Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Welcome to the Advanced Race Guide Playtest


Advanced Race Guide Playtest

51 to 85 of 85 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I would elongate the RP scale and adjust Trait scores accordingly. Also consider combining the Offensive/Defensive Trait Categories. Instead of having a maximum of 3/4/5 for Race Types, have it a bit more closely tailored.

The more advanced a race is and the more selections available in a particular Trait category should dictate the number of selectable options. Add the linguistics Traits in the Skills/Feats. As far as ability score starting modifiers go, don't dress it up. What will +2 to STR and CON / -2 to INT cost me? That matters more than the names and for heavens sake please put this particular trait selection in a table.

Instead of having RP targets (10, 20), have ranges (8-12, 17-24). As long as the RP system is revised, this should be a non-issue as it isn't a perfect world. Some humans have better skill sets then others. Some animals are trainable, some aren't. Some make better predators... you get the idea.

Also, the Weaknesses should be equally categorized just as the Traits are. There doesn't have to be a 1 for 1 ratio as far as catergories go, but flesh this portion out a good deal more. You'll never get rid of munchkins but this will aid GMs in the mitigation of system-breaking. If a player maxs out their RPs simply to do so there is another option. Instead of just saying no, have them select weaknesses equal to the costs of whatever Traits they can't justify... besides weaknesses = fluff and fluff = flavor.

Finally, more templates. How do the designers envision a bat race? You might say who cares, this book is for us, but you guys are the subject matter experts. Possibly scale the templates as well. Advanced Bat race and Monsterous Bat race. Something to that effect at least. This will streamline race creation process as a whole giving us the ability to plug and play.

Hmm... fluff. Wonder if I can use these mechanics to create a cloud race that can transition into and out of the incoporeal subtype... and I'll call them Clusterfluff.

Silver Crusade

A thought on the 'only X type or subtype can take Y' issue:

I agree that it should be entirely optional, but it might serve well to keep it around as a guideline. While it has absolutely no bearing on campaigns with an entirely new set of races (or a very different interpretation of the old standbys), it might be useful if playing a game where the PCs are variants among the standard races -- ie, 'my elf has a special bloodline, so his abilities are slightly different, but still elven/fey' or 'my half-dwarf has a mix of human and dwarven abilities'

Also, seconded that, while we can assume the core races are close to balanced, making sure the components are as balanced as possible is more important here. While I have yet to closely compare them myself, it sounds like there is a problem from reading others' posts on the subject.

_Balanced_ rules for mixing powerful and less powerful races in a campaign are needed, even if they look like level adjustment.

We also need a way to play templated PCs, even if it's just level adjustment again. (Note:Although if you can come up with a more elegant system that doesn't hurt PCs and especially casters as much, that would be great)

Would it be okay to have ability ideas inspired by old 3.5 races to help people port them over in home campaigns? As long as you don't publish 'this set of abilities makes Shifter' or whatever...

Personally I'd love to see shapeshifter and draconic/outsider heritage abilities. Maybe even rules for having multiple forms you can switch between?


Upon thinking on the issue of creature type pre-reqs, the issue behind it is -- the devs want to be sure your race has a certain specific background that supports having a certain kind of ability. In many cases, the actual pre-reqs are TOO specific--but it's hard to codify that desire in another way. At least not without getting unnecessarily wordy, something you want to avoid in a rulebook where possible.

There's a thread in this forum addressing elemental resistance traits--why are they limited to outsiders? Shouldn't dragonkin and the like also have access to that? It's a valid and important argument. As best as I can tell, in this document, such resistances are limited to outsiders because most Pathfinder races so far that have such resistances are outsiders. So the only extant example we have is that outsiders get resistances. But absolutely--if you're coming up with any race possible--of course a humanoid-reptilian with draconic ancestry should also have some kind of elemental resistance. And you could probably also come up with specific concepts of other races that might have elemental resistances. What if you're creating a world with elemental fey? A "fire pixie" perhaps ought to have fire resistance. And so on.

