Core races add up to 10?


Advanced Race Guide Playtest

51 to 100 of 287 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Mok wrote:
Beyond that, trying to cram things into 10 points to fit just right ends up making inaccurate assessments that cascade out into the rest of the design system. If you have more accurate assessments, then it's easier for GMs to be able to eyeball other similar effects.

Again, accurate according to what measure?

Stephen--to echo Ion Raven and Mikaze, I think most of us don't care about the assessments of the core races and how many points each is worth. We just want the individual abilities in the toolkit to be priced fairly compared to each other.

That's why I made a thread that examines the prices of the abilities, focusing almost exclusively on comparison to other similar abilities from within the same document, rather than trying to give an objective measure of what each ability might or might not be worth in game play. That thread is linked here.

I tried to make it as helpful as possible for the team to examine some possible repricings moving forward to the next iteration of the playtest. I do think that repricing the abilities fairly vis-a-vis each other is going to wind up making the core races cost slightly different amounts than they do now, but I don't think anyone will mind, even if there's just a kludge accepting that some of the core races are slightly stronger and grandfathered in due to their rich legacy in the game.


If the costs are left like they are, every new player race will be "hardy", because it's just too good to pass up for 1 RP. It's almost like three excellent feats rolled into 1 RP. The prereq con+2 doesn't really hurt; it's a stat that every class needs.

Like most others have said, it would not be the end of the world if the core races would not come out as equal; it is more important to assign the right costs to the traits and abilities.

You could e.g. say, every race that costs between 7 an 15 RPs could be a race chooseable for a PC (without having to be adjusted by slower level progression or the like); with seven being the absolute minimum and 15 being the absolute maximum.

Senior Designer

Set wrote:

Having Skilled cost 4 RP and Hardy cost 1 RP are examples of the cart coming before the horse, design-wise, and impede the usability of this system to acheive that goal.

You know if this is the main discrepancy that is causing the most gnashing of teeth, then there are other options.

First, I'll point out, hardy has a prerequisite. It may not be the right prerequisite. The right prerequisite may be the dwarf subtype or something similar.

I could put it a 2 or 3 points, not have the dwarf at 10.

I could have it cost more for all races but creatures with the dwarf subtype take it at an increased price.

I think either of these things solve this particular problem. No one seems to have a problem with dwarves having this ability (okay, maybe someone out there does...I'm sure they will poke their head up if this is the case), it only seem to be a problem if another race you are building takes this. It just feels too powerful, unless you're a dwarf.

I think I would much rather put the dwarf subtype prerequisite on it, or have it at increased price for non-dwarves. That way a half-dwarf could take it without taking a point hit, whatever dwarf sub-race (to use an old school non-Pathfinder term) you wanted to create could still take it at 10 points and not take a hit somewhere else, but other races could not.

Some traits are just more "dwarfy."

Senior Designer

Turgan wrote:
If the costs are left like they are, every new player race will be "hardy", because it's just too good to pass up for 1 RP.

Not every race. Only every race with a +2 bonus in Con, at least by the current draft.


ShadowcatX wrote:
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
If the assumption is that all of the core races are equal in relative power level

Why are you beginning with that assumption? That's what is getting complained about.

Ignore ability modifiers for a moment (after all, they're the same cost). What set of racial abilities would you rather have on a character of any class.

Hint: It isn't "halfling."

Then why are Halflings so common in my games? Every group I have been a part of had players that played Halflings. You would figure if they were as bad as every one said no one would want to play them. That is not the case.


Mok wrote:
Ah... you see, I want the entire system laid bare. I want harsh light to shine down on everything and reveal every last flaw in the system. That way you can more accurately and reliably fix it.

That sounds like something perfect for Pathfinder 2, not as much for ARG.

Mok wrote:
Combat. That's the core point of the whole system.

This would be a problem in laying everything bare. Combat is huge in this game, but it is very hard to measure skills against combat. I fear for what happens to non-combat or only-sometimes-combat options in a system that is solely balanced off of combat performance. I fear this especially because I've played games where this is the case and didn't like how it turned out.


Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Set wrote:

Having Skilled cost 4 RP and Hardy cost 1 RP are examples of the cart coming before the horse, design-wise, and impede the usability of this system to acheive that goal.

You know if this is the main discrepancy that is causing the most gnashing of teeth, then there are other options.

First, I'll point out, hardy has a prerequisite. It may not be the right prerequisite. The right prerequisite may be the dwarf subtype or something similar.

I could put it a 2 or 3 points, not have the dwarf at 10.

I could have it cost more for all races but creatures with the dwarf subtype take it at an increased price.

I think either of these things solve this particular problem. No one seems to have a problem with dwarves having this ability (okay, maybe someone out there does...I'm sure they will poke their head up if this is the case), it only seem to be a problem if another race you are building takes this. It just feels too powerful, unless you're a dwarf.

I think I would much rather put the dwarf subtype prerequisite on it, or have it at increased price for non-dwarves. That way a half-dwarf could take it without taking a point hit, whatever dwarf sub-race (to use an old school non-Pathfinder term) you wanted to create could still take it at 10 points and not take a hit somewhere else, but other races could not.

