[4e] House Rule for Races

[hoff]

I'm trying to come up with a fair house rule to allow more flexibility to the races in the 4e. I find it very penalizing to have +2 to 2 fixed ability scores, some combinations are just too good (wis healbot dwarf cleric, drow rogue) while others are borderline useless (dual wielding eladrin ranger, tiefling swordmage). It's sad to have this cool idea for a character to be shutdown by the restricted ability scores of the races.

I want to make a house-rule to change all races to: +2 to one ability of your choice, +2 to one of the two race main ability scores. For example an Eladrin could take +2 str and +2 int OR +2 str, +2 dex.

That leaves me the humans, I was thinking to change their racial to +3 to one ability score but limit your maximum at level 1 to 20 (so no 21 int wizard at level 1).


I'm aware that this will make the characters considerately more powerful (specially at lower lower levels) but would this make humans too powerful or much more powerful than other races? Is it too easy to break the game with some cheap feat/race/class combo this way?

As an optional I was also thinking in changing the "classic" point buy system:
8-12: 1 point
13-15: 2 points
16: 3 points
17: 4 points

to:
8-12: 1 point
13-15: 2 points
16-17: 3 points
This saves one point from characters that want to go the 20 in one ability route, maybe this reduces the difference between human and other races.

[Kylarra]

With the essentials line, most races have +2 to a primary stat and +2 to one of two other stats which allows for enough flexibility statwise while still maintaining some modicum of being more adept in certain classes, imo.

[hoff]

I haven't read the essentials nor will we be using it, but how did they compensate those changes in the races? What is the human bonus in essentials?

[MeeposFire]

The same though they can trade their extra at will for the racial power heroic effort which is really nice.

Frankly races do not need to have perfect ability scores to play classes. A difference of one is not a killer. Your idea just makes the races even more similar.

[Sine]

I haven't read the essentials nor will we be using it, but how did they compensate those changes in the races? What is the human bonus in essentials?

Still +2 to one stat. And now dwarves are clearly and unequivocally the best weapon users because they can get +2 Str and Con, and they still have Dwarven Weapon Training.

Me, I can't be bothered with all this beating around the bush. I've banned stuff like Dwarven Weapon Training, I've taken away racial defense bonuses, and I simply let everyone choose their two +2s. Including humans, and it's not a big deal.

[TroubleBrewing]

So... You basically stripped away the point of playing any race except for flavor. GLHF, I guess. Me, I'll stick to playing the game like the rules dictate.

[MeeposFire]

Still +2 to one stat. And now dwarves are clearly and unequivocally the best weapon users because they can get +2 Str and Con, and they still have Dwarven Weapon Training.

Me, I can't be bothered with all this beating around the bush. I've banned stuff like Dwarven Weapon Training, I've taken away racial defense bonuses, and I simply let everyone choose their two +2s. Including humans, and it's not a big deal.

Your making out the fact that dwarves can get a str boost into too big a deal. Yea it makes them slightly better in the classes that they were already good at but it really did not change much. Their value in char op changed little after the str addition. They were already light blue in many cases where the str bonus would have helped them. That would be like complaining that githzerai have a feat that makes them really good at heavy blades and they have good stats for swordmages. Really it is not that big of a deal.

[hoff]

For me the uniques of each class comes from the racial power they have, everything else are perks.

I think you guys underestimate the power of a +2 in your main stat. Not only it gives you +1 attack rolls to most (all for most builds) your attacks but also gives one more point of damage per attack. That is 2 feats right there that stack with other feats. This bonus does get less powerful than the feat at paragon/epic tier though, but they still stack. I don't think I would play a race that doesn't have +2 on the main stat I'm using.

+2 in your secondary stat is still really useful. For classes that have at-wills [W]+stat1mod+stat2mod damage for example plus all the other utility. But this one I could live without no problems.

It might be wise to ban Dwarven Weapon Training, Eladrin Sword Training, Valenar Weapon Training and the likes though. They are kinda too powerful at heroic tier if we allow this house-rule.

