From all of the discussion on the revision to Chapt 1 I have noticed very little talk about changing the races as presented. Most of the suggestions have been along the lines of making the races “more powerful” akin to the paragon racial classes of UA. That is making them more powerful than they were in 2nd ed. I haven’t really seen anyone say that they thought the revised races section presented the races in an unbalanced method or in a way that didn’t capture the ‘feel and flavor’ of 2nd ed Birthright.
Am I missing or misunderstanding something here or am I about right on in my assessment of the feedback?
I for one tried to see other people’s take on the subject and regretfully saw what you mentioned being part of the truth… And truth be told, I do not have a problem with paragon classes, it’s just that I do not like the idea as much as others. In any case, I also realise there is a small part which wants more powerful elves per se; however, they are rather few. I think that people here should try to start and raise their voices a little more: “Shouts of people, wrath of God!” as we say in my country.
I for one am a fan of more powerful elves, but I can do that with levels if I want to, though I think it would be cool to have some racial levels for them.
I think the human races are perhaps the oddest bag, as they’re now drastically different from their 2nd ed origins. Without a lot of playtesting, it’s hard for me to say if they’re good or not.
I do miss the special little bonuses the humans got in the BRCS: Anuireans with +1 Will and a few +1 skill bonuses…I don’t mind trading the skill bonuses for the regional class skills, but I wouldn’t mind seeing each race retain that one general tag like +1 to a save…Vos and Rjurik +1 Fortitude, Anuireans and Khinasi +1 Will, and Brecht +1 Reflex. A slight edge with a lot of cultural symbolism that is kinda neat IMO.
Concerning one thing that people had brought up about the human bonus skills and applying them to the regional skills - this was supposed to be only the 4 bonus skill points humans get at character creation not the extra skill point at subsequent levels, although the skills are always considered class skills.
It’s hard for me, but I’m going to try and relate my comments only to the material in Chapter 1. (Wish me luck! :P)
If it is not readily apparent why a race is receiving a racial ability modifier, the modifiers should be removed and/or replaced with a better fit.
Ex. Dwarves receive +2 Con, -2 Dex. Although Dwarves in the PHB receive a penalty to Cha instead of Dex, the change makes sense since Cerilian dwarves have incredibly dense bodies. If doing a straight conversion, Anuireans should receive +2 Wis, -2 Dex, which doesn’t fit with what I know about them. Changing that to +2 Cha would be more fitting (don’t ask me to explain the -2 Dex, that just seems wrong on too many levels).
I agree with Osprey, both about the human racial ability modifiers and their other little bonuses.
Dwarves should have 90 foot darkvision (because they had 90 foot infravision in 2nd ed.)
The Infamous Reputation of Elves and Half-Elves isn’t necessary. The effect is much easier to do with the “Influencing NPC attitudes” table from the DMG.
Halflings should receive the Shadow Jump ability (similar to the Shadow Dancer) in addition to their Shadow Sense ability.
MING I - IMO the reason that Anuireans got a + to wisdom in 2nd ed was to reflect their ability to rule well. Wisdom is most often associated with good rulership (e.g., Soloman the wise) while charisma is just to get people to follow you and do what you want, not really the same as being a wise ruler. That is Anuireans were effective rulers. Why they had a - to Dex, I’m not exactly certain except it was to balance the other modifier and since they were noble, capable warriors, good rulers, and had the most widespread diversity in temples of any of the human races that just about leaves only Dex as the ability that could be penalized. Str and Con being primary attributes for knightly warriors, intelligence and wisdom primary for understanding and focusing faith (e.g., temples) and charisma is good when leading troops in a battle - not necessarily in managing a domain though.
That is my take on why Anuireans had the modifiers they did.
Firstly I liked Ospreys (I think) comment on retaining a bonus to save, or something similar. When BRCS was first introduced I didnt like the idea of ditching the bonus to ability scores. But the other bonus’ kind of grew on me…
Cerilian Humans
Shouldn’t the line “Humans are the most populace race..” read “Humans are the most populous race…”??