Some traits are just more "dwarfy."

Mate, that is another problem that has been pointed out.

No subtype pre-req!.

Why? Cause we don't want to make races that "look like" other races, we want new races too. The max you could do is put it at a discount like "if you have the x-subtype this ability costs X RP less"


Turgan wrote:

If the costs are left like they are, every new player race will be "hardy", because it's just too good to pass up for 1 RP. It's almost like three excellent feats rolled into 1 RP. The prereq con+2 doesn't really hurt; it's a stat that every class needs.

Like most others have said, it would not be the end of the world if the core races would not come out as equal; it is more important to assign the right costs to the traits and abilities.

You could e.g. say, every race that costs between 7 an 15 RPs could be a race chooseable for a PC (without having to be adjusted by slower level progression or the like); with seven being the absolute minimum and 15 being the absolute maximum.

I've built several races so far none have used the Hardy trait so no not every new race will contain Hardy not all of us design based off a MUNCHKIN rule point.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

But wouldn't it be better to have a "racial divorce" concerning the traits and abilities, as also many users have pointed out?

Senior Designer

Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Stephen--to echo Ion Raven and Mikaze, I think most of us don't care about the assessments of the core races and how many points each is worth. We just want the individual abilities in the toolkit to be priced fairly compared to each other.

I hear what you are saying, but I do care, because I want people to be able to make dwarf races (either different types of dwarves or half-dwarves) at 10 points and have those dwarves take on any of the abilities for dwarves at no increased cost.

Hence I've put across the solution of either putting the dwarf subtype as the prerequisite, or having a lower point cost for this ability if you have the dwarf subtype, either of which are perfectly fine solutions that conform to the design goals of this system.

Senior Designer

Xum wrote:


Mate, that is another problem that has been pointed out.

No subtype pre-req!.

Why? Cause we don't want to make races that "look like" other races, we want new races too. The max you could do is put it at a discount like "if you have the x-subtype this ability costs X RP less"

Actually I think we want both, and we want to give plenty of options for both. I think we want a system where you can make alternative races and brand new races.

I think we can have a system that does both.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Xum wrote:


Mate, that is another problem that has been pointed out.

No subtype pre-req!.

Why? Cause we don't want to make races that "look like" other races, we want new races too. The max you could do is put it at a discount like "if you have the x-subtype this ability costs X RP less"

Gotta say, the prevalence of pre-reqs going back to pre-existing races is another thing a lot of us have been coming out against too.

Many of us want to use this toolkit to build whole new races, not new flavors of dwarf or elf. That's why so many have complained about Elven Magic and the like, as well as all the abilities that have creature type requirements(like how only Fey can be Tiny for one example).


Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

You know if this is the main discrepancy that is causing the most gnashing of teeth, then there are other options.

First, I'll point out, hardy has a prerequisite. It may not be the right prerequisite. The right prerequisite may be the dwarf subtype or something similar.

I could put it a 2 or 3 points, not have the dwarf at 10.

I could have it cost more for all races but creatures with the dwarf subtype take it at an increased price.

I think either of these things solve this particular problem. No one seems to have a problem with dwarves having this ability (okay, maybe someone out there does...I'm sure they will poke their head up if this is the case), it only seem to be a problem if another race you are building takes this. It just feels too powerful, unless you're a dwarf.

I think I would much rather put the dwarf subtype prerequisite on it, or have it at increased price for non-dwarves. That way a half-dwarf could take it without taking a point hit, whatever dwarf sub-race (to use an old school non-Pathfinder term) you wanted to create could still take it at 10 points and not take a hit somewhere else, but other races could not.

Some traits are just more "dwarfy."

A prerequisite should not drastically drop the cost of an ability; That's the wrong direction to take especially in the process of creating new races. I'm not saying prerequisites shouldn't exist, but they shouldn't be used as an excuse. That would be along the lines of saying that if a feat has prerequisite, you should be able take another trait.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
You know if this is the main discrepancy that is causing the most gnashing of teeth, then there are other options.

It's mine, though even then I'd get over it ;)

If you can make the core races all equal 10, I don't have a problem with that on principle. I just don't want to be able to put two abilities side by side that either do the same thing or roughly the same thing and see that one costs less than the other. If prereqs are being used to make this work out, I'd rather see something like a racial build tree where certain options reduce the price of others. I wouldn't want to see just a few abilities have a lower cost to make certain builds (the core races) work out.

For example, pretend you had a draconic subtype (I know; my example already sucks). The Flight ability could cost 3 RP instead of 4 RP because you are draconic. If you are Plant, Natural Armor costs 2 RP instead of 1 RP. This approach probably leads to too much complexity and too many words for the book, so I think striving for the abilities to make sense when compared side by side (not to complete perfection) would be preferable.


Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Xum wrote:


Mate, that is another problem that has been pointed out.

No subtype pre-req!.

Why? Cause we don't want to make races that "look like" other races, we want new races too. The max you could do is put it at a discount like "if you have the x-subtype this ability costs X RP less"

Actually I think we want both, and we want to give plenty of options for both. I think we want a system where you can make alternative races and brand new races.

I think we can have a system that does both.

Agreed. You can, and I'm sure you will. U guys haven't let me down so far.