[TroubleBrewing]

... Is the ban-hammer necessary in this circumstance? I mean, play how you want, but 4e had a LOT more playtesting than 3.5, not to mention the fact that the entire design philosophy behind 4e was "balance EVERYTHING AT ALL COSTS", so it seems... unnecessary.

[hoff]

I'm pretty sure the playtesters either didn't try out a eladrin dual-wielding ranger or they assumed no one would try/want to make one, yet that is exactly what I want to be (PC) viable. For all the idiot-proof 4e got they still can't make a incorrect race/class/build viable.

[TroubleBrewing]

Why isn't a dual-wielding ranger Eladrin viable, exactly?

[hoff]

It's just so much worse than say any race that gives +2 STR. It's not viable by comparison of what could have been.

[TroubleBrewing]

I disagree. It's not "so much worse", it's about a 5% penalty to attack/damage rolls. Oh noes, my build is 5% less effective than it would have been if I had picked a race actually intended for melee! If you're going to play a race in a role it wasn't intended for, don't complain about the fact that your build is marginally less effective. Either deal with the "penalties" (note: lack of a bonus is not a penalty), accepting that your character concept is a cool one and worth that "not viable by comparison" factor, or play a race with a +2 STR.

[Dalek-K]

I disagree. It's not "so much worse", it's about a 5% penalty to attack/damage rolls. Oh noes, my build is 5% less effective than it would have been if I had picked a race actually intended for melee! If you're going to play a race in a role it wasn't intended for, don't complain about the fact that your build is marginally less effective. Either deal with the "penalties" (note: lack of a bonus is not a penalty), accepting that your character concept is a cool one and worth that "not viable by comparison" factor, or play a race with a +2 STR.

I agree

I actually tend to make characters that have 3 16's ... Like..

For a Wizard I would have... Int/Con/Wis be all 16's by using racial boosts... Sure I don't have a 18 but I have never had a problem being effective.... I mean most of your to hit bonus comes from the d20 roll (well most of the game at least). But this makes m balanced in defense and secondary power boost (like wizard gets bonuses to some spells based on wis).

It helps my average roll on any d20 is a 16

But OP have you played the game the way it is or is this going to be your first play through? This is huge since if it is your first time or you are still new then you shouldn't be changing a core rule just yet ^ ^

[DragonBaneDM]

You also can unlock the Blade Banshee paragon path, which can be very good.

Of course, if you want to make better use of that +2 to Dex, which shouldn't matter too much if you use a good array, you can always go Stormwarden instead, which is generally considered the best TWF paragon path in the game.

[Lord Raziere]

So... You basically stripped away the point of playing any race except for flavor. GLHF, I guess. Me, I'll stick to playing the game like the rules dictate.

yea, 4E is actually the most open-minded edition about this, the previous editions have -2's and favored classes and all that, getting worse as you go farther back. races are just fine, they don't need any more improvement and I love it that I can play something like an eladrin paladin with no penalties- so what if I don't get that +1 to my CHA or STR? I'm a freaking Eladrin Paladin of Corellon who still has a +3 to both of the stats I want wearing beautiful plate armor.

don't fix what ain't broken.

[Daftendirekt]

It's just so much worse than say any race that gives +2 STR. It's not viable by comparison of what could have been.

Yeah, a +1 to hit and damage really isn't that big. At all. You say it stacks with feats and all that stuff, blah blah blah. True. But there are so many sources of bonus damage and accuracy that a +1 from your race is not going to make that much difference.

This should really only be an issue if said eladrin ranger PC wants to be as optimized as humanly possible. If that were the case, they'd probably make a shifter or something, not an eladrin.

[Vknight]

Yeah there are plenty of viable builds that are perfectly reasonble with a less effective stat.

Twin Bladed Eladrin Ranger.
16Str
16Dex are needed

Then to balance its chance to hit Eladrin Solider gives a +2 to damage or you could be askrimishing Ranger using Str & Dex.

