Search Posts
You would think that you could just mention, Race X created Spell Y - See Spells for details. Same with features and feats. I very strongly dislike the idea of having to flip to multiple sections of a book to get all the details when the appropriate section already exists. I mean, isn't it logical to put the mechanics into the same place? This isn't the first book to do something weird like that. I'll just have to keep in mind logic isn't always a thing.
I have been trying to purchase the Tech Revolution PDF since Saturday, however the Place Your Order button only makes the steps disappear and it just circles a few moments and nothing ever happens. I have attempted this on three different devices with at least three different browsers and three different payment methods with no luck. I have cleared cookies and site specific cookies. I deleted and recreated my payment methods and my billing and shipping address. I emailed the customer service email address, and I'm still in the same boat. What else needs to be done so I can actually purchase the PDF?
I am corrected. Thank you for clarifying it. I really did misunderstand it, and I didn't read deep enough in to realize they all had lineage feats as well. I just didn't see the geniekin as five separate heritages, just one, and that was my error. Arovyn
I just had a strange thought about this, reading through the PDF. But I have to ask a serious question about the Geniekin. Someone let me know if I'm way off base here, but I want to make sure I get it right. In 1E, each of the flavors of Geniekin were their own separate race, so in a way it makes sense they'd get different Heritage options here. But here's where I run into an issue. I get that in 1E, if you wanted a flavored Aasimar or Tiefling, for example, you had to spend a feat. And that carried over directly into 2E with their versatile heritage. With me so far? Doesn't that create a sort of feat tax for literally every other versatile heritage in the game if you want that flavor when Geniekin don't? Not that it's hard to take out the 1st level feat flavors and just make them into the same kind of option the Geniekin have, but it's weird they don't have to spend their 1st level feat for the flavor. Now, I know, people want to say, but they were all separate in 1E! And I totally get that argument, too. But that's acting on nostalgia and a sense of "But that's how it worked before, so it should now." But should it? I'm not trying to be a downer on any of it, but am I missing something here? Why do the Geniekin not have to spend a 1st level feat they can't retrain into or out of to be a specific flavor when literally every other Versatile Heritage does?
I nearly always buy from my FLGS. There are handful of games I play without a free PDF available. That's fine. I have enough disposable income to buy the PDFs I want and skip out on the ones I don't. But I do want to point out some things here. Evil Hat Productions recently started a program to get a free PDF copy whenever you buy the hard copy at your FLGS. It works like this, I buy the book at my FLGS and I hand them my flash drive. They log into Evil Hat's dropbox and download the PDF onto my flash drive. I walk away with the book and a free PDF. Once they get their CD burning working (they recently moved), then they'll put it on a blank CD instead. Green Ronin is doing something similar with their Pre-Order Plus program. I pre-order the book at my FLGS, pay some money down, get the book and PDF (which is sometimes free and sometimes only about $5) when it comes in. It's completely win-win for me. I don't see why such a program couldn't exist with Paizo for those who really want to support their FLGS and still get the PDF. Both of these programs require me to purchase the hard copy *before* I get my PDF copy. But at the same time, I keep asking myself the same question - Why isn't there a PDF-only subscription? I mean, really, why not have a PDF subscription where you buy the PDFs, possibly at a discount because it's a sub, and then still be able to buy the hard copy at your FLGS if you want to support it? Sure, you can get the PDF for free when you sub to the hard copies, but as an answer to the question the OP asked back at the beginning - why tear yourself up over supporting both your FLGS and Paizo? There's always some form of middle ground out there. Arovyn
I can put this a bit more simply. Diletante did not make Twin Strike into a Sorcerer Power. Sorcerous Blade Channeling only allows a ranged Sorcerer power to be channeled into a melee attack. If you want me to clarify that a bit further, both powers have different sources altogether. I applaud the creativity, though.
Also in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting there is about one regional feat per featured country, while some might not fit, I believe others could be used as a good basis for background benefits. With a certainty! One thing I like about 4E is being able to sneak in a basic benefit for no cost to add flavor and style to a chracter. I can convert the feats pretty easily into regional backgrounds with converted traits and PHB2 style backgrounds as a secondary means of gaining a small benefit if the regional benefit doesn't fit. I have a feeling I should post them after I make them...
