3 Worlds Races: Standard or Unique???

[Xeviat]

What do people think about this?

In my setting, I've separated the stats into a total of 8: Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Agility, Intelligence, Wisdom, Perception, Charisma.

I'm considering changing the racial modifiers to this:

Dwarf: +2 Con, -2 Agi, -2 Per
Elf: +2 Agi, -2 Con, -2 Wis

This will pay for new abilities for these races, to have them stand out in my setting.

Then, half-dwarfs and half-elves will not have the mental ability score penalty, because their human blood tempers their mind, but they'll lose access to the more potent pure blood abilities.

Do you think this would be an interesting change?

[brainface]

In my setting, I've separated the stats into a total of 8: Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Agility, Intelligence, Wisdom, Perception, Charisma.
Do you think this would be an interesting change?

Then, half-dwarfs and half-elves will not have the mental ability score penalty, because their human blood tempers their mind, but they'll lose access to the more potent pure blood abilities.[/quote]
eh, half races need their own abilities, imo. look at 3e half-elves, they were about human and elven taken together and averaged. and they... didn't really have anything going for them. Kinda worse than either human or elf. specialization is better than generalization, in dnd. Of course it's hard to say either way without more information. :)

[Grr]

I prefer to have fewer race options available to players per campaign.  While the setting itself might have a thousand options for the players, it's much better to have two or three, four at the most, for the players to choose from.  Having six different races in the same party makes it harder for the DM to craft a believable world, unless the entire setting is a mish-mash of races in every town, city, and village.  Otherise, only one member of the party would be of any use in most places at any time.

[Raelifin]

I prefer to have fewer race options available to players per campaign.  While the setting itself might have a thousand options for the players, it's much better to have two or three, four at the most, for the players to choose from.  Having six different races in the same party makes it harder for the DM to craft a believable world, unless the entire setting is a mish-mash of races in every town, city, and village.  Otherise, only one member of the party would be of any use in most places at any time.

Of any use? What prevents a party of humans from adventuring in a dwarven city? Why does having a selection for your players make the world any less believable?

[Grr]

It's not the selection available, it's the makeup of the party.  A diverse number of races within the party makes it harder on the DM.  Especially if their campaign setting has racial tension between various races.

I have no problem with there being a wide variety of possible races for the players to choose from, but they should choose from within a smaller subset based upon the type of campaign the dm wants to run.  It'd be pretty silly to play a bunch of elves, pixies, and half-dragons if the dm planned on an underground campaign centered around troubles, plaguing the dwarves in the mountains.

[Matt Larkin (author)]

I kind of agree with Grr.  Having every member of the party be a radically different race is good for comic games, but can strain serious ones.  

Off-topic, that's a killer avatar, Grr.

[Raelifin]

I think we need a new thread on the nature of many races vs. few. I'll create in a bit if nobody beats me to the punch. I just don't want to derail Xev's thread.

[Xeviat]

Thanks Rael; I'm relatively set on my choices for racial stats right now, and I'm currently working on writing up their fluff (formatting is becoming an issue). Thanks for all the help guys.