But, making it NECESSARY to be a type/subtype is bad form cause of the "new races".
Making discounts for being a type/subtype is a better solution, although, not one everyone will like.

But I still think that you should divorce from the idea that the core classes are equal and have the same point value.
As you already said, some races are better at certain things, Halflings are awesome bards and rogues, it's not the fact that they have 7 points or so that will make me not play them. I do love those cutie bastards. :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
I think either of these things solve this particular problem. No one seems to have a problem with dwarves having this ability (okay, maybe someone out there does...I'm sure they will poke their head up if this is the case), it only seem to be a problem if another race you are building takes this. It just feels too powerful, unless you're a dwarf.

Well the dwarves *are* the strongest race. Bonuses to good stats, penalties to a usual dump stat. And the Hardy ability.

Not only that, they have the option to further enhance that ability to +5! Steel Soul adds another +2 and Glory of Old trait adds one more.

Point is... Where's the feat to increase Halflings' bonuses to saves?

This isn't a discussion whether dwarves shoould be *nerfed*, everybody is aware that they are mathematically strongest. And I'm sure that people aren't picking dwarves deliberately as their race just because of that, just as they aren't avoiding halflings because they're weaker than the rest.

Just a system that's based on an assumption that everyone is equal is a flawed system.


Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

Actually I think we want both, and we want to give plenty of options for both. I think we want a system where you can make alternative races and brand new races.

I think we can have a system that does both.

I think such a system can exist, too. However, it doesn't really address why we need racial prerequisites at all. Removing "Elven" from "Elven Magic" increases the ability to create new races, while doing nothing to impede someone wishing to create an elven sub-race.

That is why people are asking for a neutral tool box. It can be used to create whatever we want. But pasting little notes to the tools "This wrench only to be used by elves," or "lucky screwdriver for halflings only" works against that goal.


Realmwalker wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
If the assumption is that all of the core races are equal in relative power level

Why are you beginning with that assumption? That's what is getting complained about.

Ignore ability modifiers for a moment (after all, they're the same cost). What set of racial abilities would you rather have on a character of any class.

Hint: It isn't "halfling."

Then why are Halflings so common in my games? Every group I have been a part of had players that played Halflings. You would figure if they were as bad as every one said no one would want to play them. That is not the case.

You know, that's the same reasoning used for humans. But I've played in games where elves were the predominant race. There's quite a bit to account to flavor. Certain people gravitate towards certain races. That's not to say that humans and halflings can't be awesome.

I'd rather have a bag of gummiworms than a sack full of lolipops. But you know, that sack full of lolipops probably cost more.


I play halflings in games where power curve isn't super important and I can just play without worrying too much about optimization. I'd never pick a halfling for a "hard" game, even as a bard or a rogue or a ninja or a sorcerer. Humans, gnomes, and half-elves are all mechanically better.

This bothers me not one iota. The core races don't have to be equal, and I figure one reason halflings are enslaved a lot in Golarion is because they are weaker in combat than other races. Breaking apart what goes into halflings and costing it as significantly more expensive than its actual worth means I'll never build a race that's skilled, because it could have natural armor instead. It could reroll a save against compulsions 1/day instead. It could be hardy instead.

I also agree with the people who don't like the racial subtype prerequisites. The whole idea of mixing and matching and building new races who are unique gets hurt a lot with those restrictions. I like the idea of making certain abilities cheaper for certain subtypes (hardy dwarves or lucky halflings), but I see no reason for not building a lucky gnome variant or a race of tiny amphibious lizardfolk (newt-type) whose culture is built around luck, gambling, and getting lucky in dangerous situations.

So I will reiterate the plea: cost things in a purely mechanical way. Look at the ability outside who currently has it, cost it appropriately based on power, then decide if it is racially linked. Perhaps add a discount if it is, perhaps not (Hardy is, after all, really good. Why should dwarves get it cheaper?).

Sovereign Court

drumlord wrote:


Mok wrote:
Combat. That's the core point of the whole system.
This would be a problem in laying everything bare. Combat is huge in this game, but it is very hard to measure skills against combat. I fear for what happens to non-combat or only-sometimes-combat options in a system that is solely balanced off of combat performance. I fear this especially because I've played games where this is the case and didn't like how it turned out.

The way I see it, is that since combat is the raison d'etre of the whole system, where the stakes are highest, then it can actually yield more interesting benefits for non-combat features.

As an example, take some skills that are decidedly non-combat oriented, such as Appraise or Profession. If you can more accurately map out which features are the most important in the system, that is, they help directly with combat, then it opens up a lot more design room for non-combat features to shine.

Right now in the system Appraise and Profession are treated like any other skill in terms of how they can be boosted. You can take Skill Focus for either of these feats, but unless you were a hard core ROLEplayer type of player, pretty much everyone would say you're nuts wasting a feat slot for those skills.

Because that gap is quite evident, then it would allow you to make an option that would make this out-of-combat skill more meaningful to the game, by giving players a way to try and leverage these skills so that they can affect combat, even if it is inadvertently.

So you could come up with the idea of a Ferengi-like race that is all about trade and commerce. If you had a measuring stick that was based off of combat being the primary metric then you could give this race +2 to Appraise and Profession and make the cost of those bonuses minuscule compared to something like +2 to Strength.