Thanks! This is pretty close to what I'm looking for. Just like PHB2, it's a build it yourself set. That's not complaining since it's pretty simple to put together. Though, I' m curious if anyone has anything beyond the two other books for the other regions, or a nice set of FRPG style regional backgrounds.
It's been a really long time since I saw anything on this, but I would think that the Dragonmarks would be powers, still taken by feat selection with similar requirements to the originals. I would suspect they would either be in addition to powers or they will replace a power. I would also suspect they would not be eligible powers for power swap replacements.
Has anyone made a set of background/regional benefits for Golarion for 4E yet (a la PHB 2 or FRPG)? Just curious. I know I haven't been around for quite a long time. Mostly lurking, but it was more about moving residences - twice - in a four month span that did that. Add lack of internet connectivity for quite a while, and some other issues, but I'm back to an extent.
There is always some form of "default" setting for a core book. In this case, it's Golarion. But I do agree that some races need to be built to be a lot more generic and lot less like the Golarion standard (*cough* gnomes *cough*). I don't see any reason to swap out the gods listed for clerics and paladins for something more generic. Truth be told, you could simply not list any gods at all and simply put in cosmology building 101 instead and teach how to create a deity and a pantheon with a couple of Golarion deities as examples. Arovyn
Maybe a good solution is to offer the choice between them. +2 Int or +2 Wis. Since this is a core and elves really can go in two directions based on your own feel for them, it may not be too bad an idea. The flaw to this line of thinking, though, is that if you offer an option for one race, people are going to say that a choice like that should exist for all of the races somewhere. I'm sure I could come up with something to do it, but... It's a neat idea, really. But I'm not sure it's going to be something that will change. Arovyn
Without a default set of rules for ability score generation, there is a slight issue with that small boost if you're not using point buy. Personally, point buy is mandatory in my games. It really takes away a lot of my headaches as a GM. As to whether or not this represents a power creep, I'm not 100% convinced it is. The power creep issues are a not a function of how ability scores are generated or boosted, but in how the modifiers from them affect play at different levels. Power creep comes into play from feats, spells, and items (mundane and magical). At the beginning of a character's career, the extra +2 boost is extremely useful. At higher levels, the effectiveness of it wears down a bit. It only remains a consistent boost for melee and ranged combatants for a physical score (Str or Dex). This is not a bad thing as the gap between them and spellcasters only gets wider and wider over time. For Con, it's extremely useful for anyone as that extra hit point really can make a difference. Spellcasters, however, will always benefit from a mental boost in their spellcasting ability score. However, it will be either four or eight full levels (and another eight levels after that) before you see another +1 DC change in spells. It's not as big a deal as it appears at first glance. It's not bad at the beginning for hero spellcasters to have spells that their enemies will have a hard time defeating, and it's in the beginning that spellcasters have the hardest time surviving. Even with dealing with bonus spells, the problem is only going to make a difference in higher level play, and that's an area I'm having a really hard time seeing how Pathfinder is fixing that. I have ideas for fixing parts of it, but I'm saving them for when the focus changes to that issue. None of my fixes pertain to ability scores or races, however. I don't have an issue with this staying as is. It simply allows +1 LA races to stop being +1 LA when that +1 is coming from a strictly unbalanced ability score perspective. This way we can see more variety in races as time goes on that don't eventually start to lag behind. It's not necessarily a global -1 to LA, though. It will take a slight bit of adjusting for using some materials, but it isn't something so drastic that it will take hours to adjust a race, monster, or encounter. Arovyn
Personally, I like the idea of two +1's every 4th level as long as there is also some form of control over characters gaining stat-boosting items. It is a 4E thing, but 4E also very strictly controls magic items in general. Personally, I'm not a fan of the magic item shop, but at the same time, I'm not a fan of random magic item finds either. If a character is looking for a specific item then I prefer they find a crafter, do some research on where they might find an item like that, or make it themselves. All of those are just oozing story potential. There's also nothing wrong with customizing treasure to match what the party needs every now and again. Just don't let it be a crutch to finding other ways of handing them out. I do want to point out, though, that this particular option is very applicable for heroic or epic-style game. It's not so much of one for a gritty game. Like the experience table, I'd say this should be an optional rule a la fast advancement vs. slow advancement. Arovyn