I can see two solutions to the issue. One is to keep but expand pre-reqs as broadly as possible. The other is simple: remove the pre-reqs and trust that the race builder will provide appropriate fluff to back up the existence of such an ability. After all, you kind of have to do that anyway. Correct me if I am wrong, but by their nature, custom races are only going to be used in home games anyway, so you already have to accept that houseruling and houserationalization is already going to be part and parcel with race creation.

And a tangent, while I'm at it...

There are also abilities that are "subtype only" because they were taken from one pre-existing race--and often they are specifically combined together in a way that they don't actually have to be.

Take Elven Immunities. This by its name requires an elven subtype. There's elf fluff that they're good at resisting the kind of enchantments fey or similar creatures may inflict, so they're immune to sleep and resistant to enchantments. (Yes, there's other fluff for the sleep immunity in other campaign settings, like trancing, but stick with me here for the sake of argument.) Kept together, it makes sense to keep it elf only--but is that really necessary?

Why not for the sake of race building, break Elven Immunities into two different defensive abilities a race could take -- one is magic sleep immunity, the other is a +2 resistance to spells from one magic school. Separated, they can be used for many kinds of race concepts, and there's no reason to have a subtype pre-req.

After all, it's been established by the rules provided that the name of the trait in the race building guide does NOT have to be the name of the race ability in the final race writeup. For example, nowhere will you find "Keen Senses" in the race building guide, even though many race statblocks feature that ability. Instead you have Skill Bonus, which if you apply to Perception, you can call it Keen Senses or Skippidy Doo or whatever you like.

Cheliax

I greatly agree with all the posts here. its interesting to see almost everyone agreeing on what they would like changed.

My opinion as player and gm is definitly to make the traits/abilities more generalized so that they can fit any setting or race. Both by eliminating prerequisites and assumptions of the campaign world, and adding many more varied/general/different/new abilities and traits. If the system is for GMs or those with GM approval, why limit it to types and abilities that already exist?

The current system looks less like a custom race system. and more likee a golarion flavored racial variant system. I don't mind being pointed or guided in the direction of making alternate races that fit golaria, especially because that is what I see this system being used for half the time, but i want somewhere there to be everything i need to make something completly different in terms of flavor but still follows pathfinder rules.

Great idea for a system, love it, but wish it was more open. I love game systems that have point buy, especially ones that let you buy anything and tweak everything. if the options are kept to golariaesque ideas, i would prefer to have a big book ofready to go races then a custom system. But an all encompessing system would be best. I hope the final system more resembles that then a collection of alternate racial abilities.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Buckinin wrote:
If the system is for GMs or those with GM approval, why limit it to types and abilities that already exist?

This.

This sums up the situation nicely. We have a tool for GMs that's built as if it were a player resource. GMs don't need prerequisites; they are trying to populate a world, not min/max a character build. The monster creation guidelines in the Bestiary don't restrict certain special attacks to certain monsters. So why do the race creation rules restrict certain racial traits to certain types or subtypes?

Silver Crusade

Epic Meepo wrote:
We have a tool for GMs that's built as if it were a player resource.

We do want to keep in mind, in the final version, that it may be used by players, though even in that case the restriction mentioned probably shouldn't be kept except as a 'if you are making a custom Golarion creature guideline'. But I can totally see a GM saying 'This is set in Golarion but I'm allowing monsters or unique variants if you have the story to support it', or even 'This is a planar campaign, make up any bizarre prime material race you want'.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

Scottbert wrote:
I can totally see a GM saying 'This is set in Golarion but I'm allowing monsters or unique variants if you have the story to support it', or even 'This is a planar campaign, make up any bizarre prime material race you want'.

In which case prerequisites for racial abilities are equally obstructionist. If the GM grants players the authority to create their own new races, the players will be the ones coming up with perfectly reasonable combos of racial traits that would be excluded by arbitrary prerequisites.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber

After bemoaning that Aberration, Dragon, and Ooze types aren't supported, just realized that Plant and other types that did make it in could really use some watering down, both to bring their power down to something more reasonable and to reduce their prices.

As it is, it's really hard to fit a Plant race into the Standard Race range. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing the "immune to mind-affecting" bit chopped to free them up some. I mean any plant race meant to be played by players is going to be possessed of minds...

