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

Core races add up to 10?


Advanced Race Guide Playtest

151 to 200 of 287 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Osirion Reaper Miniatures

Ceefood wrote:

2) I would like to add my voice to the request to remove racial prereqs - I would like to build say a cat race or a otter race to match the figures from Reaper to go along with my iconic minis

Two cheers for rules for the Legion of Justice and Caeke!


Starbuck_II wrote:

Actually, I wouldn't mind the option spending additional RP (1 or 2) to avoid Prereqs. As long as it was a low amount.

So Elven Magic cost X, or X +1 if not an Elf is fine.
It encourages Elven subtypes but allows anyone to do it.

Want to be tiny but not Fey? Add 1 or 2 more RP.
You could go further like allow non-Standard abilities for more RP:
Want to Fly but not be Advanced: add 1 or 2 points.

I mean, Fly is clumsy manueverbility anyways (unless upgraded), not like they will be good at it.

I was thinking along these lines too.


Mok wrote:
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.

LOL. I was trying to type even, but I was thinking about my Carrion Crown game also. I think we need a 24 hour "take back" time.


Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Kevin Morris wrote:
What yMy ou're instead telling me is that, in some sense, I'm having "badwrongfun" because I want to have a race of halflings that have elven magic (or whatever other subtype-only ability).

That is not what I am saying at all. I think we can have a system that has both, frankly, and if at the end, you disagree with some of the prerequisites we put on an ability, and choose to disregard them, I promise I'll never come to your house, point, and say, "you are doing it wrong!"

Does that sound fair?

I love you guys, I really, really do, and I appreciate all the wonderful feedback you give, but can we tone down the hyperbole just a smidgeon? Thanks!

I think this is done in order to appease PFS also. I think for PFS it is helpful. Even though I don't think my next sentence should need to be written I will suggest it anyway because some people feel bound by the books.

My suggestion:

Quote:
Side note:If you are not using this for PFS(Pathfinder Society) play then you may ignore the racial requirements with your GM's permission.

That way the designers can keep their intentions in the book. PFS GM's can keep their sanity*, and the people that play at home are not held to PFS standards.

PS:If this has nothing to do with PFS then put a modify my sidenote to say racial requirements can be ignored with the GM's permission.

Yeah, I know that should not be needed, but some GM's don't like to do anything without Paizo's approval.


I think a breakdown in the system is neither Halflings nor Dwarves. It is humans.

Skilled clearly isn't worth 4 points. Not when the Half-Elf Skill Focus Adaptability racial thing is considered 1 point. I'd rather take +6 to 4 separate skills by 10th level than 1 skill point per level.

This gets even more bizarre when we consider the fact that somebody at the Advanced level can buy +2 Intelligence for the cost of being Skillful, 4 points. Having +2 intelligence gives +1 skill every level and it is clearly superior for any number of secondary reasons. Better spell casting, the character can be role-played as more intelligent, speak another language, be more resistant to ability damage and drain. It helps with feat prerequisites that require 13 or higher intelligence, etc.

Then there is Linguist. How big of a deal is this when there is a skill called Linguistics that gives people the ability to speak languages? This is before magic like Comprehend Languages, Tongues, Read Magic, telepathy providing spells and magic items. This isn't worth 2 points. I mean, it is better than Xenophobic or standard, but it isn't worth two points, especially when the language Common exists and players can have their characters learn languages for having bonuses to Intelligence.

The feat at 4, any feat, looks good. Until people make their own "Oh, my race gets the best feat for the character!" for 2 points and does it twice.

Are humans weak compared to built races due to the desire to have something hard to qualify in game terms, flexibility, get trumped by specificity and specialization? Does valuing them at 10 make sense?


SPCDRI wrote:

I think a breakdown in the system is neither Halflings nor Dwarves. It is humans.

Skilled clearly isn't worth 4 points. Not when the Half-Elf Skill Focus Adaptability racial thing is considered 1 point. I'd rather take +6 to 4 separate skills by 10th level than 1 skill point per level.

This gets even more bizarre when we consider the fact that somebody at the Advanced level can buy +2 Intelligence for the cost of being Skillful, 4 points. Having +2 intelligence gives +1 skill every level and it is clearly superior for any number of secondary reasons. Better spell casting, the character can be role-played as more intelligent, speak another language, be more resistant to ability damage and drain. It helps with feat prerequisites that require 13 or higher intelligence, etc.