I agree that a nice flowchart or step-by-step process for creating characters and for leveling characters would be a very good idea. Keep in mind that a lot of people who are play testing this are already pretty familiar with 3.5 and the rule set and how it should flow. This isn't true of everyone and Pathfinder is going to be geared for people who are both experienced with the system and completely new to it. It is possible for someone who is totally new to playing a d20 game to pick up the book and play it with friends who are also new. I've seen it happen more than once. I'm fairly well known at my FLGS as someone you can go to for help when you're new to most of the games they sell, so I've been in the position of explaining rules fairly often. I wouldn't say I'm a walking index, but I am a good teacher. With that in mind, a good set of basic instructions would be extremely useful for people who are playing this for the first time and who may not have someone experienced there to help them figure it out. More than one gamer has left a game behind because they couldn't interpret the rules. Arovyn
I've been running 4E since release, and I also helped run Game Day at my FLGS. I've been taking notes each session on combats, powers, etc. This would be my review. Character creation is quicker by far. Cleaner in a manner of speaking. Builds are few, but I think with patience that will change. I've seen some interesting combination, especially if you allow for the races written up in the back of the MM. The races are well-written and they allow for a lot of variety if you allow them to. Taking one or two of the racial feats rather than class-specific feats is a build in and of itself my players discovered. Most of my players took a class-specific boosting feat as their first level feat, and it works out well, but a dragonborn with extended breath was pretty useful as well. The classes are actually pretty good. Play to the role, and you'll be fine. More builds will show up over time and so will more options. If you notice, each class has roughly 77 powers spread across the 30 levels. At most, a player will have 18 to use in combat on any given turn. They read mechanically similar, but in play you can see the differences. I've noticed that specializing is possible for the spellcasters. The cold themed wizard in our party is devastating with his cold spells. He has yet to cast a single magic missle. Personally, I love the new skill system. I don't think it takes away from the game, but I will admit, I would like to see a bit more specialization. I suspect that we'll see feats that grant new and unique uses for the skills. Feats are okay. There's about as many in the core as 3.5 had. They'll just increase over time, so I'm not worried about it. What's there is good enough for what we currently have in the game. Equipment is something I've noticed very little said on. The list is smaller, but I like that simply because a variant spear is still a spear. Yeah, I know, those who think there's a huge difference between a ranseur and a spear is being a bit too simulationist, IMHO. Combat is something I've taken a lot of notes on. The first few combats were slow and required some adjustment by essentially "forgetting" 3.5 mechanics. But I've noticed that the average number of rounds in all of our combat's is 5 rounds with a suprise round roughly 50% of the time. They're getting faster with experience. Power cards have been exceedingly useful for my players and they were writing them up on the first session of play. Rather than forget about extra options from skills or actions, most of my players have a combat crib sheet to reference. Overall, the encounter time shortens over levels slightly from early levels, and then steadies to roughly 15 to 20 minutes an encounter. It can vary, though, and we did have a "marathon" encounter once when no one could roll anything higher than a 5 for over 30 minutes. Just bad rolls. It had nothing to do with the system. Those who think roleplaying is out, I don't understand where you're coming from. Not everything out of combat needs rolls. Skill challenges don't need to be set up, and you give out XP to your RP encounters in the same fashion as a skill challenge or quest reward. As a DM, my favorite parts are quick set up. Less prep time on my part. I love having a solid set of guidelines for quests, quest rewards, and with some of the great info they've put into the books and in Dragon, I have found design to very quick, intuitive, and easy. I've been using battlemats, tiles, and minis for years. No adjustment was required. I don't have a lot of negatives to say here. I've been roleplaying for 25 years. I'm patient enough to get more books and see the direction it goes. I haven't had any negative experiences using the system. Only negative experiences with haters. Arovyn
As long as I'm understanding your challenge correctly and this is with the idea of keeping the +1 hp/skill per level mechanic in place. It does change things, small at first, but like a pebble on a hill... or maybe a better way to describe it is a ripple in the pond. The more times a player acquires a bonus another player didn't, the difference between the two becomes more apparent. It's a power creep mechanic, albiet a much slower creep than others. A single class character will have 20 more hp or 20 more skill points, so some variation in between. A multiclass character, not so much, but they still have something more for taking a specific combination that another player who didn't won't have, and that's wrong. I's still rewarding playing to type and taking something away from those who don't. I don't think a mechanical bonus is in order. No one will ever complain when they're given a bonus. Everyone cries foul when you take a bonus away. If it's not in the game, players can still be on a bit more of a level playing field (as level as unbalanced races can make it anyway). The racial description and attribute bonuses a race receives should be more than enough to encourage playing certain classes. Nothing else should be added, and until Pathfinder, nothing ever was. If your challenge, however, is in how does it change things without the mechanic, it doesn't change anything since there's nothing there. Sorry if I seem confused, but there's my take.
