Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Racial Template: "Raised by Another Race"

Last response: in Video Games
Share
April 8, 2005 8:22:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Would this idea be good/under/overpowered or just plain mess with the
balance? Does it set off the munchkin alarm? For that matter has this
already been done somewhere else?

A racial template that can be applied to any race to reflect the fact that
they were raised by a race other than their own. A character raised by
another race would still get the physical modifiers inherent to their race.
However to reflect the training they would miss by being raised outside of
their own culture, they do no get the other bonuses of their race and
instead get the bonuses of the race that raised them.

For example, a dwarf character is taken as a baby by orc raiders. He is then
later rescued by humans. A suitable dwarf colony could not be found so the
baby was turned over to the monastary to be raised by human monks.

Result is dwarf with the usual stat changes, and physical abilities of
stability and resistance, but no learned abilities regarding appraisals,
giant fighting, racial weapons, etc. However being raised by human, he
learned of their cleverness and versatility and thus gets the skill point
and feat bonuses.

Obviously this has already been done to a degree with half elves and half
orcs, but it could make for more interesting character background
possibilities.

Brian
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 8:22:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

i never considered doing this and it seems perfectly logical to me...
dwarven stone cunning is born of being in the caves, etc
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 8:22:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Brian wrote:
> Would this idea be good/under/overpowered or just plain mess with the
> balance? Does it set off the munchkin alarm? For that matter has this
> already been done somewhere else?
>
> A racial template that can be applied to any race to reflect the fact
that
> they were raised by a race other than their own. A character raised
by
> another race would still get the physical modifiers inherent to their
race.
> However to reflect the training they would miss by being raised
outside of
> their own culture, they do no get the other bonuses of their race and
> instead get the bonuses of the race that raised them.
>
> For example, a dwarf character is taken as a baby by orc raiders. He
is then
> later rescued by humans. A suitable dwarf colony could not be found
so the
> baby was turned over to the monastary to be raised by human monks.
>
> Result is dwarf with the usual stat changes, and physical abilities
of
> stability and resistance, but no learned abilities regarding
appraisals,
> giant fighting, racial weapons, etc. However being raised by human,
he
> learned of their cleverness and versatility and thus gets the skill
point
> and feat bonuses.

Doubleplusungood. Just as you shouldn't mix and match domain spells and
domain powers, race abilities and ability bonuses were designed so that
they are balanced as-is.

For example, who would want to play a basic Half-Orc when they could
play a Half-Orc who was raised by humans? Nothing would be lost, but
the character would gain extra skill points and an extra feat. The same
would be true of Elves raised as humans.

I do think the basic idea is good, though... but it needs a bit more
work. How about something like this:

====================================================

HUMAN
* If a member of another race is raised as a human, they get an extra 2
skill points at level 1, and an extra skill point at every even
character level (2, 4, 6, 8, etc). They also gain the human favoured
class of Any in place of their original favoured class.
* If a human is raised as a member of another race, he or she does not
gain the human skill point bonus, and gains the favoured class of that
race instead of Any.

DWARF
* If a member of another race is raised as a dwarf, they get dwarven
stonecunning, weapon familiarity with dwarven waraxes and urgoshes, and
a +2 competence bonus to Appraise and Craft checks that are related to
stone or metal. These competence bonuses do not stack with any racial
bonuses.
* If a dwarf is raised as a member of another race, he or she does not
gain stonecunning, dwarven weapon familiarity, the racial bonuses to
attack rolls against orcs and goblinoids, the dodge bonus against
giants, or the racial bonuses to Appraise and Craft checks.

ELF
* If a member of another race is raised as an elf, they gain martial
weapon proficiencies for the longsword, rapier, longbow, and shortbow
as bonus feats. They also gain a +1 competence bonus on Listen, Search,
and Spot checks. These competence bonuses do not stack with any racial
bonuses.
* If an elf is raised as a member of another race, he or she does not
gain the elven bonus martial weapon proficiency feats. Furthermore, he
or she gets -2 Charisma, as elves raised by non-elven parents generally
become withdrawn and find it difficult to relate to others or
understand their own place in the world.

GNOME
* If a member of another race is raised as an gnome, they gain weapon
familiarity with gnome hooked hammers, a +2 competence bonus on Craft
(alchemy) checks, as well as a +1 competence bonus on Listen checks and
saving throws against illusions. These competence bonuses do not stack
with any racial bonuses. Furthermore, add +1 to the Difficulty Class
for all saving throws against illusion spells cast by such characters.
* If a gnome is raised as a member of another race, he or she does not
gain the gnomish weapon familiarity, the racial bonuses to attack rolls
against kobolds and goblinoids, the dodge bonus against giants, or the
racial bonuses to saving throws against illusions and Craft (alchemy)
checks. They also do not gain the +1 DC for saving throws against their
illusion spells.

HALF-ELF
* If a member of another race is raised as a half-elf, they gain a +1
competence bonus on Listen, Spot, Diplomacy, and Gather Information
checks. These competence bonuses do not stack with any racial bonuses.
* If a half-elf is raised as a member of another race, he or she loses
the racial bonuses to Listen, Spot, Search, Diplomacy and Gather
Information. He or she also gains the favoured class of that race
instead of Any.

HALF-ORC
* If a member of another race is raised as a half-orc, they may choose
to switch their favoured class to Barbarian.
* If a half-orc is raised as a member of another race, he or she loses
2 points from Strength, Constitution, or Dexterity, as he or she
chooses, since the upbringing of other races is less focused on the
martial aspects, and thus do not allow the half-orc to develop his or
her physical attributes to their full potential.