Then there is Linguist. How big of a deal is this when there is a skill called Linguistics that gives people the ability to speak languages? This is before magic like Comprehend Languages, Tongues, Read Magic, telepathy providing spells and magic items. This isn't worth 2 points. I mean, it is better than Xenophobic or standard, but it isn't worth two points, especially when the language Common exists and players can have their characters learn languages for having bonuses to Intelligence.

The feat at 4, any feat, looks good. Until people make their own "Oh, my race gets the best feat for the character!" for 2 points and does it twice.

Are humans weak compared to built races due to the desire to have something hard to qualify in game terms, flexibility, get trumped by specificity and specialization? Does valuing them at 10 make sense?

The race creation guide may have to be treated like the magic item creation rules. I think that by the math humans will rate low, but you can't really put a price on customization ability, which is why they are chosen so much in actual play.

In short the numbers will not always show the true value of a race so even if the math works out the GM will have to look it over.


Well, the customization and flexibility is built straight into the system so humans need to take that into consideration. Here is just one example

Human vs. The Not-Human But Human Racial Variant (Designer said he wants racial variants)...The RogueHuman

Flexible, +2 Dex +2 Intelligence, 2 points
Darkvision 2 points
Adaptability: Skill Focus (Stealth) 1
Standard Languages 1 (Common, whatever you like of 6 more, take one as a bonus)
Bonus Feat

Look at that, I've got the bonus skill point because of Intelligence and I learn another language and I will play as a Rogue so Linguistics can be taken. So much for Linguist! I will have +3 to one of the best abilities a Rogue can have, Stealth or Disable Device, whatever, and it goes to +6 at 10 or it will start there if I am in a campaign that starts at 10th level or higher.

Darkvision seem to make sense for a Rogue, but I could make ToughRogueHuman, take +2 constitution and Hardy and Stubborn if I wanted.

So, wouldn't somebody be missing out mechanically to play a Human Rogue when they can be RogueHuman or FighterHuman or PaladinHuman or...


Dorje Sylas wrote:
So you don't want every core races to be shoe horned into 10's but you won't want an more objective measure for them either?

Not at all, and you're not following that that part of the argument is directed towards Mok and his design suggestions. He's saying, "Magic Missle" needs to be valued at X because it does more "combat value" than "insert level 1 spell" there. He's, essentially, "breaking" the entire design of spells and spell levels entirely if that goes forward.

I'm talking total fracture, here, too mind you. Yet, this suggestion is for spells in isolation in a Race-Build guide. So the race builder will say MM has a value of X, and another level 1 spell a value of Y. THEN, this separate, disparate system is supposed to be crafted back onto the existing "level 1 spell = level 1 spell" that underlies PF's designs.

???

These things are incompatible - that's what I'm against.

In no way, shape, or form have I been advocating for "10 = all core races are the same" in the slightest.

Pay attention to the comments before throwing accusations my way. If you don't understand, ask for clarifications ... we all know what happens when you assume ... ;-)

Dorje Sylas wrote:
BESM Stuff

I'm quite aware of the ins and outs of BESM - very well aware. They are, however, not overly relevant. Again - the point in me even bringing it up was for the methodology, and the methodology ALONE.

Dorje Sylas wrote:
4e's problem is they called a baseline in combat and then didn't expand that to non-combat. They kinda-sorta-tried with Rituals and Skill Challenges but it didn't work well. There are also thematic issues I take beyond the mechancis of 4e (which I actually don't object as much to, well aside from Monster Mechanics being split from player mechanics.)

What, exactly, would you say that Mok's designs suggest? They sound awefully damn close to "combat is king" and that's the design approach that 4e took. Screw that, the system, and their designers. Seriously - I can't say how much I am dead set against that.

As a system on it's own - it works out pretty damn nicely. However, nearly every conceit, and the fact that everything is reduced to #'s crunching I rail against. I can't stand any part of that. To *me* it's stripped the game of almost all of it's flavor and created something entirely different - it's a new game, and one that I do not particularly care for, and this DESPITE the mechanical foundation of it. I game for fun - not mathematical equations or the beauty of encounter designs. That, in so many ways, is just not the game I want to be a part of. At all.