(same goes for constructs, undead, and their half-counterparts really)


Scottbert wrote:
...or even 'This is a planar campaign, make up any bizarre prime material race you want'.

Planescape comes to mind... =)

Shadow Lodge

Some more issues with RP costs.

It seems there are a number of Abilities that are similar in design to feats as previously stated. There are also a number of Abilities that are similar to Traits. Some feats scale with level where as others don't.

For example, Fortunate costs 4RP's, and is equivalent to 3 Feats as it grants +2 to all Saves. Is this because the Save booster Feats are considered lower tier (weaker)?

Nimble Attacks or Quick Reactions grant either Weapon Finess or Improved Initiative and both cost 2RP's

Skills cost on a 1 for 1 basis, where as the Feat Skill Focus grants +3 to a skill.

I know all feats aren't built even, but I thought Skill Focus was one of the lower tier Feats. Perhaps Skill Bonuses should cost 1RP for a +2 bonus?

Feat Equivalent Abilities appear to cost between 2 and 4 RP's. I think I'm beginning to get these now... The lower tier feats cost 2RP's a choice of Feat or a more powerful feat costs 4RP's.

I imagine the costing is very complex as just composing this message has brought my thinking round closer to the listing costs. I still think skill bonuses are a little over priced, and those Abilities that grant increased scale with level, such as Spell Resistance should be higher in cost.


Mikaze wrote:

After bemoaning that Aberration, Dragon, and Ooze types aren't supported, just realized that Plant and other types that did make it in could really use some watering down, both to bring their power down to something more reasonable and to reduce their prices.

As it is, it's really hard to fit a Plant race into the Standard Race range. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing the "immune to mind-affecting" bit chopped to free them up some. I mean any plant race meant to be played by players is going to be possessed of minds...

(same goes for constructs, undead, and their half-counterparts really)

Plants have their own vulnerabilities. There are several spells that only affect plant creatures. Also, its not like players are going to chose types and races from the list to OP their characters, this is a GM tool.

Osirion

Epic Meepo wrote:
Buckinin wrote:
If the system is for GMs or those with GM approval, why limit it to types and abilities that already exist?

This.

This sums up the situation nicely. We have a tool for GMs that's built as if it were a player resource. GMs don't need prerequisites; they are trying to populate a world, not min/max a character build. The monster creation guidelines in the Bestiary don't restrict certain special attacks to certain monsters. So why do the race creation rules restrict certain racial traits to certain types or subtypes?

I agree. At the most, as a means to guide less experienced GMs to avoid imbalances, change "prerequisite" to "recommended prerequisites" followed by more than one option, if and when necessary.

If this chapter of the ARG is for GMs, and Players guided by GMs, the tone of the material should be more in the vein of *guidelines* rather than rules -- after all the book is a "Guide".

:-)

Osirion

I found a wee error that alters the Half-Orc RP score up from 10 to 11: they have, as RAW, darkvision 60 ft. (2 RP), not the low-light vision (1 RP) cited in the playtest examples.


The Flight ability might need splitting:
- One advanced ability (4 RP) to get the ability at 30 ft (clumsy)
- One standard ability (2 RP) to get improved speed
- One standard ability (2 RP) to get improved maneuverability

Simply because spending 16 RP to get Flight with Average maneuverability is way too much (4 RP for Flight + 4 plus 2 RP to get Poor + 4 plus 2 RP to get Average).


JiCi wrote:

The Flight ability might need splitting:

- One advanced ability (4 RP) to get the ability at 30 ft (clumsy)
- One standard ability (2 RP) to get improved speed
- One standard ability (2 RP) to get improved maneuverability

My understanding is this is how it works. It's just worded confusingly.


Jonathon Vining wrote:
JiCi wrote:

The Flight ability might need splitting:

- One advanced ability (4 RP) to get the ability at 30 ft (clumsy)
- One standard ability (2 RP) to get improved speed
- One standard ability (2 RP) to get improved maneuverability
My understanding is this is how it works. It's just worded confusingly.

So that would mean that it costs 6 RP to increase maneuverability ? Ouch... why can't I just select another cheaper ability for that instead ?