Agreed. I can't remember if was this thread or one that I started where I said the racial builds in Pathfinder are not very well balanced and should have been built a bit differently. I like a template approach. Race
Elsewhere you get the trait system and buy up the cultural and trained traits you want to retain. For purposes of backward compatibility for NPCs, you assume they bought the standard kit. PC's, however, should feel free to change it up.
(threadjack)
I figured I'd point a couple of things out. The racial archetypes *are* in 4E and they are mechanically supported. Dwarves are still really good at being clerics and fighters. Elves are still good rangers or rogues (maybe not as much wizard, but they put in a different fey race for that). Halfling rogues are still around. The racial mechanics and boosts support the racial archetypes just fine. The old school stuff for races are hidden in their racial feats. The Vanician magic-system... I was never a fan to begin with, and even less so when I realized it was literally ripped-off. I've always felt fire and forget was a really bad idea. I think it's a good thing it's gone, really. And alignment. Well. Alignment doesn't mean as much as it used to in 4E. It's there, but it's more of a guide than the straightjacket 3.0/3.5/3.p make it. (/threadjack) However, you're right. Something has to be done about the cherry picking. I do, however, respectfully, disagree that "against type" concepts will eventually drag down the player into falling behind. The +1 the player didn't get from stats is not a big enough penalty by itself to drag them down. I've already posted my suggestions.
the extra +2 does nothing to the overall power of the races in comparison to each other. Rather, it allows more variety among the races (just like 2 favored class options). Don't get me started on favored class. Rather, go read the two big favored class threads. I hope favored class dies, personally.
No, I don't think it's a real problem since there would be ways of getting back "lost" abilities. I was not, and am not, a fan of the idea that adding more abilities make things better. Let me put that into perspective. I don't think giving the dwarf some 10 racial abilities was a good idea while giving other races only three that don't have quite impact. I see this mechanic as a means of balancing the races and giving players options they didn't have before. It also doesn't make all of the members of a race cookie-cutter. If you can take different options in a class to stand out, why not be able to do the same with your race? Arovyn
I'm not advocating for the removal of attribute bonuses for races. I just believe that those alone are sufficient at encouraging playing certain classes that use those attributes as keys. What I'm saying is that nothing more is needed to reinforce it. Giving a bonus, however small, to encourage them to stick to a stereotype is bad, because it discourages trying other things or seemingly odd combinations. I won't give a bonus to a player for playing the obvious choice. If anything, I'd give a bonus for not. The favored class mechanic is really just an artificial construct intended to reduce rampant multiclassing and cherry picking classes for benefits the designers never intended by combining class features. 3.0 was the first D&D game to offer the opportunity to literally mix any number of all the classes in the game. It was seen, rather quickly I might add, that certain combinations were potentially game-breaking ones. The mechanic of xp penalties was not really the best way to fix it IMHO. I'm not the only one in my area who casually house ruled it out. The problem, though, is that the increasing numbers of core and prestige classes meant the potential number of game-breaking combinations grew exponentially. The favored class rule, which really was nothing more than a way to make players a bit happier by being able ignore a class to avoid the xp penalty, by itself, wasn't really enough to prevent players from finding and using combinations with clever go-arounds. The rules were firmly on the side of the players who basically abused the favored class mechanic to create combinations of effects and abilities that destroyed game balance. Smart DM's would cut them off at the source and ban them. The munchkins and power gamers and rules lawyers would cry foul, but good DMs would lay down the law and