Or, what would actually be more interesting is to give this race a much more scaled up bonus in relation to combat value. Rather than +2 to those skills, give them +10 to those skills, or let them always take 10 on the rolls, or something that just has a lot more punch.

The result is that in the game the player using this race has a lot more leverage to enact play that thematically ties into the greater endeavor of "killing things and taking their stuff." The Ferengi can more consistently and reliably pull in gold on in their downtime, allowing them to afford more combat related kit. The appraise can be leveraged in creative ways for more profit, or figure out magic item abilities more quickly in a sandbox game that doesn't have a Wizard about.

So when I say that combat ought to be the metric that everything is measured from, if done properly you can actually empower the out-of-combat abilities to be more potent and interesting, rather than dismally anemic and passed over, as they often currently are in the system.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Realmwalker wrote:
Then why are Halflings so common in my games? Every group I have been a part of had players that played Halflings. You would figure if they were as bad as every one said no one would want to play them. That is not the case.

Perhaps your players don't care about being the most uber leet. Or perhaps they're wanting to play dex or charisma based characters. Or mounted characters. Their attributes are a pretty decent set, in that dexterity and charisma (on charisma based characters) generally do stuff. Constitution helps keep you alive, but you don't get to do much with it (and the same with wisdom, unless of course you're a cleric, druid, or inquisitor).

Note: I never said halflings were a bad race, I said their racial abilities are less powerful than those of the dwarves.


Melissa Litwin wrote:

I also agree with the people who don't like the racial subtype prerequisites. The whole idea of mixing and matching and building new races who are unique gets hurt a lot with those restrictions. I like the idea of making certain abilities cheaper for certain subtypes (hardy dwarves or lucky halflings), but I see no reason for not building a lucky gnome variant or a race of tiny amphibious lizardfolk (newt-type) whose culture is built around luck, gambling, and getting lucky in dangerous situations.

So I will reiterate the plea: cost things in a purely mechanical way. Look at the ability outside who currently has it, cost it appropriately based on power, then decide if it is racially linked. Perhaps add a discount if it is, perhaps not (Hardy is, after all, really good. Why should dwarves get it cheaper?).

I agree wholeheartedly with this. A race-building point-buy system should be a perfect toolbox for mixing and matching abilities that I think would work well together, without being forced to have a specific subtype in order to use a certain ability-package.

Giving races of certain subtypes discounts for some of the abilities that are mainstays for those subtypes is certainly fine, and makes perfect sense, but forcing a race to have that subtype to have the ability at all seems too restrictive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Are wrote:
Giving races of certain subtypes discounts for some of the abilities that are mainstays for those subtypes is certainly fine, and makes perfect sense, but forcing a race to have that subtype to have the ability at all seems too restrictive.

I wouldn't even go this far. If the point of the system is to allow a DM to make vaguely balanced new races easily, giving benefits for aesthetic choices like subtype doesn't work towards that goal. Yes, Dwarves are often hardy. It is a dwarfy thing to be. But a mechanically identical race that happens to be a different subtype shouldn't be "paying" more for the same thing. Maybe, maybe in the context of a large package of subtype abilities this would make sense, but otherwise it is doing nothing but skewing the system.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Are wrote:
Melissa Litwin wrote:

I also agree with the people who don't like the racial subtype prerequisites. The whole idea of mixing and matching and building new races who are unique gets hurt a lot with those restrictions. I like the idea of making certain abilities cheaper for certain subtypes (hardy dwarves or lucky halflings), but I see no reason for not building a lucky gnome variant or a race of tiny amphibious lizardfolk (newt-type) whose culture is built around luck, gambling, and getting lucky in dangerous situations.

So I will reiterate the plea: cost things in a purely mechanical way. Look at the ability outside who currently has it, cost it appropriately based on power, then decide if it is racially linked. Perhaps add a discount if it is, perhaps not (Hardy is, after all, really good. Why should dwarves get it cheaper?).

I agree wholeheartedly with this. A race-building point-buy system should be a perfect toolbox for mixing and matching abilities that I think would work well together, without being forced to have a specific subtype in order to use a certain ability-package.

Giving races of certain subtypes discounts for some of the abilities that are mainstays for those subtypes is certainly fine, and makes perfect sense, but forcing a race to have that subtype to have the ability at all seems too restrictive.

+1

It obscures values too much by layering them, thus reducing the ability for it to be a useful toolbox.

The last thing I'd want to do with a race design system is make a bunch of variations of dwarves and elves.

What I'd want is a system that helps me make fantastical races that help frame the tone and themes of a campaign in totally new ways.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have not read the entire thread, but all the races are not equal. Having a spread, say 8 to 12 points, as an example is better than pretending all of them are equal. We as players know all the races are not perfectly evil, and that is ok. Some people will complain, but you can't please everyone. In any event the RP of the core races needs to be reevaluated.


utterly with out doubt.


Yeah.... I am not buying the costs ether, especially the language costs.

Sovereign Court

wraithstrike wrote:
We as players know all the races are not perfectly evil, and that is ok.