JiCi wrote:
Jonathon Vining wrote:
JiCi wrote:

The Flight ability might need splitting:

- One advanced ability (4 RP) to get the ability at 30 ft (clumsy)
- One standard ability (2 RP) to get improved speed
- One standard ability (2 RP) to get improved maneuverability
My understanding is this is how it works. It's just worded confusingly.
So that would mean that it costs 6 RP to increase maneuverability? Ouch... why can't I just select another cheaper ability for that instead?

It'd be 4 points to gain flight. Once you have that, it'd be an additional 2 points for each step of manoeuvrability increase. So a total of 8 points to have flight 30' (average). Actually, looking at that I think it may warrant being a bit cheaper.


Any idea when Round 2 is coming?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since the playtest is ending, I'll post my wishlist for the book:

1-Ways to create playable construct races, that CAN be healed and resurrected (I did like a lot the warforged in eberron).

2-Options for high powered races, like regeneration, holy aura, big package of SLAs and other abilities that can emulate great creatures like solars or dragons.

3-Rules for in-game customization. Giving access to some racial abilities to characters as their lineage becomes stronger.

4-Racial classes would be great, or type classes with electable powers.

5-Some sample races with full description would be nice, including a race of every type.

6 Advanced versions of the classic races would be welcome.

I think Paizo is doing a great work with this system and I was quite impressed with it's quality. I hope the final product will be even better.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Xum wrote:
Any idea when Round 2 is coming?

Will there be a "Round 2"?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

They said there isn't going to be a round two.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Dragon78 wrote:
They said there isn't going to be a round two.

I wonder if they are going to lock these threads?


Dragon78 wrote:
They said there isn't going to be a round two.

Where did they said that? I've been looking for any signs of it, nothing.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It was said in the post for yesterday's Blog


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It seems they're leaving them open to sop up any late thoughts from the playtesters. Not a bad idea...


Gotta say, that just feels wrong.
I think it's the first time there is no other rounds, and to be honest we didn't do much. We just said what was on everyone's face for the most part and unfortunatelly there will be no fine tunning cause of it...
I hope Paizo reconsiders...


Heladriell wrote:

Since the playtest is ending, I'll post my wishlist for the book:

1-Ways to create playable construct races, that CAN be healed and resurrected (I did like a lot the warforged in eberron).

2-Options for high powered races, like regeneration, holy aura, big package of SLAs and other abilities that can emulate great creatures like solars or dragons.

3-Rules for in-game customization. Giving access to some racial abilities to characters as their lineage becomes stronger.

4-Racial classes would be great, or type classes with electable powers.

5-Some sample races with full description would be nice, including a race of every type.

6 Advanced versions of the classic races would be welcome.

I think Paizo is doing a great work with this system and I was quite impressed with it's quality. I hope the final product will be even better.

You ... what are ...???

How did you get in my head?

Seriously, though - I love every one of those points listed.

Good call to mention it.

:-D


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Put your wishes for the Advanced Race Guide in here


the building system is fantastic, but I still hope to see the Warforged and Dragonborn at least as examples, by the way I hope that someday publish a building system to create new classes and prestige classes that would be awesome


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
edduardco wrote:
the building system is fantastic, but I still hope to see the Warforged and Dragonborn at least as examples, by the way I hope that someday publish a building system to create new classes and prestige classes that would be awesome

Warforged and Dragonborn are WotC property, So I don't think they can be used or made as official material.

I would also approve of a building system to create new classes and prestige classes, but with some rules to prevent munchkins.


Azure_Zero wrote:
edduardco wrote:
the building system is fantastic, but I still hope to see the Warforged and Dragonborn at least as examples, by the way I hope that someday publish a building system to create new classes and prestige classes that would be awesome

Warforged and Dragonborn are WotC property, So I don't think they can be used or made as official material.

I would also approve of a building system to create new classes and prestige classes, but with some rules to prevent munchkins.

yeah I know that are WptC property but they can made a race with the same tame and different name and abilities, when I said Warforged and Dragonborn is only as a reference not that I want the same


Xum wrote:

Gotta say, that just feels wrong.