HALFLING
* If a member of another race is raised as a halfling, they gain a +2
morale bonus on saving throws against fear, and a +1 competence bonus
on Listen, Climb, and Move Silently checks. These competence bonuses do
not stack with any racial bonuses.
* If a halfling is raised as a member of another race, he or she loses
the racial bonus on saving throws against fear and the racial bonus on
attack rolls with thrown weapons and slings. Furthermore, he or she
gains the +1 halfling racial bonus to only one saving throw (Fort,
Reflex, or Will), as he or she chooses.

====================================================

This looks more or less balanced, as far as I can see, and the bonuses
and penalties gained are at least somewhat plausible. Similar entries
could be made for the non-PHB races.

Laszlo
Related resources
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 11:01:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 16:22:19 -0400, "Brian" <reply2me@thenewsgroup> scribed
into the ether:

>Would this idea be good/under/overpowered or just plain mess with the
>balance? Does it set off the munchkin alarm? For that matter has this
>already been done somewhere else?
>
>A racial template that can be applied to any race to reflect the fact that
>they were raised by a race other than their own. A character raised by
>another race would still get the physical modifiers inherent to their race.
>However to reflect the training they would miss by being raised outside of
>their own culture, they do no get the other bonuses of their race and
>instead get the bonuses of the race that raised them.
>
>For example, a dwarf character is taken as a baby by orc raiders. He is then
>later rescued by humans. A suitable dwarf colony could not be found so the
>baby was turned over to the monastary to be raised by human monks.
>
>Result is dwarf with the usual stat changes, and physical abilities of
>stability and resistance, but no learned abilities regarding appraisals,
>giant fighting, racial weapons, etc. However being raised by human, he
>learned of their cleverness and versatility and thus gets the skill point
>and feat bonuses.

A question of whether those particular bonuses are a product of human
society, or human nature. The book seems to imply nature, which makes me
inclined to not allow it. Perhaps just the skill bonus to reflect a broader
scope of teaching? The dwarf is retaining a *lot* of innate benefits,
gaining some new ones, and not giving up a whole hell of a lot for it.
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 3:53:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 16:22:19 -0400, "Brian" <reply2me@thenewsgroup>
wrote:

>Would this idea be good/under/overpowered or just plain mess with the
>balance? Does it set off the munchkin alarm? For that matter has this
>already been done somewhere else?
>
>A racial template that can be applied to any race to reflect the fact that
>they were raised by a race other than their own. A character raised by
>another race would still get the physical modifiers inherent to their race.
>However to reflect the training they would miss by being raised outside of
>their own culture, they do no get the other bonuses of their race and
>instead get the bonuses of the race that raised them.
>
>For example, a dwarf character is taken as a baby by orc raiders. He is then
>later rescued by humans. A suitable dwarf colony could not be found so the
>baby was turned over to the monastary to be raised by human monks.
>
>Result is dwarf with the usual stat changes, and physical abilities of
>stability and resistance, but no learned abilities regarding appraisals,
>giant fighting, racial weapons, etc. However being raised by human, he
>learned of their cleverness and versatility and thus gets the skill point
>and feat bonuses.
>
>Obviously this has already been done to a degree with half elves and half
>orcs, but it could make for more interesting character background
>possibilities.
>
So what character wouldn't be raised by humans to get an extra feat
and extra skill points?
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 5:01:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Indeed, Laszlo's version is realistic and very unbalanced,
demonstrating the inherent problem of trading character features by
origin (nature or culture) instead of by value (advantage or
disadvantage).
For example humans have mostly cultural advantages and physical
disadvantages, so being raised as a human tends to be a gain for almost
every race.
The only remedy I see is adding generic features (skill points, ability
bonuses, feats, anticipating a class feature by a level or two, etc.)
to increase the value of good combinations to a level adjustment of +1
and to make bad combinations fair.

Lorenzo Gatti
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 12:01:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

gatti@dsdata.it wrote:
> Indeed, Laszlo's version is realistic and very unbalanced,

UNbalanced? Really? I was going for a balanced set of rules, and I
tried to make sure that no combination of race and "foster race" was
completely useless, but no combination was overpowered compared to the
standard race choices, either. Certainly I might have overlooked
something.

Why do you feel it's unbalanced? Can you give examples?

Laszlo
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 5:11:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Matt Frisch wrote:
> On 11 Apr 2005 08:01:26 -0700, laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu scribed
into the
> ether:
>
> >
> >gatti@dsdata.it wrote:
> >> Indeed, Laszlo's version is realistic and very unbalanced,
> >
> >UNbalanced? Really? I was going for a balanced set of rules, and I
> >tried to make sure that no combination of race and "foster race" was
> >completely useless, but no combination was overpowered compared to
the
> >standard race choices, either. Certainly I might have overlooked
> >something.
> >
> >Why do you feel it's unbalanced? Can you give examples?
>
> The fact that anyone can be raised by humans, give up almost nothing
in the
> way of their racial benefits (which are mostly physical, and not
social)
> while gaining EXTREMELY powerful benefits from the human side, while
> obtaining none of the drawbacks of humans, since all human drawbacks
are
> physical.
>
> Humans only get 3 benefits, all of which are social: Skills, Feat,
and
> Multiclass flexibility.
>
> A good example is reversing the scenario: A human raised by dwarves.
>
> Human loses: Skill points, Feat, Multiclass variability.
>
> Human gains: Fighter preference, Stonecunning, +1 vs orcs/goblins, +4
dodge
> vs giants, +2 appraise, +2 craft, Automatic language: Dwarven.
>
> Human keeps: 30 foot movement speed.
>
> So our human ends up being a taller, more personable, slightly faster
> nightblind dwarf with gimpy constitution, and bad saves.