stick by their guns. Favored class is flawed mechanic and an artificial means of reinforcing very old school stereotypes with absolutely no campaign background to support it. It's just a carry-over of old school typecasting. Giving a bonus for taking the no-brainer class that the attributes already support is just encouraging min-maxing. That's taking advantage of the rules in a way that says to me that balance is not a concern and that each race should only have two classes running around. Seems silly to me. I thik it actively penalizes anyone who wants to play "against type" because they won't get a bonus for doing so. Just a sad look by DMs who think that players are stupid for doing that or DMs who give them an incredulous look and tell them they can't play that because it's not what's intended by the rules. An xp penalty is also a flawed mechanic because there will always be a way to get around it as long as the favored class mechanic is still around. Neither of these will fix the problem in a free multiclassing system. Reverse compatibility will only take the problems of larger and larger numbers of classes being added to the game creating more and more potentially game-breaking combinations. Making the classes cool enough to where you don't want to leave it is a great idea, as long as those abilities remain balanced against what has come before them. Your only other option is a strict limit on multiclassing, and that's going to lead a lot of people complaining. But unless someone can come up with something better, that's all I see as our options. Arovyn
A really good friend of mine asked me, "Why do we need half-orcs? Why can't we just stat up an orc and use that?" My reply, "In the back of the 4E MM is all that info we need to do that." His response, "So, once again, why do we need half-orcs?" There are two d20 game worlds that I know of off the top of my head that have intelligent, forthright, and not necessarily evil orcs. One is Warlords of the Accordlands. Now, the race as a whole could be listed as evil, but they can certainly be played otherwise. The other, *sigh*, is World of Warcraft. I'm not sighing because I don't like WoW. It's just making a WoW reference is a dangerous thing... We need more worlds with smart orcs, more playable orcs, and a half-race that isn't borderline psychotic/suicidal. Arovyn
Question away. I love 4th, and I can understand the confusion. Some things that may help you understand some of the questions you've posted: * Using a battle mat. I've been using one for the last couple of years. I don't have an issue with surprise rounds as I keep the mat down all the time. Everyone has a default layout (unless one member or another has decided to wander a bit outside of it) to use. If they're suprised, I put the party on the mat rather than the player's and run the suprise round adding each monster as it attacks. The ways powers are written and speeds and the like, you are far better off with the mat. But if you and your players can actually figure a good way to keep it all in your head, the basic conversion is 1 square is 5 feet. Trust me, though. The mat is the better option. * Preventing foreknowledge. The advice already given about going old school and constantly rolling is a good one. It's also good stress relief when the players are going in the opposite direction of what you had hoped they would. ;) * In regards to regaining encounter powers, all that's needed is a short rest (pg. 263 of the PHB if you need a reference point). Roughly five minutes of time and all is good to go. * Roleplaying. I wouldn't go so far as to call 4th completely gamist. The rules tend to be more gamist than simulationist, but it was also geared for more high action. It certainly doesn't need to be played that way if you don't want it to be. The skill challenge system is a useful tool, but isn't required. * My biggest recommendation, however you choose to run your game, is to read pages 120 to 123 of the DMG. One of my favorite additions to the game is the information here - actual good guidelines for handing out xp that isn't combat related. Minor and Major quest rewards will go a long way to supporting a game that has less to do with combat and more to do with puzzles, roleplaying, riddles, and the like. Players can actually go up levels without ever drawing a weapon (though that would be a tad unrealistic). Good luck and have fun!