I just have to say, there is something brilliant about that sentence.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

This is amazing. I don't think I've ever seen such a unanimous agreement on one thing by the members of this board.

Please, Paizo, we want this to be good. We know you want this to be good. For the love of the game and its players, don't let your ego get in the way of something good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Again, accurate according to what measure? If the assumption is that all of the core races are equal in relative power level, what do we gain by pointing out that some races in some on that list may be better than others? And then you have to ask the question, better at what?

The problem with this line of thought is that no one assumes that the races are equal BECAUSE people are pointing out that some races are better than others. So in the long run, it ends up looking like the good folks at Paizo are either 1) favoring the core races over anything else a player could make and 2) kidding themselves into an illusion of balance between races. Like you yourself said, balance is a mystical creature that simply does not exist, so why pretend that it exists by pretending that all core races are perfectly balanced?

In my opinion, the rules should not be built around the Core races; they should be built around the price of a feat. For example, we go to the human and we figure out how many rp their bonus feat costs. Let's stick with your numbers for now and give it an rp cost of 4. From there, we can do the following:

#1 Bonus Feat of the character's choice [i.e. human trait] (4 rp)
#2 Specific feat that has no prerequisites [i.e. Weapon Finesse] (2 rp)
#3 Weapon Proficiency with any two weapons or one weapon and a racial group (1 rp)

From there, we can use feats once again to build other abilities, such as skills. Feats such as Deceptive, which provide a +2 bonus to two skills. That means if you wanted a +2 to a single skill, it would be 1 rp while 2 skills is 2 rp. Or you could do a +1 to two skills for 1 rp, for example.

Once such a system is in place, it's very likely that the core races will not be equal. That's fine, because there are plenty of races you've already published that aren't equal either. Aasimar have 14 points. Tiefling have 12. Kobolds have 4. Even under this system, those races are going to have more / less points, so why not expand the categories (Standard, Advanced, and Monstrous) into ranges instead of end-all points allotments. Instead of saying "YOU ONLY GET THIS MANY POINTS TO SPEND," say "If you spend X number of points, your race falls into Y category. To this in, get rid of all the abilities that are based around being limited to a specific tier. There shouldn't be prerequisites in this system period aside from traits that require other traits. Saying that only humans can get bonus feats or that gnomes have the best spell-like abilities is stupid, because now you have a system with cold-hard rules in effect that doesn't allow players to make creative choices in designing their race's abilities.


Umbral Reaver wrote:

This is amazing. I don't think I've ever seen such a unanimous agreement on one thing by the members of this board.

Please, Paizo, we want this to be good. We know you want this to be good. For the love of the game and its players, don't let your ego get in the way of something good.

Seriously. Your customers want an objectively-priced race-building system, isn't the fact that your customers want it enough reason?


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:


One of the main goals of the system was to help GMs, or players with GMs oversight, create races that were relatively balanced with the core races.

And I mean relatively.

In many ways it is impossible to make it entirely balanced, partially because that kind balance is a mythical creature of RPG design from the land of hopes and dreams

We know that perfect balance is a myth. That doesn't mean that the system should try its level best to to try everything to make the system as balanced as reasonably possible.

After all, we are talking about a crunch-heavy system here. I mean, the system puts point price tags on language choices! It doesn't get more crunchy than that! (in fact, I consider the languages section to be not even near a reasonable approach)

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

but mainly because the core races were built on many assumptions about the races in the default setting and general fantasy tropes. They were not built using a point system.

Because of that we decided to zero out the system at 10 points as a baseline and use the core races as our benchmarks.

There is a really significant disconnect between these two statements.

First, you admit that the basic races weren't built to be mathematically equal, and then you say you have a system that is built on the assumption/definition that the races ARE equal.

That simply cannot work. Either go with "races won't be perfectly balanced, we'll only give you some general guidelines", or introduce a complex system that really crunches the numbers, but if you do the letter make sure the numbers check out.

Having flawed numbers to make square races fit the round system makes for a useless system.

The playtest system is basically the worst of both worlds: It's overly complex with too many price tags, but it tries to support a system that merely ballparks stuff.

So throw away the shoehorn! Freely admit that not all races are created equally, and let the numbers show it.

Set the RP costs so they are consistent with each other, so 2 RP will get you 2 RP worth of stuff. If the seven core races end up going all over the place with the points, that's okay. After all, we all know the races aren't created equal. So one of the core races will end up with 5 points and the other with 15? Doesn't matter.

And then, when GMs (or even players) create their own races, tell them that total point costs don't always have to be the same for all races - but if they want to create a roster of races that is created equal (or close enough to it), they can do it with your system.

Of course, there will always be some "synergy" that isn't reflected in the costs (like dwarves who get a lot more out of their 0 RP standard modifiers than any other race), but that isn't a reason to go completely random with the numbers.

The way things work now isn't really helpful. Some abilities were given away, while you have to pay for others through the nose - just to have a nice, uniform 10 under the races we all know and agree on aren't equal. That means it's easy to pick the abilities that are underpriced to make a joke out of all the numbers.

If we want a system where the numbers are a joke, why have numbers? Just allow each race X lesser, Y normal and Z greater abilities and not even have any numbers. Because having numbers will raise the expectation that the numbers make sense.