The point is theres nothing truly to fix.

I have 2things that I sometimes allow depending on setting.

Swap the +2Cha on Gnomes with +2Con. Ironically Tiefling can now do that thanks to essentials
and Warforged can swap the +2 Str or Con for a +2Dex. Representing a swifter designed warforged.

[Hal]

Yeah, a +1 to hit and damage really isn't that big.

Devil's advocate time:

In my group's campaign, which recently went on hiatus, I played a Dwarven Warlord who started with a 16 in Strength and Charisma. When we ended, we were at level 9, so by that time I was rocking a +1 weapon and now had 18 in both of those stats.

For "boss" encounters, my GM liked to throw lvl+4 monsters at us, usually solo brutes. As we were using the original MM, this was a big deal: In the final encounter before we closed the campaign, I was facing a monster for whom I needed to roll 17+ to hit.

Granted, my GM was overly stingy with magic items, and that lvl 13 solo brute may have been too powerful anyhow. Still, every bonus you can get to hit is important, especially because, as a Warlord, my attacks were worthless if they didn't land.

[RebelRogue]

Devil's advocate time:

In my group's campaign, which recently went on hiatus, I played a Dwarven Warlord who started with a 16 in Strength and Charisma. When we ended, we were at level 9, so by that time I was rocking a +1 weapon and now had 18 in both of those stats.

For "boss" encounters, my GM liked to throw lvl+4 monsters at us, usually solo brutes. As we were using the original MM, this was a big deal: In the final encounter before we closed the campaign, I was facing a monster for whom I needed to roll 17+ to hit.

Granted, my GM was overly stingy with magic items, and that lvl 13 solo brute may have been too powerful anyhow. Still, every bonus you can get to hit is important, especially because, as a Warlord, my attacks were worthless if they didn't land.

But that's your DM being kind of a jerk - if the guidelines were followed, this would be less of a problem. (Or you know, he might have been a good DM, maybe he even informed you about this. But it has to do with the game being played in a non-traditional way more then anything else).

I think the lack of main stat support is somewhat balanced by the Feat/PP support for Eladrin and Eladrin Rangers is particular. That, and Fey Step is a nice Racial power for melee characters. Maybe not golden, but more than enough to make it playable (not to mention cool).

[Kurald Galain]

It's sad to have this cool idea for a character to be shutdown by the restricted ability scores of the races.

But it's not. It never is. The worst picking an "off race" can do to you is reduce your to-hit rate by five percent. Five percent! In the average session that means you'll score one less hit than you would have done with your maxed-out 20-primary character with expertise.

That's not worth losing sleep over. Heck, it's not even noticeable in actual gameplay. An eladrin ranger or tiefling swordmage are both perfectly viable without any houseruling, and get a pretty good racial power to boot.

[Vknight]

Tiefling swordmages are awesome they don't really fall under this because they get intelligence and can make charisma dump without penalties so they can boost there other important stats.
Constitution and Wisdom.

[RTGoodman]

But it's not. It never is. The worst picking an "off race" can do to you is reduce your to-hit rate by five percent. Five percent! In the average session that means you'll score one less hit than you would have done with your maxed-out 20-primary character with expertise.

Not to mention a lot of people don't start with a 20 in their primary stat to begin with. Only two of my current five players did (the ranged Rogue and the Cha-Paladin), but the whole party gets about the same number of hits. (It doesn't help that they also have TWO Leaders - a Bard and a Runepriest - boosting their attacks most of the time anyway.)

For most characters, I like to start with 18 (16 + 2) in my primary stat, 16 (14 + 2) in secondary, then 14, 13, 10, 8. It's a moderately balanced array that works for most builds.