I gotta ask, did you not read my proposed system, or is there some
other misunderstanding? My proposed system fixes this (or at least
tries to).

Laszlo
April 11, 2005 8:50:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

<laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> wrote
> This looks more or less balanced, as far as I can see, and the bonuses
> and penalties gained are at least somewhat plausible. Similar entries
> could be made for the non-PHB races.

I like the approach. However, I think the half-orc and half-elf are already
designed to be balanced and seem to me to assume being raised by humans. So
they wouldn't apply to the templates I'm looking for.

However I like your idea.

Perhaps some penalties could be applied along with the bonuses? For example,
dwarves probably don't focus much on skills based on CHA. So a character
raised by dwarves would get negatives on CHA based checks to reflect the CHA
penalty that Dwarves normally get.
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 9:16:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 11 Apr 2005 08:01:26 -0700, laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu scribed into the
ether:

>
>gatti@dsdata.it wrote:
>> Indeed, Laszlo's version is realistic and very unbalanced,
>
>UNbalanced? Really? I was going for a balanced set of rules, and I
>tried to make sure that no combination of race and "foster race" was
>completely useless, but no combination was overpowered compared to the
>standard race choices, either. Certainly I might have overlooked
>something.
>
>Why do you feel it's unbalanced? Can you give examples?

The fact that anyone can be raised by humans, give up almost nothing in the
way of their racial benefits (which are mostly physical, and not social)
while gaining EXTREMELY powerful benefits from the human side, while
obtaining none of the drawbacks of humans, since all human drawbacks are
physical.

Humans only get 3 benefits, all of which are social: Skills, Feat, and
Multiclass flexibility.

A good example is reversing the scenario: A human raised by dwarves.

Human loses: Skill points, Feat, Multiclass variability.

Human gains: Fighter preference, Stonecunning, +1 vs orcs/goblins, +4 dodge
vs giants, +2 appraise, +2 craft, Automatic language: Dwarven.

Human keeps: 30 foot movement speed.

So our human ends up being a taller, more personable, slightly faster
nightblind dwarf with gimpy constitution, and bad saves.

Is that a trade you'd be willing to make?
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 9:46:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Matt Frisch wrote:

> A good example is reversing the scenario: A human raised by dwarves.
>
> Human loses: Skill points, Feat, Multiclass variability.
>
> Human gains: Fighter preference, Stonecunning, +1 vs orcs/goblins, +4
dodge
> vs giants, +2 appraise, +2 craft, Automatic language: Dwarven.
>
> Human keeps: 30 foot movement speed.
>
> So our human ends up being a taller, more personable, slightly faster
> nightblind dwarf with gimpy constitution, and bad saves.
>
> Is that a trade you'd be willing to make?

It seems that you didn't even give his proposed system a cursory
examination. here's the ACTUAL result:

A human raised by dwarves forgoes the human skill point bonus and gains
that race's favores class. Being raised by dwarves the human gets
stonecunning, proficiency in dwarven weapons, and a +2 competancy bonus
on crafts checks related to stone or metal.

So we have a character with 1 extra feat, a favored class (no free
multiclassing) normal dwarven skills, and some dwarven racial features.
He doesn't get the bonuses versus goblinoids and giants that you're
proposing. He's basicaly trading free multiclassing and an extra skill
point per level for stonecuning, profieiency with weapons he may not be
interested in using, and a +2 on crafts and appraise rolls related to
stone or metalwork. Sounds fine to me.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 2:05:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Matt Frisch wrote:
> On 11 Apr 2005 17:46:22 -0700, "Anivair" <anivair@gmail.com> scribed
into
> the ether:
>
> >> Is that a trade you'd be willing to make?
> >
> >It seems that you didn't even give his proposed system a cursory
> >examination. here's the ACTUAL result:
> >
> >A human raised by dwarves forgoes the human skill point bonus and
gains
> >that race's favores class. Being raised by dwarves the human gets
> >stonecunning, proficiency in dwarven weapons, and a +2 competancy
bonus
> >on crafts checks related to stone or metal.
> >
> >So we have a character with 1 extra feat, a favored class (no free
> >multiclassing) normal dwarven skills, and some dwarven racial
features.
> > He doesn't get the bonuses versus goblinoids and giants that you're
> >proposing. He's basicaly trading free multiclassing and an extra
skill
> >point per level for stonecuning, profieiency with weapons he may not
be
> >interested in using, and a +2 on crafts and appraise rolls related
to
> >stone or metalwork. Sounds fine to me.
>
> But then this ceases being a "system" for combining racial features,
and
> just becomes a collection of "This looks good to me" combination of
> features.
>
> Why not keep the skill points and drop the feat? What is the
organization
> behind the system?

Simple. You'll note that the stuff you gain when being "adopted" by a
race is roughly half what you would lose by leaving that race.
(Roughly. The underlying logic is more complex than that.) This type of
"diminishing returns" parallels the Flaws and Traits system in
Unearthed Arcana, and is necessary to provide stability to a
mix-and-match type system.