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:


I'm sure that some min/maxers will always want to pick the Xenophobic language choice, but they'll pay some price later on to speak with other creatures.

Why? The only important thing they miss is Common as an automatic. If you have int 12, you can get it. If you need more languages, Linguistics is the way to go, anyway, and that is not limited at all by your racial preferences.

Plus, the fixed number of bonus languages the system has now is quite limiting, and not in line with existing creatures out there.

As I already said, this is one of the things where point costs make no real sense.

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:


Could we make the dwarf more points? Sure. Could we make the gnome or the halfling less points? Sure. RP are constructs toward a design goal. But how does that accomplish the main goal of the system, which is to provide GM with a useful tool to create races relatively balanced with the core races?

I think you are missing the point. The fact that with proper prices, the races will have different point costs and thus the numbers will reflect the fact that the races aren't equal is not what we really want here. It's just a nice side effect. Icing.

The main accomplishment will be that the abilities will have proper prices. And this is exactly what will GMs allow to create races that are relatively balanced with each other and core races, because they don't have to read any subtext about whether something was over- or under-priced to satisfy the need to get 10 for the races.

They will go "Oh, I'm at 13 here. That's okay. Gnomes are only 7, dwarves are 16 (yes, I'm randomly spitting numbers here), so it's about in line with the core races."

They could also go and say "I'd like my core races to be on equal footing, so I'll set them all to 10 (or 15, or whatever)"

Sure, there is still situational stuff, and your class choice will still matter to whether the race is powerful or not, but, as I keep saying, just because you can't have perfect balance without some unreasonable trade-offs doesn't mean you don't need to try at all.

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:


Creating game elements is often more art than science.

We understand. Note, however, that systems involving lots of numbers feel more like science than like art, and should strive to be reasonably scientific. Or ditch numbers.

In the end, I think that a system that all but drowns the user with numbers but is still based on the flawed assumption that every core race has 10 points is destined to fail.


Even art involves principles of design. The best artists understand that there are rules to follow (and there are a fair few varied sets of rules). Artists that can break those rules are also the ones that understand them best and know how to do it to create something beautiful. There are exceptions, of course, but this applies for the majority of art.

Colour theory, composition, anatomy and more. Game balance of a different game.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Lopsided and flawed compared to what? What measure or baseline are we using? What are the goals?

The goal is to have the point system be a useful tool. The power costs are lopsided and flawed in comparison to each other. Contrast Ancient Foe, Greater Defensive Training, and Natural Armor. Contrast Cat's Luck, Dual-Minded, Halfling Luck, Plagueborn, and Hardy. Contrast Fey Damage Resistance and Damage Reduction (and Skeletal Damage Reduction, for that matter). Contrast Gnome Magic and Svirfneblin Magic with Spell-Like Ability. Contrast Sneaky Rider, Sneaky, Underground Sneak, and the other omnibus skill traits, which I can't be bothered to list. Contrast Spell Resistance with anything.

This system obviously did not set out from the start saying "+1 AC is worth X, +1 to a skill is worth Y, +1 to a save is worth Z" and so on. Near as I can tell, it set out from the baseline that "goblins should cost the same number of points as dwarves" and that's an awful baseline.


KaeYoss wrote:
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:


One of the main goals of the system was to help GMs, or players with GMs oversight, create races that were relatively balanced with the core races.

And I mean relatively.

In many ways it is impossible to make it entirely balanced, partially because that kind balance is a mythical creature of RPG design from the land of hopes and dreams

We know that perfect balance is a myth. That doesn't mean that the system should try its level best to to try everything to make the system as balanced as reasonably possible.

After all, we are talking about a crunch-heavy system here. I mean, the system puts point price tags on language choices! It doesn't get more crunchy than that! (in fact, I consider the languages section to be not even near a reasonable approach)

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

but mainly because the core races were built on many assumptions about the races in the default setting and general fantasy tropes. They were not built using a point system.

Because of that we decided to zero out the system at 10 points as a baseline and use the core races as our benchmarks.

There is a really significant disconnect between these two statements.

First, you admit that the basic races weren't built to be mathematically equal, and then you say you have a system that is built on the assumption/definition that the races ARE equal.

That simply cannot work. Either go with "races won't be perfectly balanced, we'll only give you some general guidelines", or introduce a complex system that really crunches the numbers, but if you do the letter make sure the numbers check out.

Having flawed numbers to make square races fit the round system makes for a useless system.

The playtest system is basically the worst of both worlds: It's overly complex with too many price tags, but it tries to support a system that merely ballparks stuff.

So throw away the shoehorn! Freely admit that not all races are created equally, and let the numbers show it....

Mate, awesome post. 110% behind you there.


Does anybody who doesn't work for Paizo think all core races being 10 is a good idea?

(not me, just to make it clear)


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Uninvited Ghost wrote:

Does anybody who doesn't work for Paizo think all core races being 10 is a good idea?

(not me, just to make it clear)

Not that I can see.

