you're jumping all over him. I could quote what you said to Cam on a previous post...but I think you get the picture.
Let's ease it up here guys, and get back to topic, shall we?
Originally posted by PleaseStop!
Did I ask you to speak to me ?
Both of you need to calm down. The other thread got locked because of stuff like this.
~B4Real
Originally posted by WizO_Drake
Let's ease it up here guys, and get back to topic, shall we?
Good advice.
~B4Real
Originally posted by PleaseStop!
Did I ask you to speak to me ?
No more than Phreak asked to be insulted for no reason.
You stay cool, I'm cool. I just don't see the need to jump on him for asking this question. It's a legitamate question...and the corresponding answers raise legitamate concerns.
The Kagonesti does seem a little underpowered, at first glance, compared to the other land elves. But to be perfectly honest...what surprises me the most is that Cam disagrees with the DMG. LOL! I never thought I'd live to see the day that happened. heh heh (just kidding, Cam) ;)
products all the time. The book is fine. Leave it at that and stop crying over every little thing.Originally posted by Brimstone
But to be perfectly honest...what surprises me the most is that Cam disagrees with the DMG. LOL! I never thought I'd live to see the day that happened. heh heh (just kidding, Cam) ;)
It's not that I'm disagreeing with it - the DMGl went ahead and did that all by itself with the wild elf (see p. 127). I would generally agree with the physical vs. mental balancing act, but in this case there was precedent.
Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by Brimstone
Ah...so, how does one decide if it should be the 2-for-1 special...or if it can go 1-for-1?
By looking at that table on p. 173 of the 3.5 DMG. ;)
Originally posted by Brimstone
Is there a similar table in the 3.0 DMG?
I believe there is.
(one of these days...I suppose I'll have to get the 3.5 books...just wish they'd go on 60% off sale at Amazon like those other books)
Originally posted by Brimstone
Is there a similar table in the 3.0 DMG?
It's the same one, pretty much.
Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by Brimstone
Is there a similar table in the 3.0 DMG?
Table 2-7, p. 24 of the 3.0 DMG.
Originally posted by iltharanos
Table 2-7, p. 24 of the 3.0 DMG.
Thanks!
Originally posted by SweetMeats
When I first got my copy of the DLCS, one of my players (the rules lawyer) looked through the races and was horrified. He thought that most of the races presented were not worth playing because their stat mods didn't always add up to 0 or a positive. He seems to think that this was a glaring problem. I tried explaining that it doesn't matter as its a roleplaying game but I don't think i ever got it through to him unfortunately.
Hehe. Your friend must not be a very good rules lawyer if he missed the DMG rule about bonuses to physical stats being counterbalanced by similar penalties to two mental stats. ;)
Originally posted by Thrackerzog
Str, Dex, and Con are considered more "valuable" stats than Int, Wis, and Cha. Twice as valuable actually, so a +2 to Str, Dex, or Con can be balanced with a combination totaling -4 to Int, Wis, and/or Cha. Look at the standard DnD Half Orc; +2 Str, -2 Int, -2 Cha.
That has only been applied to the half-orc. Funny that dwarves get a +2 to CON, but -2 to only one stat (CHA, isn't it?).
Banshee
Originally posted by Banshee
That has only been applied to the half-orc. Funny that dwarves get a +2 to CON, but -2 to only one stat (CHA, isn't it?).
Banshee
According to the rules presented in Savage Species, standard dwarves should get a +1 level adjustment. I suppose there are always exceptions to the rule ...
Originally posted by iltharanos
Hehe. Your friend must not be a very good rules lawyer if he missed the DMG rule about bonuses to physical stats being counterbalanced by similar penalties to two mental stats. ;)
Oh he's a good rules lawyer (can you have a good rules lawyer?) but when it comes down to player races he sees that they must all add up to 0 or more to be worth playing.
Originally posted by iltharanos
Hehe. Your friend must not be a very good rules lawyer if he missed the DMG rule about bonuses to physical stats being counterbalanced by similar penalties to two mental stats. ;)
In this case he is using Rules Lawyer when he means a lighter form of Powergamer, or maybe a minor Min/Maxer of sorts. It's not the rule he's concerned with, it's what it does to a character. I myself say forget it and always balance stats unless I want a race to have an LA or to counteract an LA. IMHO, all stats seem to be worth about equal, with the mental stats increasing in value as casters level up.
Edit- beat me to it by 3 minutes. Darn.
No, I disagree with the "physical stats are better than mental ones" statement. Completely disagree.
3.0/3.5 are SUPPOSED to be based on balance, but that just isn't so. And silly policies such as this make it that way.
Each stat is important, yes, but to select classes. STR is definately important to the warrior classes, less so to the "support" classes, and least important to the "rest" (basically mages and sorces, really).
Int, on the other hand, is most important to mages and the support classes (for skills).
Take Wis or Cha...both good for certain classes for spell ability (not to mention saves for WIS) and supplemental abils (like Paladins and Clerics).