[MeeposFire]

In most cases races can afford to put an 18 into their attack stat even if they do not get a bonus to that stat. For instance an elf makes a decent fighter as it can afford an 18 in its attack stat and its bonuses to dex and wisdom are very helpful. Combo that with their maneuverability and accuracy by racial power they make nice fighter despite having no str boost. I have even seen gnome fighters. Was it the best? No a dwarf would have been more powerful but it was powerful enough to fully contribute to the party as an effective character (guardian style with a rapier with invisibility and marks interesting character to say the least).

[Vknight]

So he marks goes invisible so the target runs past him he activates the mark stopping the creatures and then gets attacked by it correct.

[MeeposFire]

The invisibility works off of being damaged. The invisibility was tended to be used to offset a non marked targets so the fighter could get better positioning. For instance getting hit by back row enemies and then using the invisibility on his turn to stealthfully approach the target so that the enemies allies have a harder time stopping the fighter. Would often start a battle invisible from reactive stealth too which would also allow easy positioning or an unknown opportunity attack.

[Sipex]

I find maxing out your primary stat makes for a boring character anyways. You become really good at a couple things which makes your character simply feel like a game piece instead of a character.

[Bagelz]

I personally think that you remove some of the flavor of classes by allowing them any stat. It is supposed be rare to see a goliath rogue, or an eladrin runepriest. Not that there aren't any, just that its less likely.

Its unlikely to see a short person playing in the nba, or a very thin person to be a good swimmer.

If you are set on removing the mechanical differences from races, just remove all racial bonuses and add another 4 or 5 points to your players point buy (max 20 instead of 18).
~bagelz

[Sine]

Your making out the fact that dwarves can get a str boost into too big a deal.

I never said that +2 anything will make or break anyone. What I do know is that most players care about racial stat boosts, and if a race doesn't at least grant a bonus to a character's prime stat, then that character idea is a lot less likely to ever see the light of play. Even if a player really likes a race/class concept, the lack of those +2s are a big mental barrier.

On the other hand, a race that lets you use second wind as a minor, has access to an OP damage feat and +2s in two melee stats is going to see a whole lot of play. Even if a player (or a DM) thinks "Ho hum, yet another dwarven bruiser," the combo is often just too cheesy to pass up.

So... You basically stripped away the point of playing any race except for flavor. GLHF, I guess. Me, I'll stick to playing the game like the rules dictate.

Have fun with that. My races have flavor and plenty of crunch to make them distinct -- racial powers, skill bonuses, non-OP racial feats, etc.

But that's your DM being kind of a jerk - if the guidelines were followed, this would be less of a problem. (Or you know, he might have been a good DM, maybe he even informed you about this. But it has to do with the game being played in a non-traditional way more then anything else).

Wait, how exactly was his DM not following the DMG guidelines with a level + 4 monster?

I personally think that you remove some of the flavor of classes by allowing them any stat. It is supposed be rare to see a goliath rogue, or an eladrin runepriest. Not that there aren't any, just that its less likely.

TSR editions use this same philosophy to justify race-based class restrictions and stat prereqs. (Dwarves must have 13 Con, only humans can be paladins, and you have to roll a 17 Cha to get in...) If you like that kind of rule, you're welcome to it but I don't take the game that seriously. PCs are by definition exceptions to traditional norms.

[Kurald Galain]

I never said that +2 anything will make or break anyone. What I do know is that most players care about racial stat boosts,

Whoa, stop right there. Most players? Really? Have you spoken to every single D&D player in the world, and noted that more than half of them agree with you? Or are you perhaps exaggerating just a teeny bit?

You're assuming that "most" people agree with your opinion, but so far, most people in this thread don't agree with you.

the lack of those +2s are a big mental barrier.

That's an apt description: the barrier is purely in their mind, not in the actual gameplay. So the solution here is not to change the game rules to match your players's misconceptions, but to convince them that no, a +2 really isn't a big deal.

TSR editions use this same philosophy to justify race-based class restrictions and stat prereqs.

There's a huge difference between "dwarves cannot be rangers" and "dwarves are 5% less effective at rangering than elves".