That said, the *approach* and idea of unifying mechanics, as a concept is not a bad one. The particulars that 4e took, and the math-based insistence of the thing I can't stand. I loathe it.

I'm not against revisions (in future editions of the game), but anything that strays too close to ANYTHING 4e did will drive me away for good. Altering spells of level x to be a level y - sure, why not? If there's a solid case to be made of a sort of "effect-based" nature for that I'm for it. Cracking the whole thing open and casting it aside in favor of a full on redesign that looks like 4e and is dominated at every turn by some sort of math equations? No. Not at all.

Dorje Sylas wrote:
I would also point out that BESM always values Skill Sets differently based on the setting you're trying to use.

Again - irrelevant to any point I was trying to make in invoking BESM in the first place.

Sorry for the rant, but damn - I get pissed when 4e gets held up like some holy grail. I get doubly angered when I'm misunderstood to somehow be in support of such things, or against them "for no good reason" as if I'm some sort of dinosaur for not enjoying my game system stripped bare and turned into a bunch of #'s on paper, devoid of meaning or significance other than the numerical value and what it does "in combat" that is the only metric of value.

Bottom line: I'm NOT for "effect-based" analysis of a race builder as that is NOT the supported line of development that supports the foundation of PF mechanics. I'm NOT for "all core races = 10" as a balance point, and I'm NOT against different abilities being given different values within PF's existing, underlying framework (which is pointedly NOT "effect-based" in the slightest).

As a matter of fact, that last one is why I posted in the first place.


Personally, I'd suggest just putting in a sidebar on "Sometimes these costs may not be accurate; this is meant as a tool for the GM, not a perfect arbiter of game balance."

Then put in a few examples of things GMs need to watch out for, and things GMs might want to allow at reduced price. Like SPCDRI's "roguehuman", that's perfectly built for one class, and is thus likely to be undercosted. Or Mok's permanent nondetection, that the system would overcost (or disallow entirely), but that is not actually likely to unbalance a game.

Race design guidelines are neat, and something I for one will greatly appreciate, but I'd expect to see them treated as being, by definition, houserules when actually used. So I can make my version of catfolk, and use it in games I run, but just because I followed the race design rules shouldn't mean I can just assume it'll be legit in someone else's game, even if they're also using the race design rules.

(Aside: I do also agree with the original point of the thread: it's more important to make race point costs match up to the utility of the ability than to make all the core races cost exactly 10 points.)


Languages seems to be a sticking point. Why should Standard Languages be worth 1 point? Seems odd. It is to get us to number 10, I realize that is probably the reason. Now, Xenophobic should get 1 racial point back, standard is standard so it should be 0, and Linguist should be worth 1. Just seems like it makes more sense that way.


Ceefood wrote:
1) firstly thanks to Stephen for listening & agreeing to a change everyone has all agreed on - was amazing to see the unified agreeement.

Except everyone didn't post agreement with it.

Andoran

Emerald Wyvern wrote:

Personally, I'd suggest just putting in a sidebar on "Sometimes these costs may not be accurate; this is meant as a tool for the GM, not a perfect arbiter of game balance."

Then put in a few examples of things GMs need to watch out for, and things GMs might want to allow at reduced price. Like SPCDRI's "roguehuman", that's perfectly built for one class, and is thus likely to be undercosted. Or Mok's permanent nondetection, that the system would overcost (or disallow entirely), but that is not actually likely to unbalance a game.

Race design guidelines are neat, and something I for one will greatly appreciate, but I'd expect to see them treated as being, by definition, houserules when actually used. So I can make my version of catfolk, and use it in games I run, but just because I followed the race design rules shouldn't mean I can just assume it'll be legit in someone else's game, even if they're also using the race design rules.

(Aside: I do also agree with the original point of the thread: it's more important to make race point costs match up to the utility of the ability than to make all the core races cost exactly 10 points.)

I think this is the crux of the issue. We are looking at the system in a vaccum of authority to regulate silliness like"Roguehuman" These are tools for a gm to make a race, even if it is custom for specific character. The GM must police his game.

This is true of any point based system. Ask anyone who has ever run a Hero system game what happens when you don't put restriction on player purchases. Undamagable characters,characters that have all points in one trick, that ends combat in one round, etc, etc.... Huge min/max extremes....