And, well, there's no way to halve a feat.

Again, this is a very oversimplified explanation. Trust me, though;
while in a certain sense my choices were certainly arbitrary
(especially the CHA penalty from elves raised by other races, for
example), most of the other possible choices would have resulted in
balance issues.

I can't give you a definitive set of rules you can just apply to any
race, just like there are no definitive rules for figuring out if a
class is balanced or not (well, technically, there _are_ such rules...
but they're hilariously dysfunctional). If you're interested in how a
specific race can be balanced, ask here, and I'll write up the relevant
entries for that race. It takes me 5 minutes, tops. But it's half art,
and half science, and it's just not something that can easily be
reduced to formulae.

Laszlo
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 2:15:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Laszlo, what happens when a gnome is raised by a dwarf or vice versa?
Dwarves and gnomes share features against gobinoids and giants. Surely
this commonality should at least allow them to keep it. Still, even in
the general sense why wouldn't a dwarf parent not teach techniques to
fight against giants or orcs or goblinoids to any race child? I can
understand the desire for balance in trading racial abilities, but the
logic of the matter seems to be losing out a bit to me.

Gerald Katz
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 3:17:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Hadsil wrote:
> Laszlo, what happens when a gnome is raised by a dwarf or vice versa?
> Dwarves and gnomes share features against gobinoids and giants.
Surely
> this commonality should at least allow them to keep it.

Hm, that's a good point. Well, just add a rule: if both the original
and the foster race would gain a bonus, the character gains that bonus
even if this is not mentioned. If the sizes of the two bonuses are
different (such as the racial Listen bonuses for elves and half-elves),
the character gains the lesser of the two bonuses.

Still, even in
> the general sense why wouldn't a dwarf parent not teach techniques to
> fight against giants or orcs or goblinoids to any race child? I can
> understand the desire for balance in trading racial abilities, but
the
> logic of the matter seems to be losing out a bit to me.

Well, a large part of the dodge bonus to AC against giants is simply
due to the small size of dwarves and gnomes, not just simple combat
training (I know, dwarves are technically Medium. Irrelevant.) I don't
think it would make sense for a human to get it, even if he were raised
as a dwarf. But it's _also_ dependant on combat training, which is why
halflings don't get it (and neither would dwarves raised as halflings).

As for the attack bonus against certain races... well, it's a _racial_
bonus. I'd have to conclude that that bonus to attack is also due
partly to an inborn enmity and only partly to training. For dwarves,
orc-killing is just "in their blood"... but they need dwarvish training
to realize that potential.

> Gerald Katz

Laszlo
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 7:53:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 11 Apr 2005 17:46:22 -0700, "Anivair" <anivair@gmail.com> scribed into
the ether:

>
>Matt Frisch wrote:
>
>> A good example is reversing the scenario: A human raised by dwarves.
>>
>> Human loses: Skill points, Feat, Multiclass variability.
>>
>> Human gains: Fighter preference, Stonecunning, +1 vs orcs/goblins, +4
>dodge
>> vs giants, +2 appraise, +2 craft, Automatic language: Dwarven.
>>
>> Human keeps: 30 foot movement speed.
>>
>> So our human ends up being a taller, more personable, slightly faster
>> nightblind dwarf with gimpy constitution, and bad saves.
>>
>> Is that a trade you'd be willing to make?
>
>It seems that you didn't even give his proposed system a cursory
>examination. here's the ACTUAL result:
>
>A human raised by dwarves forgoes the human skill point bonus and gains
>that race's favores class. Being raised by dwarves the human gets
>stonecunning, proficiency in dwarven weapons, and a +2 competancy bonus
>on crafts checks related to stone or metal.
>
>So we have a character with 1 extra feat, a favored class (no free
>multiclassing) normal dwarven skills, and some dwarven racial features.
> He doesn't get the bonuses versus goblinoids and giants that you're
>proposing. He's basicaly trading free multiclassing and an extra skill
>point per level for stonecuning, profieiency with weapons he may not be
>interested in using, and a +2 on crafts and appraise rolls related to
>stone or metalwork. Sounds fine to me.

But then this ceases being a "system" for combining racial features, and
just becomes a collection of "This looks good to me" combination of
features.

Why not keep the skill points and drop the feat? What is the organization
behind the system?
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 8:54:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Matt Frisch wrote:

> But then this ceases being a "system" for combining racial features,
and
> just becomes a collection of "This looks good to me" combination of
> features.
>
> Why not keep the skill points and drop the feat? What is the
organization
> behind the system?

This word, "system", i think maybe you are very confused about the
meaning.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 5:46:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

U.P.:up wrote:
> laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu<laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> gave the
game away:
> > Well, a large part of the dodge bonus to AC against giants is
simply
> > due to the small size of dwarves and gnomes
>
> No, that's the size modifier to (anyone's) AC.

Ahh, he's right there. I haven't read the flavor text recently, but
this sounds like the most correct answer, and the giant and goblin
fighting is a special learning. Though a dwarven parent might NOT
teach a human child. they may be too drail, wrongly shaped, or the
dwarven parent may noot th ink it's a good idea. It may just be a
dwarf thing.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 8:00:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu<laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> gave the game away:
> Well, a large part of the dodge bonus to AC against giants is simply
> due to the small size of dwarves and gnomes

No, that's the size modifier to (anyone's) AC.