This is a momentous day in RPG board history. We are not divided and bickering. We aren't insulting each other and trolling. All are as one voice. Today, we stand together.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Stephen--to echo Ion Raven and Mikaze, I think most of us don't care about the assessments of the core races and how many points each is worth. We just want the individual abilities in the toolkit to be priced fairly compared to each other.

I hear what you are saying, but I do care, because I want people to be able to make dwarf races (either different types of dwarves or half-dwarves) at 10 points and have those dwarves take on any of the abilities for dwarves at no increased cost.

Hence I've put across the solution of either putting the dwarf subtype as the prerequisite, or having a lower point cost for this ability if you have the dwarf subtype, either of which are perfectly fine solutions that conform to the design goals of this system.

Stephen--

That would certainly keep things balanced, but in the end, I think it's equivalent to saying something like 'Dwarves are a 13 point race. If you make a variant dwarf race (defined as a race with the dwarf subtype that keeps some X number of abilities from the base dwarf (such as Hardy) in order to maintain the flavor of being a dwarf), you also build on 13 points.' In fact, these two are mechanically equivalent assuming that you discount the X abilities by 3 for dwarf subtype races. The only difference is the semantics of naming things--I can definitely see the value in elegance of appearance of having all the races cost 10, but in my opinion, for clarity I think that just having some of the races have more points would make the building process more transparent and make the system easier to use for the GM (since the extra points are more 'hidden' in your proposed system). Both have their merits and I totally see your point, though it looks like, as Umbral Reaver mentioned, it may be literally unanimous that the boards prefer the other solution.

I guess the following question probably determines this preference: If new GM A wants to make a basic level (balanced with core, not advanced) Terrani race, an earthen humanoid (with the earth subtype instead of dwarf) with Hardy and other very thematic abilities (taken from dwarf), would you be OK with the fact that new GM B has create the Terran Dwarf, which has the Dwarf subtype but all the same abilities as the Terrani for cheaper (and thus can afford to buy extra abilities and become strictly better for the same RP budget). On this thread the consensus seems to be 'No'. Why is it any better to just let the Terran Dwarves have a higher point budget than the Terrani? Because at least that way the GM can directly see that they've allowed the race to have a higher point budget and can possibly take action elsewhere (lower point buy in stats, more traits for the weak races, or just a general consideration with less tangible measures taken), whereas if the discounts are more hidden, the GM might not even be aware that the Terran Dwarf is really 3 points better than the Terrani without looking at the ability sets more closely (it's possible that GM B in my scenario above has no idea that her new race would outpower GM A's Terrani, trusting in the RP system to give her races of roughly equal power at the same RP cost).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Umbral Reaver wrote:
Uninvited Ghost wrote:

Does anybody who doesn't work for Paizo think all core races being 10 is a good idea?

(not me, just to make it clear)

Not that I can see.

This is a momentous day in RPG board history. We are not divided and bickering. We aren't insulting each other and trolling. All are as one voice. Today, we stand together.

Yeah... I'm kinda scared by that...


Umbral Reaver wrote:
Uninvited Ghost wrote:

Does anybody who doesn't work for Paizo think all core races being 10 is a good idea?

(not me, just to make it clear)

Not that I can see.

This is a momentous day in RPG board history. We are not divided and bickering. We aren't insulting each other and trolling. All are as one voice. Today, we stand together.

I'll just say that I liked the attempt? Rather, it would have been nifty if all the core races could be 10 RP and were designed as such. It would be a nice standard to carry across all "core" races. But the reality is that they aren't equal.

So I join the chorus that Halfling =/= Dwarf in terms of RP.


Just a few things in bullet points, but first: I FULLY back everyone's sentiment here that cost being accurate/measured to the effects granted is FAR more important than "all core races have 10 value."

That's putting the cart before the horse design-wise, and we already KNOW for a fact that the races just do not play out as "equal" in the slightest. Note: the fact that they are unequal doesn't stop any of us from playing the races we like, or the concepts we want. Hell, I've played a halfling barbarian - PURELY for the concept. Can it equal a human or half-orc build? No. But damn, you know what? It made for some outrageous comical situations when the little guy went buck-nutty crazy and started hitting people WAY harder than any halfling had the right to be hitting people. lol! It was good times!!!

Ok, onto the substance points I have:

1) Pricing out "effects" is a terrible idea in this system. D20 is NOT an effects-based system in the slightest. Pricing the "effect" of Magic Missle vs. Sleep vs. Charm Person vs. (insert level 1 spell here) misses the point of how D20/PF is set up. It's a "level 1 effect" that is compared against a "level 1 effect" and that's the end of it. If you get crunchier, it's doomed to fail because the system itself does not make a distinction between those effects. Follow? To me, if you try this (no offense Mok), then you're making a mountain out of a mole-hill in terms of a design standpoint. It's a level 1 effect, period. The value in a race-like build system should be "Level X spells have Y value" and that's it.