I don't like ECL and I don't like LA. It isn't that it's neccessarily a bad mechanic, but I think in a manner of speaking, it's a form of bad writing. The moment you stick that LA on a beastie you make it into a playable PC race - as it is written as a monster. It wasn't really written to be a PC, it was written as an adversary. It's as if on a second glance it looked like something a player would want to play and tried to modify it accordingly. But some things just shouldn't have any LA. Once you get up past +3, it's going to be a bugger until you really get into higher level play. 4E took the interesting direction of banishing it altogether. I've carefully looked over how they did it. I even conducted an experiment my fiancee suggested to me, and took the +5 LA Phoelarch and built it as a 4E playable race. I discovered it wasn't that hard. I had to sacrifice the spell-like abilities (which aren't in 4E anyway), Death Throes, and Rise From the Ashes to do it, but those abilities weren't a terrible loss. I put in some racial feats to buff it out a bit, and I had a balanced race that went from +5 to 0. I don't think it's impossible to remove ECL and LA altogether as long as you're willing to sacrifice traits to do it. It isn't as if the race couldn't gain so-called "lost" abilities with either levels and/or feats and/or the suggested trait system(s) being discussed in several threads. I can't disagree with the notion, though, that some things were simply meant to be more powerful and there are DMs that enjoy throwing the occassional PC with really powerful abilities into a game to shake things up. I never have, but I do know some. It's not an easy decision to make. If you want backwards compatibility, you may have to learn to live with ECL and LA. If you're willing to lose some abilities (I can hear the munchkins crying foul already), it can be done in some very interesting ways and create some very interesting combinations. Personally, I'd prefer a game without ECL and LA. Arovyn
Maybe a +2 bonus to Perception (Smell) would work. I always think of orcs of having a powerful sense of smell, as many wild predators do. Orcs are such a horribly maligned race. In virtually every campaign world they're stupid, ugly, and out to kill everything - possibly themselves. They often follow evil deities and act as a general nuisance to everyone else. I hate that stereotype, and I'm not sure how a half-orc fits completely into things. They aren't exactly old having only appeared for the first time with 3.0. I think half-orcs have to be the single most interally conflicted race in any setting where orcs follow the general stereotype. I mean if they aren't killed by their parents as kids, it's a wonder they don't commit suicide or get killed being run out of town as a general reminder of half their parentage... But I think I'm getting way off topic. Half-Orcs, I think, deserve at least one keen sense, but I'm not sure what that sense should be. Scent is as good as any, but I think Sound is a better choice. Check out the ears in their illustration. On a slightly different topic, the elf's (and half-elf's) Keen Senses ability has always kind of bugged me: Wouldn’t it make more sense for the “spot secret doors” ability to be able to find any secret door within line of sight. As it is, most GMs, in my experience, just roll the check even if the elf is 20 feet away from the secret door, or even if the elf is across a 100-foot room. I don't know what to make of this one. Is it really a keen sense that should be mixed with what they already get? Or is this perhaps a wholly different ability altogether? I mean passing near a secret door and knowing it's there comes across almost as echolocation if you ask me, so it makes sense for a dwarf to notice by hearing. It really is up to individual DM's, though, to remember the rule is there and for player's to remind them. But a DM should not let the player know until their character actually passes near that secret door, or the character can simply actively serach on their own.
I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. The max ranks in a skill in Pathfinder is 1 per Hit Die. you can only acquire a number of ranks in a specific skill equal to your total Hit Dice. So, in your example, a human fighter at level 1 can have only 1 rank in any skill, but he will have 1 more skill than a fighter of any other race.
I have issues with half races on a general level. The half-elf, though is iconic. I don't have issues with half races being in the game, but more of how they're treated. They are either terribly underpowered or terribly overpowerd in a template form, like Half-Celestials, for example. I don't see why races aren't "compatible" with others. The only times I've seen other half races that didn't have some form of level adjustment was in 2E's Dark Sun in the form of the Half-Dwarf Mul (pronounced mule) and the Half-Giant. The Half-Giant was resurrected in the Expanded Psionics Handbook (and is also a part of the SRD, IIRC), but even in those cases it was still a human base. But what's to say that gnomes aren't the product of dwarves and halflings? Or halflings being the result of a dwarf and a gnome? Why can't we have more varied types between combinations that don't include humans? Dwarves and gnomes have always been "kissing cousins," as it were. In the end, half races represent a good potential, but they tend to get treated two different ways by designers. They're really weak or they're really powerful. There is no consistency in it. Unfortunately, Pathfinder is doing the same thing with Half-Elves (weak) and Half-Orcs (strong). The races, as a whole, are a bit inconsistent, IMHO, but that's a different thread (more like several different threads) altogether. In the case of Half-Elf and Half-Orc, I like the suggestions of changing things up and putting them on a more equal footing. Both are the product of a human and another race, so they should either get a bonus to attributes similar to the parent that isn't human, or they should both have a +2 to one ability score. Perhaps an option of one or the other would be even better. Both races would have the x blood trait. But beyond that, a trait from each parent works best. One from the elf/orc and one from their human sides. Just my two cents.