The coolest part of this in my opinion is the ability to make monsterous races that capture the feel of the monster while not being 20 or 30 rp. For example, You can easily build an ogre like race for 10-13 points that would function well and capture the feeling of say, a Everquest Ogre without it being 20 points. Overall I am impressed by the utility. But we must remember this is for the GM really and not players to min/max.


Roguehuman isn't me trying to be an abusive piece of DM terrorizing crap.

It just makes sense to do something like that. It makes sense to go...
"Flexible gives me better things than Skillfull and gives me 2 points to play with. Linguist is overcosted when I can take Linguistics. If I can spend 4 points to do things just as good as a typical feat if not better, than the Bonus Feat is overcosted for what I want to do."

As a Rogue, maybe I want to be a Climbing, Stubborn, Cat's Grace Sprinter instead of having a bonus feat. Why not? I think the previous stuff is as good as a feat and makes sense as a Rogueish character.

So now you get to this point where a racial variant would exist to be better at something.

Right now, Elves make good wizards. Another thing I thought of...

Why not a wood elf? Something better suited to be a Ranger or Barbarian?

Why not Flexible instead of Elven magic? Now I've got +2 Dex +2 Strength.
Who cares about spells when you can have +2 Con +2 Strength?
Why Skill Bonus to Perception when you can do more fighter based stuff?

Cheliax

Mok wrote:

I realized that I needed to get a clear snapshot of the races and their value compared to each other. They are decidedly skewed, and yeah... the halfling is the weakest.

Other race creation systems in the past have also made the mistake of going off a basis of the core races all being equal. That assumption keeps cascading through the point-buy.

If you want to have an accurate measuring tool then it ought to reveal what is actually happening in the system first before moving on and measuring everything else.

*Cough* UK's System doesnt make those assumptions. I'd like to see it influence this system. It would make the system better balanced, more granular, more customizeable, and more complete: http://www.enworld.org/forum/attachments/d-d-legacy-discussion/23358d113174 0657-challenge-rating-upper-krusts-challenge-ratings-v5.pdf

Now, Mok: I'm interested in reading your system. Any chance I can get a copy?

Andoran

SPCDRI wrote:

Roguehuman isn't me trying to be an abusive piece of DM terrorizing crap.

It just makes sense to do something like that. It makes sense to go...
"Flexible gives me better things than Skillfull and gives me 2 points to play with. Linguist is overcosted when I can take Linguistics. If I can spend 4 points to do things just as good as a typical feat if not better, than the Bonus Feat is overcosted for what I want to do."

As a Rogue, maybe I want to be a Climbing, Stubborn, Cat's Grace Sprinter instead of having a bonus feat. Why not? I think the previous stuff is as good as a feat and makes sense as a Rogueish character.

So now you get to this point where a racial variant would exist to be better at something.

Right now, Elves make good wizards. Another thing I thought of...

Why not a wood elf? Something better suited to be a Ranger or Barbarian?

Why not Flexible instead of Elven magic? Now I've got +2 Dex +2 Strength.
Who cares about spells when you can have +2 Con +2 Strength?
Why Skill Bonus to Perception when you can do more fighter based stuff?

These examples are pointing to to different things.

The Roguehuman is an example of metagaming. Building a "race" based on a narrow set of in game concepts, (i.e. these are the things that make class x better, etc).

Your second example I would accept more willingly. Building a race that make sense contextually with the world, such as These elves are barbaric, therefore they value strength and con etc, make sense from a RP standpoint.

These all have to be filtered thru the lens of the GM. Metagaming is a min/max conecpt that makes no sense in the context of the world. This is a RPG, not a divorced set of points designed to make your abstract character better. The GM must police the concept to match the world.


SPCDRI wrote:

Roguehuman isn't me trying to be an abusive piece of DM terrorizing crap.

It just makes sense to do something like that.

It makes sense if you're designing the race to fit the character.

It doesn't make sense if you're just designing the race.

In the former case, a flexible bonus feat - that can be whatever the player wants - isn't worth any more than the specific feat you want for your particular character. In the latter case, it very clearly is, because that feat is now whatever the player wants, rather than whatever the GM felt was appropriate for that race.