I also wouldn’t bother stating that the bonus feat works differently for non-elite and elite characters… When I design adverseries for the PC’s I would create them with the same advantages the PC’s have. I’m not too fussed on this point as I would just ignore it, or consider some NPC’s elite anyway…
Why would Anuireans not have the Ride skill but the Khinasi do? Given that there would be a lot of Knights and other forms of Cavalry in Anuire wouldn’t it make sense for them to have it as a background skill as well.
Perhaps the Vos and Rjurik could also have Endurance as a background skill?
Dwarves
It sounds as if the Dwarves predominantly live underground? Did they ever live above ground? If not why would there bonus apply to Orogs and Ogres?
Elves
The bonus against Disease for elves says that they are immune to non-supernatural disease. The write-up for Half Elves just says they get a +2 bonus against disease and aging attacks. Should Elves not get the same +2 bonus against Su disease attacks? Or should the write-up for Half Elves say that the bonus doesn’t work for Su attacks (the same as for a full blooded elf)?
Otherwise I like the races and congrats on the efforts in putting this out for review. It’s not easy writing doco…
Why would Anuireans not have the Ride skill but the Khinasi do? Given that there would be a lot of Knights and other forms of Cavalry in Anuire wouldn’t it make sense for them to have it as a background skill as well.
For me, that one’s easy to answer: not all Anuireans are good horsemen…the nobility and professional soldiery tend to have a monopoly on riding, making it a rather exclusive minority skill. The Khinasi, on the other hand, have whole tribes of desert horsemen - that is more of a widespread cultural trait, IMO. All of the noble-and warrior-type classes of Anuire (Noble, Aristocrat, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger) have Ride as a class skill, so I think it’s OK if it’s not a racial bonus skill.
As for Ability Scores for the humans…I think giving +2 or -2 to ability scores is too strong of a modifier for racial sub-types of humans; that’s why I suggested the small save bonuses instead. Personally, I was never crazy about the 2e ability modifiers, and given the current skill system I like them even less. It makes a very strong racial statement, saying “Anuireans are good at ruling, but kind of clumsy.”
Does anyone remember any tendency for Anuireans to be clumsy in the actual setting descriptions? I never got that impression. I think the game-balancing mechanics of “you need a minus for every plus” makes such modifiers undesirable. I like playing humans as fairly neutral ability-wise, with their real strengths being their adaptability and resourcefulness. In fact, the human revision was one of my favorite selling points of 3e D&D. I’d prefer to see humans be fairly close to the PHB, with a few tweaks to make them slightly varied from one culture to the next. I think the BRCS was on the right track, and we should keep running with that.
Hmm I don’t really recall the Khinasi being nomadic horsemen… Certainly one or two realms might be like that.. I just don’t see it as something the Khinasi should have that Anuireans don’t. Be we can agree to disagree.
+2/-2 is definitely too much for humans, I agree with your comments on how they should now be. When referring to 2e I guess I liked the idea more that the Cerilian Humans were different, not necessarily the +1 Wisdom etc…
So, it seems that, apart from a little cleaning up in the “demihuman” section of races, what most people really want to see changed is the racial traits for humans.
I would like to remind here something in regard to the whole issue: granting both a small list of racial skills with bonuses at them and a saving throw bonus may count as a level adjustment. Now, if humans received a wide list of favoured classes per subrace (Anuirean - cleric, fighter, noble, paladin, etc.; you get the picture), out of which he makes his choice of a favoured class as soon as he gains a level in any of these classes, now that would be both balancing and in order, as there were many people who disliked humans having their highest class as their favoured one, while others refused to go back to the point of giving only one of many possible classes as each subrace’s favoured one; this allows for flexibility but drops one of the greatest bonuses humans have, the ability to simply stop advancing in a class to escape XP penalties, down a few notches, but not to the point that most demihumans are.