So, to keep this brief, if you want a Stronger, Tougher or Faster character (to excel primarily in physical combat) by taking a race with a +2 mod to one of the stats, you should NOT have to make a dolt, impetious, boring lout. However, if you want to make a genious, philosopher, great public speaker, you will lose the 2 STR or CON, which wouldn't likely be much use to you anyway, since WIZARDS don't fight in combat usually, and Rogues aren't using Greataxes, and get 2 +2 mental stat bonuses.
That does not sound fair to me, or any of my gaming groups.
Each stat is equally important to a specific class. If I were a Fighter or Barb, I wouldn't mind the Half-Orc's loss too much, if it were only 1 negative, since I am not usually going to use things based off of those stats.
Same goes if I were to make a mage, if I had a +2 INT, great, and a -2 STR, no big whoop. All a mage carries is a staff and pack, and should never really use the staff in melee, anyway.
Similar situations, but the Half-Orc Fighter loses more in character effectiveness than the Wizard. Being +1 to hit and damage is about the same as getting more skills, higher spell saves, more spells, more languages; then toss in the fact the Orc looses another 2 stat points.
This whole thing has the same outcome of a 20th level fighter with 20 STR being able to walk 30' and swing his sword once, and a 20th level wizard walking 30' and casting wish (even to just duplicate another spell). That isn't balanced. And neither is the stat balancing equation.
Then you get into the whole randomness of ability checks. Someone with an 18 should not only have a 20% chance more of succeeding a DC of 20 check, than someone with a 10 in that stat. 18 is the Einstein, the Mr. Universe, the Plato (even though I think his "wisdom" is overrated). 10 is you and I. These stat-epitomes should be much better than the average guy, not just 20% better, when juding that their 18s are 80% better than our 10s.
There is no real way to create a realistic game when everything (but stabilization checks) amount to rolling a d20.
Game balance is a precarious term at best. It's something poised on the edge of verbal suicide; it means something different to every person out there playing the game. It's practically impossible to clarify game balance as a general, run-of-the-mill definition that can be applied to the game as a whole.
The best thing I think you can do is to take a look at it through a perspective which, I believe, is fair in it's estimation of the quality and compatibility with game materials.
First, elves don't get a bonus to Strength for a reason; that being that they are elves. They are considerably more frail then human beings (who also, by chance, do not receive a bonus to Strength), so why would any race of elves (we're talking Dragonlance here - your homebrew exceptions aside) get a bonus to something that only larger, stronger, more physically dominant races get? Makes no sense.
On the other hand, though the DMG does concur that the Kagonesti's stat modifiers are "correct", the precedence set in the DMG shouldn't always be taken at face value. What I mean is, their stats are fine. They are less refined and obviously more feral than other elves and most other races in particular, hence their typecast stat penalties. Fine. Moving on; consider balance in a different perspective. Numerical additions and subtractions are not the defining line of game balance. Favored classes which limit a character's progression through the threat of an experience penalty are an excellent source of balance.
Consider that you could load a race with tons of Strength and Constitution bonuses only to turn around and make their favored class Wizard. Wouldn't make much sense, but it would provide a subtle (yet tangible) nudge to avoid the powergaming.
Same thing goes for the Kagonesti, really. Their favored class, skill bonuses (which, to a limited degree, combat the penalty in Intelligence), and additional elven traits make them no less powerful than other elves when placed in their element with the trumps in their favor.
No, Kagonesti aren't broken (and damn it, neither is the War Mage!). There's a lot more to game balance than numbers and stat bonuses; look at the broader spectrum of the game and consider that, contrary to popular belief, the game does not boil down to numbers and dice rolls.
Peace.
Originally posted by Rooks
No, Kagonesti aren't broken (and damn it, neither is the War Mage!). There's a lot more to game balance than numbers and stat bonuses; look at the broader spectrum of the game and consider that, contrary to popular belief, the game does not boil down to numbers and dice rolls.
Yes, but game balance is important for the enjoyment of the game. For example I recently finished a game with a very permissive DM, where I was a human ranger in a party with a pixie, a half-dragon samurai, and a doppelganger psion warrior mixed with some prestige class I don't even remember. That DM loves his alternate rules.
Now I felt more than a little irrelevant. I couldn't scout because the Pixie beat me because she always had flight and inivisibility which pantsed my hide in shadows and move silently ability. My weapon attacks were good once I got a huge magical item with damage enhancer stacked upon damage enhancer, but it didn't keep me in pace with the Samurai's 6 attacks (with 6 magical weapons, with magical damage enhancers) or the pixie's spells.
With a rules system as complex as D&D, the more variant rules you introduce, the more likely you are to have game imbalance. That's why I tend to avoid alternate rules like the plague. The funniest thing was, the DM kept wondering why the CR in the DMG were so "overrated".
Originally posted by ferratus
Yes, but game balance is important for the enjoyment of the game... (snipped)
Um, right.
I'm sorry, bit I don't really understand your point in relation to the topic. Can you clarify?