The thing about racial sterotyping and favored class is that I have to ask the question: do races even have other classes? I mean people go on and on about following the racial unity, following the racial stereotypes, but it's like no one wants to acknowledge that other classes are represented. Elves have to have priests, otherwise, why would they worship gods? Do they get looked down on because they're not wizards? I highly doubt it. So why do we need a system where the PCs are losing out for not following the favored classes for their race?
No, no, no, no, no! I will never support something that takes away options from players.
While I haven't seen anything specific, and I'm going on strictly implications and experience, it appears that what Pathfinder is trying to do is lower the overall LA by 1. There is a general increase in power and ability in the core races that can be seen as LA +1 in 3.5. That's my impression at the moment. Arovyn
There are a couple of other threads on this very topic. I can try to link them if I can figure out how... I think it's a good plan, really. I see as a good race building template to go like this: Race
By innate, I mean abilities that exist by virtue of genetics and physiology. Everything else is basically trained or cultural in nature. I think these can be filled in with a trait system or racial feat system, or possibly even a combination of the two. The race block stays small, and you have a seperate area in the chapter for all of the other traits. Then the traits can be modified by campaign world/location. Pretty nifty, really. Arovyn
Mechanically speaking, in all edition previous to 3.0, humans seemed to be mechanically penalized for being human. In theory, it was the other benefits (unlimited advancement and no class restrictions) that made up for it. That pretty much disappeard with 3 (and thank God). Giving a +2 to humans is really not a bad thing at all. They finally get a boost everyone else had been getting for a long time. It's not such a bad boost, really. But here's a thought for you. The existing bonuses to races are basically carry-overs in one form or another. They can be changed pretty much at any time if a campaign world wanted to change the races up a bit. A dextrous dwarf would be - interesting. But it would also be refreshing to see the archetypes get all mixed up. I say the +2 to humans should firmly remain. The extra +2 to the other races makes it a bit more fair. Mechanically, and apparently mathematically, it's a wash. Arovyn
It is written as one skill rank, but I think the intent was to be +1 skill point.
I plan to address this issue myself when the focusing lens gets there, but for the moment, I'll toss in my own personal suggestion. I haven't rigorously tested this just yet, though. I divide the six attributes into body (Str/Con), mind (Dex/Int), and soul (Wis/Cha). I've been doing it that since long before 4th. Spell buffs, imho, affect one of these core types. So, as a playtest rule I'm playing with: You can have a number of active spells affecting your character equal to the higher of the two ability modifiers. Any spells cast beyond that number remove the effect of the oldest spell. Spells with a duration of instant are not affected. If the highest of the two in the pair is +3, you couldn't have more than 3 spells affecting that area of your character. This would also include ongoing damaging effects and charms. The major flaw to this is having to identify every single spell in the game by category and the bookkeeping required to keep track of it all. It's a good idea, but I think it has some major flaws. Arovyn
I don't disagree with willpower being a function of Charisma. Charisma is force of personalty and it's also our means of relating to ourselves. Threats against our will is countered by our force of personality. Your split there, is almost the same as 4E which uses Str or Con for Fort, Dex or Int for Ref, and Wis or Cha for Will. Personally, I've always seen it like this: Body - Str and Con. Mind - Dex and Int. Soul - Wis and Cha. Arovyn
I changed over to 4E the day it came out. My FLGS sold out 3 times over. It's pretty well supported where I live, but there are also a lot of people at my FLGS playing Pathfinder. I plan to support both. I don't see how liking one means hating the other. I don't like being told that because I love 4th, I'm evil or supporting an evil company. I don't like the idea that I'm being stereotyped or pigeon-holed because I love a particular game. I hate the idea that there will be people who are never going to respect me simply because I choose to play a particular game or a different edition of one. I get more than enough of that from people who have zero interest or a hostile interest in this hobby we all love. Getting that from people who share my interest and love of the hobby is a little much for me to swallow. In a year or so, maybe less, it's not going matter. PF and/or 4E will thrive or it will fall by the wayside. Either way, I want to be able play what I love and not have to take flak for it. But until more time passes, people are still going to carry pitchforks and torches and look for the next person to lynch. People are still going to cheer others losing their job in a time they're going to have a very hard time supporting themselves and their families over a freakin' game, and I think that's wrong on such a deep fundamental level, it makes me sick. The moment I saw that post in the thread I created, I felt I did something wrong. That hasn't changed. Arovyn
