Are you guys concened about some of the subraces?

[Jehannum]

Looking over some of the subraces that shipped with the game, there are some severe numerical advantages to some of the subraces. These subraces are also a concern because they dont really have a place in the campaign. That is my main problem with them, and a sever populated with them as a majority is not right for the campaign.

What I am worried about is say....every rogue being a tiefling. Really, if you are a numbers person, then why would anyone play anything other than a tiefling as a rogue or an aasimar sorcerer.

Lets not even talk about a deep gnome monk in the high levels.

I dont really worry about the standard races, as they are given bonuses but then they get a penalty in return.

Some of these new subraces have no penalty, and lets be realistic about the exp adjustment: a numbers person has no problem with a little extra grind. That is no deterrent in a PW setting.

We have a very options we are considering:
1. Doing nothing- letting it roll.
2. Locking the subraces out with a tiny hakpak file.
3. Removing some of the statistical advantages of the subraces in question
4. Giving new advantages to standard races to balance it out.
5. Requiring DM approval with a waiting period to any player wishing to engage in those subraces.
6. Letting players know that this is a human dominated campaign and human and dasaria-standard races will get more opportunities for storyline support, special events, and content opportunities.

Please keep your responses very brief and please direct your responses directly to the DM staff rather than commenting on other posts.

Posts directed to other posters will be deleted.

Please bear in mind that while we are asking for your feedback, what we, as developers decide is right for the campaign may not necessarily be what the majority wants.

Thanks for your responses.

[broncoblitz]

I would say option 6 is probably the best way to go about it. That way if people want to play something else they are free to do so. But their attempt at a deep gnome monestary probably wouldn't gain a lot of traction with the DM's.

[Mon-da-oth]

I would like to see a combination of 6 and 5. Let everyone know its a human based world, etc but if you want to play something different you need to request it through the DM's.

[Evelond Formos]

Just my two cents on the options you have provided:

1. Unfortunately, if you do this, there will be players that use subraces in ways undesirable for the rest of the community. I haven't looked at them, but if Drow get +2 on this and they only have level adjustment, person one is going to set themselves as a Drow and be whatever the heck alignment they want. I, being now experienced in this matter, would disapprove of this, but there are many who wouldn't.

2. Personally I just dislike this rule, but I just don't like restrictions. I think the playerbase will want to play the subraces. Read on.

3. Now, I like this idea, I won't say more on it. But a suggestion might be to have the subraces keep their advantages, but give them 'Flaws', so to speak.

4. I don't think this would be the best of choices; take away firepower, don't give more.

5. This idea I particularly hate. I think some players who join the Dasarian campaign will not come up with promising storylines, and yet become some of the most fleshed out and best roleplaying characters on the server.

6. This idea is perfectly IC, for the humans, in any case, would be dominant anyway. Sure, elves and dwarves may come along, but humans are the rulers of Dasaria. I like it, but I still think flaws should be added to subraces.

~Evelond~

[Grayle]

Of the choices presented, I would suggest number 3. It gives players the appearance and 'race' they desire, but with adjustments decided by the staff to balance them against the other races. I don't particularly care to play any of the new races, but many players would, and for them, I feel empathy on being restricted from such choices. Tell the truth, i feel the more choices players have, the better.

Now, an alternative that I would implement if such imbalance were presented to my campaign, would be the level cap that has been mentioned before. Instead of adding more experience points required for these sub-races to level, I would require them to take 'racial levels', for lack of a better term. What this would do would limit the maximum class level that these races could achieve. The races that have a CR adjustment (+1, +2, etc) would have these numbers detracted from thier normal class levels allowed (20). I would also double the CR. So, a race with a +2 adjustment to it's Earned Experience necessary would only be allowed to take 16 class levels total. That is 20 -4 (for CR) = 16. That would ensure that any player who is taking one of these races for sheer statistical dominance will not achieve such an advantage, and the players who do still choose these races are doing it for role-playing reasons.

This need not even apply to all the races, simply the ones that are acceptible to the staff.

I also do not ask the Dasaria staff to do this. This is merely my suggestion to answer the problem in a way that eliminates the unfair numbers, yet still allows players total choice.