Sorry, a little bit snarky there, but I just replying to your statement "contrary to popular beleif, the game does not boil down to numbers and dice rolls." The point it is really does boil down to it. Good game mechanics is not in conflict with good roleplaying.
Roleplaying is done outside of the game mechanics. What the game mechanics are there for is to adjudicate success or failure. If you have unbalanced game mechanics, then it affects how likely the player is to succeed. Giving one player unfair advantages allows him to succeed more often and overshadow the other players.
The more rules and alternate classes you introduce, the more likely one character will overshadow another. Creating a prestige class is something you should do sparingly, with great care to exhaustively playtest it. A prestige class should also be prestigious, something that is rare and special. If every member of your party has a seperate prestige class, it isn't very prestigious anymore.
Now personally, I think Dragonlance already has a glut of prestige classes. More than it really needs for the setting background. We've got the major organizations covered already. We've got talk already of racial prestige classes for dragonlance, but what merits a prestige class? The only thing I can think of is one that would allow gnomes to tinker. Otherwise, aren't we just creating prestige classes for the sake of making a prestige class, rather than to add something to the setting?
Now, even given my general disdain for splatbooks, I'm actually getting pretty excited about one. Unearthed Arcana promises an insight to the classes enough to create variants. I know one of the main reason that prestige classes are so popular is that it creates a rather breathtaking iconic image in the mind of a player. However, prestige classes are hard to incorporate into the game, often change much when a only minor tweak to an existing class is necessary, and it is very hard to keep a campaign together long enough to even qualify for it. So it is no wonder that I consider books with a lot of prestige classes to be so much wasted paper, especially since the market is saturated with a lot of them, most of which are unbalanced. We all know that 2nd and 3rd party publishers are notorious for it, and that even WotC makes more than its fair share of unplayably weak or powerful prestige classes.
I'm hoping that perhaps Unearthed Arcana will start a trend in customizing classes rather than creating prestige classes, which will have the happy effect of creating more feats. People often forget how useful feats are in adding flavour to a character. Dragonlance is an example of this. We have more prestige classes than we need, but we are sparse on feats, alternate spells, and magical items for character options.
now for the kagonesti, they live for their entire lives in the wilderness, which makes them strong, which is needed to survive, on the other hand they don't get too much chance for intellectual conversation, and with the clothes and mannerisims of their race they are often considered uncouth
which for me takes care of the -2 INT and -2 CHA
and for me one of my all time favourite books is the lost histories of the kagonesti, which is why i'm playing a kagonesti barbarian armed with a battleaxe used two handed.
now with a STR of 14 (higher than average) and an INT of 9 (still just average) and a CHA of 7 (combination of bad roll and three fingers on the the right hand and his mannerisims) which of course i'll be role-playing, very little time spent in cities, and his manner of saying the absolute truth to everyone. similar to the kender taunts but not designed to be insulting.
When I write for d20, balance is one of my primary concerns, because I can't guarantee that any given DM is going to recognize that an unbalanced character is robbing other characters of their chance to shine. Thus, by balancing classes, races, feats and other rules against each other and against existing rules, the expectation is that this will provide a level playing field for all characters.
Now, this doesn't always mean all characters have to be equally powerful as each other. One of my favorite games is Buffy the Vampire Slayer by Eden Studios, which has the problem of one or two very powerful characters ("Heroes") aided by a number of considerably less powerful friends ("White Hats"). The game solves this problem by giving White Hat characters less character points with which to spend on ability scores and skills, but more Drama Points, which are the mechanic by which characters can bend the rules, affect die rolls, stay alive, etc. In this fashion, although the Slayer character is faster and stronger than her high school classmates, she depends on them to support her and they get more screen-time because of it.
Bottom line is, when I kicked off my Dragonlance campaign my wife wanted to play a Kagonesti barbarian. I'd not been all that sure about the racial adjustments, so I double-checked with the existing rules for wild elves in the DMG and MM, and came to the conclusion that if +2 Dex, -2 Int isn't unbalanced for them, it isn't unbalanced for the Kagonesti. Having the Kagonesti character take a hit to both Intelligence and Charisma didn't seem fair in comparison to the other elven races, so I made the change.
Cheers,
Cam
Take a look at all the goodies elves get. Then take a second look and you will realize that you pay for that package in CON. Kagonesti pay for this same package in INT and CHA. Not a bad trade off since they are extemly non-social and not all that versed in academics either. The Kagonesti is now on par with the human warrior - especially since they ditch the -2 to CON. No more do they have the HP disadvantage. Every tried to play an effective elven warrior? Tired yet of the glass jaw?
The other perks: Favored Class Ranger, +1 to Surivival, +1 to Knowledge Nature are also cool. We all know that the new ranger is improved. Favored class Ranger is real sweet.
Stack all these goodies up with the traditional elf package and I think you will see that they are much better. The old bonus to strength was always silly IMHO. I think the new stats are just fine. Play one and you will see.
Stormhawk