And that's why this should be treated as house rules. Because for a player, it's always going to make sense to build a race with the particular customized bonuses they personally want.

For example, suppose I as a GM, design a race that has Endurance and Fleet as bonus feats. Would you, as a player, rather have that race, or the one that has a single bonus feat of your choice? I'd bet that, all else being equal, you'd usually pick the one with the generic bonus feat.

This is a totally different dynamic than if you, the player, are making races; that's the only case where there's no advantage to versatility.


I actually like most of what is already set, there's just a few things that I would change the cost of. I reworked the core races from what I would change and found them to fit nicely between 7-10 points here.

Osirion

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blazej wrote:
Ceefood wrote:
1) firstly thanks to Stephen for listening & agreeing to a change everyone has all agreed on - was amazing to see the unified agreeement.
Except everyone didn't post agreement with it.

I count 1 out of maybe 50 and you being the one, didn't chime in until after he had relented to the 50 or so.

I get you think they all should be 10, but the fact remains they are not all 10. They only add up to 10 by rigging the numbers in a maner that allows it.

Hell I just noticed this but they rigged the dwarf points with movement as well. Medium critters with slow get slow and steady free for the sole reason of the dwarf gaining free points as far as I can tell. Slow an steady should not be built into movement when things like fast movement and sprint are not.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Blazej wrote:
Ceefood wrote:
1) firstly thanks to Stephen for listening & agreeing to a change everyone has all agreed on - was amazing to see the unified agreeement.
Except everyone didn't post agreement with it.
I count 1 out of maybe 50 and you being the one, didn't chime in until after he had relented to the 50 or so.

That doesn't really matter does it though. I only originally posted when it seemed that people were incorrectly speaking for me by claiming that everyone supported their position. Something people continue to do and something that you are trying to defend right now.

I don't feel that I have to anymore to explain why core races normalized to 10 is a good idea. I think that Paizo has that end covered.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Blazej wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Blazej wrote:
Ceefood wrote:
1) firstly thanks to Stephen for listening & agreeing to a change everyone has all agreed on - was amazing to see the unified agreeement.
Except everyone didn't post agreement with it.
I count 1 out of maybe 50 and you being the one, didn't chime in until after he had relented to the 50 or so.

That doesn't really matter does it though. I only originally posted when it seemed that people were incorrectly speaking for me by claiming that everyone supported their position. Something people continue to do and something that you are trying to defend right now.

I don't feel that I have to anymore to explain why core races normalized to 10 is a good idea. I think that Paizo has that end covered.

It's not that having them normalized to 10 wouldn't be good; it would. It's that artificially forcing a normalization that doesn't exist, power-wise, is a bad idea. We (being the majority of Paizo posters) feel that some races are mechanically superior to others and prefer to see this represented in the point costs of abilities. If that means halflings wind up significantly lower-point than dwarves or elves, that's OK because it means the building blocks are appropriately costed.

As it is, pluses to skills cost more than they should based on their power, in order to force halflings up to 10 points. Certain abilities that dwarves get are too cheap for their power, to shoehorn dwarves into a 10 RP buy. Neither of those situations is good for the system as a whole. That is why having core races normalized to 10 points is a bad idea.


Blazej wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Blazej wrote:
Ceefood wrote:
1) firstly thanks to Stephen for listening & agreeing to a change everyone has all agreed on - was amazing to see the unified agreeement.
Except everyone didn't post agreement with it.
I count 1 out of maybe 50 and you being the one, didn't chime in until after he had relented to the 50 or so.

That doesn't really matter does it though. I only originally posted when it seemed that people were incorrectly speaking for me by claiming that everyone supported their position. Something people continue to do and something that you are trying to defend right now.

I don't feel that I have to anymore to explain why core races normalized to 10 is a good idea. I think that Paizo has that end covered.

I see your point, and I understand why it would be good if all the races were 10's, but the issue is all the races are not 10's. They are only disguised as 10's with the first playtest, and nobody wanted to accept it. People wanted the real values.

ninja'd by Melissa

Cheliax

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Blazej wrote:

That doesn't really matter does it though. I only originally posted when it seemed that people were incorrectly speaking for me by claiming that everyone supported their position. Something people continue to do and something that you are trying to defend right now.