--
Matt Alexander
majelix@geh-hibidy-hoo-ha
Student, Consumer, Tool.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 8:26:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Just my two cents, YMMV:


> > Brian wrote:

> > Would this idea be good/under/overpowered or just
> > plain mess with the balance?

Overpowered


> > Does it set off the munchkin alarm?

Yes


> > A racial template that can be applied to any race
> > to reflect the fact that they were raised by a race
> > other than their own. A character raised by another
> > race would still get the physical modifiers inherent
> > to their race. However to reflect the training they
> > would miss by being raised outside of their own
> > culture, they do no get the other bonuses of their
> > race and instead get the bonuses of the race that
> > raised them.

The way the gaining culture treats outsiders should be a major factor.
Consider a spectrum of response from closed, fearful, prejudiced, and
parochial to open, nurturing, and inclusive. YMMV as you choose the
cultural responses of your world, but fear of outsiders is a common
thread in real world and fantasy cultures; it is still true today. Most
cultures would shade heavily toward the closed end of the spectrum.
Examples of relatively open cultures that I can think of off hand are
university campuses, large corporations, and the Internet. I am sure
you can think of examples why even those are closed to some folks.

You should ask yourself, given the harsh nature of the typical DnD
world, is it even likely that this culture will raise that other race
offspring? Maybe return it to its own kind or take it as a slave, but
to treat it as a blood born member of the culture? That's quite a
stretch.

Anyone raised as a slave should not get the benefits of that culture.

Also consider that many of the cultural skills are learned, they tend
to be skills that are for implements that are particularly suited to
the race, and would not necessarily benefit an outsider, even if raised
within the culture. A gnome weapon is still a size class smaller to a
human or an elf. The fighting techniques that a gnome uses with that
weapon should be unavailable to a medium-sized person.


> laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> ====================================================

> HUMAN
> * If a member of another race is raised as a human, they get an extra
2
> skill points at level 1, and an extra skill point at every even
> character level (2, 4, 6, 8, etc). They also gain the human favoured
> class of Any in place of their original favoured class.

Typical fantasy Humans are more open to other races than other races
are. The DnD rules reflect this; hence Half-Elves and Half-Orcs.

If a member of another race is raised as a Human, they get an extra 1
skill point at level 1, Period. This is based on a view of Human
flexibility and curiousity as being intrinsic, not learned. Other races
have intrinsic traits and skill points is where Humans are compensated.


[Another (different) view of this is: if flexibility and curiousity are
cultural, then Human culture is open and other cultures are not; then
this whole thread is meaningless; only Humans will raise other races.
The DnD rules imply something like this with Half-Elves and Half-Orcs
.... ]

I agree that the favored class should come from the raising culture.


> * If a human is raised as a member of another race, he or she does
not
> gain the human skill point bonus, and gains the favoured class of
that
> race instead of Any.

If a human is raised as a member of another race, he or she looses 1
initial skill point, so gets 1 at level 1 and 1 at every even character
level.


> DWARF
> * If a member of another race is raised as a dwarf, they get dwarven
> stonecunning, weapon familiarity with dwarven waraxes and urgoshes,
and
> a +2 competence bonus to Appraise and Craft checks that are related
to
> stone or metal. These competence bonuses do not stack with any racial
> bonuses.

Typically, Dwarves are presented as a closed, clanish group. It seems
unlikely that they would raise outsiders.

Extrapolating from prior versions of DnD, the stonecunning skill is
somewhat physiological. Dwarven weapons would be proportioned and
balanced for a short, stout, strong individual, and should typically be
an unsuitable weapon for other races. A +1 competence bonus to Appraise
and Craft checks that are related to stone and metal would be
appropriate; "the slow kid in class". It should stack with racial
bonuses up to +2, however; "not slow after all".


> * If a dwarf is raised as a member of another race, he or she does
not
> gain stonecunning, dwarven weapon familiarity, the racial bonuses to
> attack rolls against orcs and goblinoids, the dodge bonus against
> giants, or the racial bonuses to Appraise and Craft checks.

Looses familiarity with Dwarven weapons due to lack of exposure; still
gets stonecunning (half skill where relevant - untrained), and the +1
competence bonus to A & C. I think I agree that a Dwarfs racial enemies
are learned and trained, hence lost.


> ELF
> * If a member of another race is raised as an elf, they gain martial
> weapon proficiencies for the longsword, rapier, longbow, and shortbow
> as bonus feats. They also gain a +1 competence bonus on Listen,
Search,
> and Spot checks. These competence bonuses do not stack with any
racial
> bonuses.

Typically, Elves are portrayed as helpful, but closed. It seems more
likely that Elves would go out of their way to return an outsider child
to its own kind than to raise it.

A halfling and a gnome can not even wield the longbow, and cannot wield
the long sword in the Elven fashion. I'd say shorties get rapier and
short bow, maybe short sword if the Elves were generous ("a long sword
made in your size".) Definite nix on the senses bonuses; those are not
strictly speaking skills bonuses, just are treated as such for
simplicity.


> * If an elf is raised as a member of another race, he or she does not
> gain the elven bonus martial weapon proficiency feats. Furthermore,
he
> or she gets -2 Charisma, as elves raised by non-elven parents
generally
> become withdrawn and find it difficult to relate to others or
> understand their own place in the world.

I would give Elves a free proficiency in a missle weapon and a finesse
weapon common in the culture in which they are raised (natural affinity
for dex-based fighting); default short bow, short sword, and dagger if
nothing else is culturally favored.