I would like to remind here something in regard to the whole issue: granting both a small list of racial skills with bonuses at them and a saving throw bonus may count as a level adjustment. Now, if humans received a wide list of favoured classes per subrace (Anuirean - cleric, fighter, noble, paladin, etc.; you get the picture), out of which he makes his choice of a favoured class as soon as he gains a level in any of these classes, now that would be both balancing and in order, as there were many people who disliked humans having their highest class as their favoured one, while others refused to go back to the point of giving only one of many possible classes as each subrace’s favoured one; this allows for flexibility but drops one of the greatest bonuses humans have, the ability to simply stop advancing in a class to escape XP penalties, down a few notches, but not to the point that most demihumans are.
If we’re only talking about adding a +1 save bonus to one save to the humans as they are now, do you really think that merits a full level adjustment? I agree that humans as a race might be slightly more powerful than the other demihuman races, but not a lot: dwarves have gained DR vs. bludgeoning weapons; elves seem slightly stronger than their PHB counterparts, with their nature-affinity abilities added in to most of the other PHB abilities; halflings can have their Shadow World abilities in addition to every normal PHB advantage.
My point is that every PC race is slightly “powered-up” compared to the PHB…and honestly I don’t see a problem with this, as it is balanced within the setting. But if we then accept that there is a slightly higher than normal standard for what can be +0 ECL, then we can allow humans to be just a tad better than the PHB versions, too. They’re not way better, after all…just a few small ‘extras.’
I would also have to agree for a d20 3third edition or (3.5) Birthright, giving humans more bonuses would just be nuts. I liked the fact that the Cerilian humans got thier penaties and bonuses for thier ablity scores in the second edition Brithright. But for 3ed or(3.5) it would pretty much upset the balance. Beside, a fair portion of the PCs will be nobles and blooded, will have thier bonus feat at first level, and thier bonus skill points (if they are playing humans).
However I don’t understand why Paladins of Cuiraecen can CHAOTIC GOOD of alignment and still be able to take the class when their is a code of conduct that a LAWFUL GOOD Paladin must follow such as; obeying the laws of one’s domain, not lying cheating and ect. Not to mention who they associates with. Is there going to be a revision with the code for the Paladins of Cuiraecen, as well as some other the spells they can be cast?
I would also have to agree for a d20 3third edition or (3.5) Birthright, giving humans more bonuses would just be nuts. I liked the fact that the Cerilian humans got thier penaties and bonuses for thier ablity scores in the second edition Brithright. But for 3ed or(3.5) it would pretty much upset the balance. Beside, a fair portion of the PCs will be nobles and blooded, will have thier bonus feat at first level, and thier bonus skill points (if they are playing humans).
They are chaotic good for the same reason palis of Neserie are neutral good. Its their god’s alignment and palis are the embodiment of their gods, in theory. Though unless there is a Pali or Clerical landed regent of the respective god, do you honestly believe that the Pali would put what the landed regent says before what the temple says?
In addition, they are all still good, so why is having a rule that not to lie seem like its Lawful good? heh, I don’t lie, though I rarely tell the whole truth. So, a little rule like not lying is not so big a deal, as people can be good, neutral or evil and not lie really.
Originally posted by tcharazazel@Apr 15 2004, 04:08 PM They are chaotic good for the same reason palis of Neserie are neutral good. Its their god’s alignment and palis are the embodiment of their gods, in theory. Though unless there is a Pali or Clerical landed regent of the respective god, do you honestly believe that the Pali would put what the landed regent says before what the temple says?
Actually paladins of Nesire are/were lawful good The only paladin with a different alignment in 2nd ed BR was Cuircean’s.
Ah yeah, 2nd ed they were all Lawful except those of Cuircean, though the change in the BCRS makes more sense really to keep the palis the same allignment as their god.
Well, I don’t know; I just feel that adding both the save bonus and a more restrictive list for a favoured class instead of the standard human trait is better, that’s all…
In any case, I find having CG paladins of a CG deity and NG paladins of a NG deity better than having LG paladins for NG and CG deities…