I've met people who can hear a whisper 30 feet away in a loud crowded space. I'd call that Keen Senses: Sound. I, myself, get a headache and flinch whenever someone blows a dog whistle around me. Mechanics just seem to hear what's wrong with a car, and some can find exactly what they need by feel alone. I don't disagree with your point. Humans are the baseline for everything. But that doesn't mean they can't have *some* of the benefits other races are getting. I've always played a human in D&D. I don't lament not having darkvision or low-light vision. Obviously humans don't have those kinds of eyes. But when it comes to a keen sense, I can definitely argue that many people irl have one form or another. Typically, it's only one, but tell that a blind person. :) Arovyn
I'd like to lock this thread. I started it, I know, but I think I'm going to quote a great Japanese admiral. "We have awakened a slumbering giant." I think it needs to be put back to sleep. The circular arguments aren't going to stop. No matter how many times it's going to be said across the boards it will always be the same. You will either like or love 4th and call it D&D. You will either dislike or hate 4th and say it isn't. In between those statements is a set of beliefs and opinions as to why that is. Unfortunately, it's also dragged in beliefs about people and companies and about how they save us or damn us all. Starting this post is definitely the greatest mistake I have ever made on these boards. Once again, I apologize, and can anyone tell me how to get this travesty locked so we can move on?
Personally, I see it as something of a more modern political correctness sort of thing. In general, we hate racial profiling irl. The more you stand opposed to that concept, the more you don't want to see it in other places. Over time, role-playing and D&D have become more and more egalitarian. At one point in D&D's lifetime, female characters were never going to be mechanically equal to male characters. (flamebait) For a majority of the lifetime of the game, there was even something of a racist, or perhaps, humanocentric, view of the game in that other races were never going to be the equal of humans (/flamebait). Let's face it, until the default setting of 4th Edition's The World, humans have *always* been the dominant race and the dominant force of all of the campaign settings in D&D. There was some racial diversity, yes, but at the end of the day, humans were always at the forefront of everything and they were always going to have greater numbers and greater diversity. Nearly all of the cultures of the various game worlds were geared towards humans and humans had the greatest selection of options to represent their diversity while other races had a handful of sub-types. There was no mechanical or cultural difference between say dwarves of one fast and another or of elves being from one forest or another. There were exceptions (Qualinesti/Silvanesti from DragonLance for example), but for the most part, the other races were all basically the same. I see this as another step in a sort of social evolution or even social darwinism. A lot of people really feel very strongly that racial archetypes need to go. They acknowledge it has always been there, but maybe it's time for the game to grow up, evolve, or whatever, and be a bit more equal opportunity. This particular mechanic has simply brought this issue to the fore. It's stopped being an argument for a mechanic or a rule and changed it into an argument for or against the reinforcement of stereotypes. The implied default setting of PF is Golarian. We already know it has humans the dominant race and force and humans have the largest selection of cultures and options. It is another reflection, another variation of the same theme we've seen for last 30 years. Before this comes across as a major threadjack, I will say this again. The favored class mechanic and all of it's associated rules, is meant to reinforce something that perhaps really needs to go. I do have to add, though, that we still need a mechanic to deal with power creep, cherry picking, and rampant multiclassing to replace it. Arovyn |