I would generalize the -2 Charisma bonus to all who are raised outside
of their culture take a Charisma hit, not just Elves. I think your
rational is a good call, but applies to a broader group.


> GNOME
> * If a member of another race is raised as an gnome, they gain weapon
> familiarity with gnome hooked hammers, a +2 competence bonus on Craft
> (alchemy) checks, as well as a +1 competence bonus on Listen checks
and
> saving throws against illusions. These competence bonuses do not
stack
> with any racial bonuses. Furthermore, add +1 to the Difficulty Class
> for all saving throws against illusion spells cast by such
characters.

Gnomes and Halflings have special problems raising other races - where
do they house the member of the other race? The stuff they use is not
sized for the newcomer. Gnomes and Halflings should be able to use each
other's stuff fairly well.

The only Gnome skill that should transfer is +1 competence bonus on
Craft (alchemy) - see my comments on Dwarf for analogous rational;
essentially the bonuses are mostly physiological; in alchemy we have a
slow learner.


> * If a gnome is raised as a member of another race, he or she does
not
> gain the gnomish weapon familiarity, the racial bonuses to attack
rolls
> against kobolds and goblinoids, the dodge bonus against giants, or
the
> racial bonuses to saving throws against illusions and Craft (alchemy)
> checks. They also do not gain the +1 DC for saving throws against
their
> illusion spells.

See Dwarf - not get gnome weapons (no exposure), should get the
illusions (intrinsic), and should get craft (alchemy) at an untrained
level, +1 to Craft (alchemy). Should get the bonus against giants based
on size.


> HALFLING
> * If a member of another race is raised as a halfling, they gain a +2
> morale bonus on saving throws against fear, and a +1 competence bonus
> on Listen, Climb, and Move Silently checks. These competence bonuses
do
> not stack with any racial bonuses.

I would say that these bonuses are not learned and do not transfer. You
do not mention thrown weapons and slings; I'd say these should not
transfer either, except Elves raised by Halflings should get sling.


> * If a halfling is raised as a member of another race, he or she
loses
> the racial bonus on saving throws against fear and the racial bonus
on
> attack rolls with thrown weapons and slings. Furthermore, he or she
> gains the +1 halfling racial bonus to only one saving throw (Fort,
> Reflex, or Will), as he or she chooses.

Keeps most racial bonuses. I would only loose the sling. It's easy to
find stuff to practice throwing if you already have the knack.

Should get the bonus against giants based on size.


> HALF-ELF
> * If a member of another race is raised as a half-elf, they gain a +1
> competence bonus on Listen, Spot, Diplomacy, and Gather Information
> checks. These competence bonuses do not stack with any racial
bonuses.

Half-Elf should not be a culture.


> * If a half-elf is raised as a member of another race, he or she
loses
> the racial bonuses to Listen, Spot, Search, Diplomacy and Gather
> Information. He or she also gains the favoured class of that race
> instead of Any.

LS&S are intrinsic, no loss. Diplomacy and Gather Information sould be
a benefit of any cross cultural exposure, hence should apply to all
raised outside their own culture. Hmm, maybe "or", you choice, pick
one, Diplomacy or Gather Information, because otherwise, there is not
much point to Half-Elf (not that there is, but why diminish it?) and
because it is not a benefit of Half-Orc.


> HALF-ORC
> * If a member of another race is raised as a half-orc, they may
choose
> to switch their favoured class to Barbarian.

Half-Orc should not be a culture. Raised by Orcs might work, but
enslaved by Orcs or eaten by Orcs seems more in genre.


> * If a half-orc is raised as a member of another race, he or she
loses
> 2 points from Strength, Constitution, or Dexterity, as he or she
> chooses, since the upbringing of other races is less focused on the
> martial aspects, and thus do not allow the half-orc to develop his or
> her physical attributes to their full potential.

The notion of a culture accepting even a Half-Orc ... seems to go too
much against the grain for my tastes. Orcs are supposed to be the hated
racial enemy of the cultured races.

The Half-Orc would be encouraged to use his or her physical attributes
for the benefit of the culture; there isn't much else for the Half-Orc
to do for that culture. All they can contribute is brawn.


> ====================================================
> This looks more or less balanced, as far as I can see, and the
bonuses
> and penalties gained are at least somewhat plausible. Similar entries
> could be made for the non-PHB races.
>
> Laszlo

I would err on the side of underpowering the cross-cultural transplant.
I can't think of where this has been beneficial early in life. Later in
life, it can be a broadening experience. Hmm, how about "raised by
natural parents in another culture"? That should actually be
beneficial, and give the best of two worlds. Might sacrifice a bit of
the home culture's benefits but gain from the host culture. Real world,
this is true, and is easy to find. In DnD a merchant family or the
family of a diplomat might do this.

MadKaugh
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 1:32:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> Hadsil wrote:
> >
> > Laszlo, what happens when a gnome is raised by a dwarf
> > or vice versa? Dwarves and gnomes share features
> > against gobinoids and giants. Surely this commonality
> > should at least allow them to keep it.
>
> Hm, that's a good point. Well, just add a rule: if both
> the original and the foster race would gain a bonus,
> the character gains that bonus even if this is not
> mentioned. If the sizes of the two bonuses are different
> (such as the racial Listen bonuses for elves and
> half-elves), the character gains the lesser of the two
> bonuses.