I think it's the first time there is no other rounds, and to be honest we didn't do much. We just said what was on everyone's face for the most part and unfortunatelly there will be no fine tunning cause of it...
I hope Paizo reconsiders...

They never said there wouldn't be more rounds of playtesting for the ARG - just that they weren't playtesting this set of rules again. This is hardly be the first time a specific set of rules was only playtested once. There was only one round of playtesting on the Words of Power rules, for instance. And like WoP, this is only a single chapter from a book which has far more in it.

That being said, I really would want to see a second playtest - there's just too many issues with them as they stand for me to hope they get everything right without the multiple eyes that another playtest would provide.


I also don't understand why only fey can be tiny.

A chart that determines the maximum/minimum height to be in each size category would be helpful. For example, when is a creature tall enough to be considered medium?


Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Azure_Zero wrote:
Can we toss in some ideas of abilities to add for the official book, with a full description of it's bonuses etc.

Yes you can.. I will start a new thread for that.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

New to posting here but i have a question......in respects to Duergar they are related to Dwarves i am guessing in much the same way that Dark ELves are to elves. Basically an evil off shoot that is generally the underdark equivalent with some exceptions. In respects to basic Dwarven abilities/racial connections to items such as the dwarven thrower, hammer of dwarven thunderbolts, dwarven waraxe, etc... exactly which things/items no longer apply to them or still do as cousins to Dwarves. The DM whos world i play in used the monster class as basis for my PC's template. duergar have some few things in common and definite abilities of thier own and right next to the title Duergar it says Dwarf in parenthesis. So begins my debate with him can you offer help in this discussion even if it doesnt go my way.


The RP cost make me feel like i'm creating an eidolon. and the cost make me feel wrong. My first concern is the 10 rp for standard race. Please use a higher number like 25, 50 or even 100 RP for standard race and price thing accordingly to it's usefulness.

ability score are not equal

Str affect melee atk, dmg, Carry, CMB, CMD, str based skill
Dex affect range atk, AC, initiative, reflex save, CMD, dex based skill
con affect Hp and fortitude save
Int affect skill per level, based int skill, spell for some arcane caster
Wis affect wisdom save, wis based skill, spell for most divine caster
Cha affect cha based skill, spell for some caster

to scale the thing you need to dived stat in 3 tier
STR and Dex costing the most
Int and Wis costing average
Con and Cha being the cheapest

by putting an arbitrary cost of 4, 5 and 6 for a 2 point modification. elf ability package would cost 7RP (6+5-4), while the human will feel right at 7 point for a single +2 because he can choose the ability score. Any extra stat bonus should cost more one and a half more so a +4 str would cost 15, a +6 str 24

Size

Size should give the same bonus as per the bestiary table and be priced accordindly. Aka 10 feet reach for large humanoid, +8 to str,+4 con, -2 dex, +2 natural armor. If a large creature only have 16 str simply give them a -2 str racial modifier since it's a weak large creature. No tiny humanoid, make sens since it should probably be a fey but no tiny outsider... please be mindful of what already exist in the 3 bestiary while setting restriction for size.

Language

Human only get common , while all other race get there racial language and an either common or undercommon. Human can choose from any language except secret language while other race can choose from a list of 7 other language. this should cost the same, other race start with an extra language and the usual character will have 10 to 14 int unless it's his casting stat giving them only 1 or 2 bonus language.

Racial ability

Will benefit to be rescaled for a higher standard race total point. Some generalization would also be better. best exemple Celestial resistance 2 RP for acid, cold and electricity resist 5 while shadow resistance only give you cold and electricity resist 5 for the same 2 RP. This should cost 1 RP for each energy resistance 5

Movement

Slow should be listed here as a flaw that increase your RP pool. as a side not not all slow creature are not affected by encumbrance. That should be listed properly under racial ability.

About all those 0 cost ability

no ability should cost 0, since it could lead to over-stacking. the 10 RP you limited yourself for standard race is probably the only reason you had to have so many of them.

51 to 85 of 85 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Older Products / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Advanced Race Guide Playtest / Welcome to the Advanced Race Guide Playtest All Messageboards
Recent threads in Advanced Race Guide Playtest

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.