The way this would fit into the story is up to you. Special DM persmission could still be an option, even with these 'house rules.' In this DM permission process (such as with option 5), both prior character experience in a Dasarian campaign, and some lore instruction could be part of the approval process. In terms of policing, I think it sounds worse than it would actually be. The players whom you allow this option would have the numbers restricted -and- would have already proven they can pull off playing a Half-Elf Ranger within campaign context.

It could turn out to be a horrible decision or it could grant players alot of new and exciting options with minimal risk. The big problem is that we wouldn't really know until it's actually tried, and then turning back isn't as easy.

However, a race-specific plague could strike at any moment. It is, after all, a world of magic.

Hope the suggestion offers food for thought.

[Will]

I like 3. Put a level cap on them based on their CR.

6 should be a gimme.

[Jimmy]

Same here. Number 3 is my choice.

Level cap is what I like. Perhaps not as harsh as Matt suggested but 18 class/2 drow or 19 class/1 aasimar sort of deal.

It's not a massive hit in power and I reckon it will keep things pretty closely tied.

Also, the idea of sub-races in the Dasarian campaign annoys me as they really just don't fit. I hate the Underdark and stupid crap like that. It can stay in the FR setting as having one in this campaign will detract from where the real emphasis should be.

But if we do keep them, level cap all the way. Keep 'em in check.

[Rob]

I'd set an experience cap at 190,000. Classes with level adjustments would not be able to achieve level 20.

I just ran a test. Here's the max level these races could obtain with a 190,000 xp cap....

19 - Aasimar
19 - Tiefling
18 - Grey Dwarf
18 - Drow
17 - Deep Gnome

EDIT: Had the Drow ECL wrong.

[Peregrinus]

1. Absolutely not, don't let it roll
2. I wouldn't mind this, I'd suggest locking out the "underdark" races, but leaving the planetouched.
3. I'm all for the adjusted races having a level cap.
4. Not sure on this one... what could you do, give humans another bonus feat?
5. Yes. Definately YES. You're already requiring DM approval for characters with ties to Dasaria 1, so this should be a no-brainer
6. On the one hand, it should be done, on the other hand, storylines and DM support shouldn't be about the IC race, but the quality of the RPer.

[Stormknife]

I read on the Gamespot boards that it should be possible to put an experience point cap in place instead of a level cap (basically, what Rob posted). I also like the level adjustment x2 proposal, as long as it's combined with an experience.

If possible, I say do that as well as require approval for subraces. If nothing else, it'll stem the inevitable tide of Chaotic Evil Aasimar and LG deep gnomes.

I don't like 6. It's too subjective, too vague, and lends itself to becoming a justification for choosing/not-choosing a character rather than any sort of "rule".

[Jonny]

I vote for number 5.

[Loki]

There is also the option that a number of these races could be automatic EOS? And make playing EOS about as much fun as juggling chainsaws naked with one arm tied behind your back whilst balancing on a greased rubber ball.

After all from what I can tell we’re all living under the rule of Varna.. and the general impression is that these Varanites ain’t as easy going as the Dasarian rulers.. so whose to say they would be willing to even talk to any of these subraces? They may have a kill on sight policy in the name of racial purity..

If that's not an option then I'd vote 2 or 5.

[majawi]

ill keep it short and sweet. option 5 and 6 mixed

[Ramblinwomble]

I say go for 2 if the races don't fit in with the DM's vision for the campaign.

If someone must must must play a particular subrace there will be another server to cater for them. If they want to play on Dasaria then I'm sure they will be able to deal with not playing a deep whatever.


RW whose first Dasaria 2 character will be a Deep Gnome Meliborne sorcerer whorshipping Thor...

[Rex]

The regulars of Dasaria will respect the campaign concept the problem lies with the“floating” players and there will be a hell of a lot of players trying out new servers will pick power/new races in most cases to try Dasaria out. These floating players will then range from excellent rpers to horrendous griefers. That could well upset the ambience and atmosphere of the setting you want to achieve. Only points 2 or 5 will make sure that Dasaria will keep to a traditional race setting.