First of all, your idea isn't even close to being considered balanced
unless you can re-create the existing races. As an example, if you
take "dwarf raised by dwarves" in your system as if those were
separate things, do you end up with the PH dwarf? It should. Beyond
that, things like the elven/half-elven racial bonuses to skills aren't
cultural, and should neither be lost nor gained.

> Well, a large part of the dodge bonus to AC against giants
> is simply due to the small size of dwarves and gnomes, not
> just simple combat training (I know, dwarves are
> technically Medium. Irrelevant.)

Not true at all. Size bonuses to AC represent small size. The dodge
bonuses to AC vs. giants explicitly "represents special training". It
isn't related to small size, since dwarves *are not small*. That's
far from irrelevant.

--
Nik
- remove vermin from email address to reply.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 3:49:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Suddenly, Madkaugh, drunk as a lemur, stumbled out of the darkness and
exclaimed:

> Typically, Dwarves are presented as a closed, clanish group. It seems
> unlikely that they would raise outsiders.
>

Tell that to Bruenor and Cattie-Brie.

--
Billy Yank

Quinn: "I'm saying it's us, or them."
Murphy: "Well I choose them."
Q: "That's NOT an option!"
M: "Then you shouldn't have framed it as one."
-Sealab 2021

Billy Yank's Baldur's Gate Photo Portraits
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze2xvw6/
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 6:15:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Nikolas Landauer <dacileva.flea@hotmail.com.tick> wrote:
> laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
>> Hadsil wrote:
>> >
>> > Laszlo, what happens when a gnome is raised by a dwarf
>> > or vice versa? Dwarves and gnomes share features
>> > against gobinoids and giants. Surely this commonality
>> > should at least allow them to keep it.
>>
>> Hm, that's a good point. Well, just add a rule: if both
>> the original and the foster race would gain a bonus,
>> the character gains that bonus even if this is not
>> mentioned. If the sizes of the two bonuses are different
>> (such as the racial Listen bonuses for elves and
>> half-elves), the character gains the lesser of the two
>> bonuses.
>
> First of all, your idea isn't even close to being considered balanced
> unless you can re-create the existing races. As an example, if you
> take "dwarf raised by dwarves" in your system as if those were
> separate things, do you end up with the PH dwarf? It should. Beyond
> that, things like the elven/half-elven racial bonuses to skills aren't
> cultural, and should neither be lost nor gained.

You could gain a small 'bonus' for being raised by your own type.

This split between culture and race works better in HERO System or the
like. In D&D it pretty much works better to design race/culture as a
single package for each, possibly with variations for each.

>> Well, a large part of the dodge bonus to AC against giants
>> is simply due to the small size of dwarves and gnomes, not
>> just simple combat training (I know, dwarves are
>> technically Medium. Irrelevant.)

Male dwarves range from 3'11" to 4'5" tall, and weigh between 134 and
178 pounds. Male humans range from 5' to 6'8" tall, and weigh between
124 and 280 pounds. Male dwarves fall within that weight range, which
is a more telling measure of size than just height. They only way their
treated as 'small' is their move rate. They have no strength penalty,
and in fact can carry things *better* than humans of the same strength;
they have no move penalty for armor or load.

They're short, but they're *not* small. Dwarves are not *technically*
medium. They're within the human weight range. Gnomes and halflings,
OTOH, *are* small:

M Half-orc 5' 0"-6'10" 154-438# M
M Human 5' 0"-6' 8" 124-280# M
M Dwarf 3'11"-4' 5" 134-178# M
M Half-elf 4' 9"-5'11" 104-164# M
M Elf 4' 7"-5' 5" 87-157# M
M Gnome 3' 2"-3' 8" 42- 48# S
M Halfling 2'10"-3' 4" 32- 38# S

F Half-orc 4' 7"-6' 5" 114-398# M
F Human 4' 7"-6' 3" 89-245# M
F Dwarf 3' 9"-4' 3" 104-148# M
F Half-elf 4' 7"-5' 9" 84-144# M
F Elf 4' 7"-5' 5" 82-152# M
F Gnome 3' 0"-3' 6" 37- 43# S
F Halfling 2' 8"-3' 2" 32- 38# S

(RSRD "Description", Height and Weight table.

> Not true at all. Size bonuses to AC represent small size. The dodge
> bonuses to AC vs. giants explicitly "represents special training". It
> isn't related to small size, since dwarves *are not small*. That's
> far from irrelevant.

Correct.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 12:17:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:00:37 +0000 (UTC), "U.P.:up" <majelix@gehennom.net>
scribed into the ether:

>laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu<laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> gave the game away:
>> Well, a large part of the dodge bonus to AC against giants is simply
>> due to the small size of dwarves and gnomes
>
>No, that's the size modifier to (anyone's) AC.

Um...no. Dwarves get a specific racial dodge bonus against giants that has
nothing to do with their size.

Dwarves are medium, after all. They get the exact same size bonus against
giants as humans do.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 1:14:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Matt Frisch wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:00:37 +0000 (UTC), "U.P.:up" <majelix@gehennom.net>
> scribed into the ether:
>
> >laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu<laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> gave the game away:
> >> Well, a large part of the dodge bonus to AC against giants is simply
> >> due to the small size of dwarves and gnomes
> >
> >No, that's the size modifier to (anyone's) AC.
>
> Um...no. Dwarves get a specific racial dodge bonus against giants that has
> nothing to do with their size.