2) Pricing out "value" of an ability in the system needs to sort of revolve around the in-game mechanics (note: this is not the same as 'effects-based' design). I mean that in-game there is BAB (to hit) that is measurable and distinct, and Save bonuses/categories, and skill points, etc. If the system says "everyone gets a lot of sp every level period" then the system is telling me that sp's are a cheap resource, and should have little value - EVERYONE gets them ALL the time. Then the system also has Feats, and Feats (regardless of effects here - again, this is not the design assumption of the system. PF/D20 is NOT "effects-based" in nature) are coming up at "every odd level only" then it's telling me Feats are more rare, and therefore more valuable due to their rarity and amount. Especially given the raw #'s involved. Everyone gets *at least* 2+Int mod of sp's each level, so individually, 1 sp is pretty much worthless. By comparison, Feats come up at the rate of 1, and ONLY 1 every odd #'d level, so they are more rare and thus, more valuable. This is stuff that's just baked into the class design and assumptions.

3) Divorcing "perceived value" from "mechanical value" is not internally consistent to the rest of the system. This is *exactly* the definition of saying "All core races = X points ... just because." To look at point #2, it's looking at sp's and saying, "yeah, sp's are as valuable as a feat, no wait ... MORE valuable, so we'll price race X's gain of SP's as WAY above a feat ... just because we need it to balance out to X value." No one, not a ONE of us will accept that. The premise is terrible, and it will lead to problems (I reference the Player's Options books of 2e for evidence of this).

4) So many people that have not typically sided on many different issues are all pretty much unanimously, vehemently opposed to this line of design development. That HAS to tell you something. It HAS to.

5) Someone made the challenge of "show me a system that analyzes things properly" and again, I reference BESM D20. They deconstructed every piece of D20 and assigned values to it, then they priced out the races according to that pricing scheme. You know what? It's a damn good analysis, too.

EDIT: Just a word of support for making the 1st attempt at such an undertaking to the company.

A second word of support/voice in the chorus saying that I'm ok with seeing a "range" of core race values rather than an artificial absolute values sort of thing applied to them. In other words, saying "designed races should fall between 6-14 RP's are perfectly playable or equivalent to core races," is a fully understandable, and almost expected statement from such a project.

EDIT #2: Ha! Found a site with the BESM D20 srd in it. It's not very pretty, but the essentials are there. Click here to give it a look.


Uninvited Ghost wrote:

Does anybody who doesn't work for Paizo think all core races being 10 is a good idea?

(not me, just to make it clear)

I think it is a good idea.


Blazej wrote:
Uninvited Ghost wrote:

Does anybody who doesn't work for Paizo think all core races being 10 is a good idea?

(not me, just to make it clear)

I think it is a good idea.

For clarification, do you mean:

1. It is a good idea to assume they are all equal and price abilities accordingly.

Or

2. It is a good idea to change them to make them all equal.

Senior Designer

26 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay folks, got it. You want us to reassess some of the abilities, and you don't care if the points of all core races add up to 10 points. I will put that on the list of strong considerations for the final iteration of the system.

Thank you for the feedback. We hear you. We want to create a system that you all will like and your GM will use to create new races for the game, so this aspect of the system will be reexamined given the arguments you all put forward.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What's the chance that we'll see a second playtest document that is built upon the altered premises, if you do take that road?


Umbral Reaver wrote:
Blazej wrote:
Uninvited Ghost wrote:

Does anybody who doesn't work for Paizo think all core races being 10 is a good idea?

(not me, just to make it clear)

I think it is a good idea.

For clarification, do you mean:

1. It is a good idea to assume they are all equal and price abilities accordingly.

Or

2. It is a good idea to change them to make them all equal.

Given the choice between only those two options, I would be talking about number 1.

I believe that there are good effects of having the scale set by the existing core races.


Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

Okay folks, got it. You want us to reassess some of the abilities, and you don't care if the points of all core races add up to 10 points. I will put that on the list of strong considerations for the final iteration of the system.

Thank you for the feedback. We hear you. We want to create a system that you all will like and your GM will use to create new races for the game, so this aspect of the system will be reexamined given the arguments you all put forward.

That's what I love about you guys--you listen, and by the end of the playtest, you really refine things well. I'll admit I wasn't thrilled by the original playtest gunslinger either, but you won me over with the final mechanics--my Crane Style Fighter fights alongside a Mysterious Stranger, and we all kick ass.

Good luck on the next iteration!

Senior Designer

Umbral Reaver wrote:
What's the chance that we'll see a second playtest document that is built upon the altered premises, if you do take that road?

All we really need to do is alter some "offending" point costs, and not treat all the core races as 10 points, If the dwarf comes out as 11 (but is still considered a standard race) and the halfling comes out as 7, then the basics of the system will not necessarily change, only a few of the ability points.

If we do a second playtest, the major change you will see is some point tweaking.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Umbral Reaver wrote:
What's the chance that we'll see a second playtest document that is built upon the altered premises, if you do take that road?

All we really need to do is alter some "offending" point costs, and not treat all the core races as 10 points, If the dwarf comes out as 11 (but is still considered a standard race) and the halfling comes out as 7, then the basics of the system will not necessarily change, only a few of the ability points.

If we do a second playtest, the major change you will see is some point tweaking.

Could you add to your list of change considerations unlinking racial abilities? I think it makes for a much more fun and varied toolbox if you don't have to be type-dwarf to pick up Hardy, for example.


Excellent. I look forward to it.

51 to 100 of 287 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Advanced Race Guide Playtest / Core races add up to 10? All Messageboards