I think that's what he's saying: a dwarf's dodge bonus
to AC versus giants has nothing to do with his size.
There is nothing in the rules (AFAIK) to support
Laszlo's contention that a dwarf's AC bonus versus
giants is due in any way to his (non-)Small size.

-Bluto
Anonymous
April 17, 2005 2:28:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 11 Apr 2005 01:01:15 -0700, gatti@dsdata.it wrote:

>Indeed, Laszlo's version is realistic and very unbalanced,
>demonstrating the inherent problem of trading character features by
>origin (nature or culture) instead of by value (advantage or
>disadvantage).
>For example humans have mostly cultural advantages and physical
>disadvantages, so being raised as a human tends to be a gain for almost
>every race.
>The only remedy I see is adding generic features (skill points, ability
>bonuses, feats, anticipating a class feature by a level or two, etc.)
>to increase the value of good combinations to a level adjustment of +1
>and to make bad combinations fair.

Just to clarify I was responding directly to Brian's initial idea.
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 4:01:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
> As for the attack bonus against certain races... well, it's a _racial_
> bonus. I'd have to conclude that that bonus to attack is also due
> partly to an inborn enmity and only partly to training. For dwarves,
> orc-killing is just "in their blood"... but they need dwarvish training
> to realize that potential.

This 'in your blood' thing is tricky. I noticed stonecunning was also in that
list. Is that something that can be taught so much as it could be more racial
intuitive? Dwarves, with the blood and tears of the earth flowing through their
veins and all that?
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk ..."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 1:34:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 12:01:21 -0700, ~consul
<consul@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com> scribed into the ether:

>laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
>> As for the attack bonus against certain races... well, it's a _racial_
>> bonus. I'd have to conclude that that bonus to attack is also due
>> partly to an inborn enmity and only partly to training. For dwarves,
>> orc-killing is just "in their blood"... but they need dwarvish training
>> to realize that potential.
>
>This 'in your blood' thing is tricky. I noticed stonecunning was also in that
>list. Is that something that can be taught so much as it could be more racial
>intuitive? Dwarves, with the blood and tears of the earth flowing through their
>veins and all that?

Drow don't get it, and if it were a learned ability, you'd think that a few
millenia living underground would allow them to pick it up, it would
certainly be useful to them.
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 3:41:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Matt Frisch wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 12:01:21 -0700, ~consul
>>This 'in your blood' thing is tricky. I noticed stonecunning was also in that
>>list. Is that something that can be taught so much as it could be more racial
>>intuitive? Dwarves, with the blood and tears of the earth flowing through their
>>veins and all that?
> Drow don't get it, and if it were a learned ability, you'd think that a few
> millenia living underground would allow them to pick it up, it would
> certainly be useful to them.

Just flipped through Complete Adventurer, and there is a prestige class called
"Dungeon Delver" One of it's abitlies is Stonecunning (EX). And the text
specifically refers you to look at the dwarven racial trait of stonecunning, and
that this is version is a Competance bonus that will stack with the racial one
if you are a dwarf.

So you can learn it.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk ..."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 11:40:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 11:41:54 -0700, ~consul
<consul@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com> scribed into the ether:

>Matt Frisch wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 12:01:21 -0700, ~consul
>>>This 'in your blood' thing is tricky. I noticed stonecunning was also in that
>>>list. Is that something that can be taught so much as it could be more racial
>>>intuitive? Dwarves, with the blood and tears of the earth flowing through their
>>>veins and all that?
>> Drow don't get it, and if it were a learned ability, you'd think that a few
>> millenia living underground would allow them to pick it up, it would
>> certainly be useful to them.
>
>Just flipped through Complete Adventurer, and there is a prestige class called
>"Dungeon Delver" One of it's abitlies is Stonecunning (EX). And the text
>specifically refers you to look at the dwarven racial trait of stonecunning, and
>that this is version is a Competance bonus that will stack with the racial one
>if you are a dwarf.
>
>So you can learn it.

Ah, but that example also pretty clearly points to the fact that Dwarves
get it innately, and not through training. Therefore it would be retained
in a "raised by humans" situation, and a human raised by dwarves would not
receive it.
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 11:40:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Matt Frisch wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 11:41:54 -0700, ~consul
> <consul@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com> scribed into the ether:
>
>
>>Matt Frisch wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 12:01:21 -0700, ~consul
>>>
>>>>This 'in your blood' thing is tricky. I noticed stonecunning was also in that
>>>>list. Is that something that can be taught so much as it could be more racial
>>>>intuitive? Dwarves, with the blood and tears of the earth flowing through their
>>>>veins and all that?
>>>
>>>Drow don't get it, and if it were a learned ability, you'd think that a few
>>>millenia living underground would allow them to pick it up, it would
>>>certainly be useful to them.
>>
>>Just flipped through Complete Adventurer, and there is a prestige class called
>>"Dungeon Delver" One of it's abitlies is Stonecunning (EX). And the text
>>specifically refers you to look at the dwarven racial trait of stonecunning, and
>>that this is version is a Competance bonus that will stack with the racial one
>>if you are a dwarf.
>>
>>So you can learn it.
>
>
> Ah, but that example also pretty clearly points to the fact that Dwarves
> get it innately, and not through training. Therefore it would be retained
> in a "raised by humans" situation, and a human raised by dwarves would not
> receive it.

Maybe humans would get the competence bonus instead? After all, dwarves
appreciate conformity. They'd try and make their foundling a bit more
like a "proper dwarf," training the child in things that should be
second nature.

Just a thought.

-Tialan
!