I don't feel that I have to anymore to explain why core races normalized to 10 is a good idea. I think that Paizo has that end covered.

You're right it wasn't unanimous. But it was as close to unanimous as these boards ever get.

I can see the arguments for having a standard baseline. It makes it easy to know your goals.

However...

the races weren't designed on a numerically balanced system, they were eyeballed. To ensure the same point quota, the devs had to fudge the point costs of abilities to make the math work out.

The result is a bunch of abilities that are under or overpriced in relation to eachother. The majority of us want our fiddly bits to be priced and balanced compared to eachother.

Now: There's nothing to say that they can't take 10 as their baseline anyways, and create the "10 point versions" of all the existing races in this book, for anyone who really really really wants a standardized baseline.

But I'd prefer a real standard baseline, instead of a close number range thats been fudged to look like they match up perfectly.

I dont have a problem saying: "Okay - in this campaign, we'll be using 16 point races. If you want to play a halfling you'll be getting X extra stuff to bring you up to 16."
In fact, I would really appreciate it if they had all of the standard races at 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35,and 40, explaining what to add to bring it up to the next bump. That way, in a higher power campaign, you can just grab the right powered dwarf to run alongside the party lich without the big power gap.

[Edit:S#**! Double Ninja'd!]

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.

I think there can be a grey area.

Halflings may not be as mechanically powerful, but they are just about universally accepted and liked it seems.

Similarly Half-Orcs get a lot of mechanical advantage by being able to put that +2 wherever they want while still keeping Darkvision, but they are going to have trouble being accepted in a lot of areas.

This is harder to put in the system, but it is something that comes out in actual play.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The genie is out the bottle now, though. How can we pretend that Halflings, Half Orcs and Half-Elves are all the same point wise? We can see that Half Orcs make sense, Half-Elf is fair, and Halfling takes it in the shorts. +2 to Acrobatics is as valuable as Low Light Vision and Skill Focus (Acrobatics)? +2 to Climb is as valuable as +8 to Climb, having a climb speed of 20, and say, re-rolling a Reflex save once a day? B.S.

They've already admitted that weaker races from the Bestiaries are 6 to 7 points and that the stronger ones are 12 to 14 and even as high as 22.

So why pretend that core races are all at 10? We know it to be false now and the mechanics of shoehorning everybody into 10 Racial Points shows how silly it is.

Taldor

Darkholme wrote:
Now, Mok: I'm interested in reading your system. Any chance I can get a copy?

It would be great if Paizo's forums could do private messaging. Fire an email to me over at my website: www.geekindustrialcomplex.com

Cheliax

Mok wrote:
Darkholme wrote:
Now, Mok: I'm interested in reading your system. Any chance I can get a copy?
It would be great if Paizo's forums could do private messaging. Fire an email to me over at my website: www.geekindustrialcomplex.com

Email Sent. :)


Melissa Litwin wrote:

It's not that having them normalized to 10 wouldn't be good; it would. It's that artificially forcing a normalization that doesn't exist, power-wise, is a bad idea. We (being the majority of Paizo posters) feel that some races are mechanically superior to others and prefer to see this represented in the point costs of abilities. If that means halflings wind up significantly lower-point than dwarves or elves, that's OK because it means the building blocks are appropriately costed.

As it is, pluses to skills cost more than they should based on their power, in order to force halflings up to 10 points. Certain abilities that dwarves get are too cheap for their power, to shoehorn dwarves into a 10 RP buy. Neither of those situations is good for the system as a whole. That is why having core races normalized to 10 points is a bad idea.

I understand that idea, but I believe that there are real benefits to having all the core races establish the scale at 10 points

wraithstrike wrote:
I see your point, and I understand why it would be good if all the races were 10's, but the issue is all the races are not 10's. They are only disguised as 10's with the first playtest, and nobody wanted to accept it. People wanted the real values.

I'm not sure if you do see my point if you are continuing to argue why I am wrong when I have yet to present an argument why I think it is a good idea. I have no idea why I would even want to try when three people within an hour are already try to say I'm wrong using arguments that seem to assume that I haven't actually read this thread.

Darkholme wrote:
However...

I'm sorry. Four people.

It doesn't especially help that I don't actually think that Paizo is going a bad route whether they sit with the original design or something based on the suggestions in the thread.

It does bother me though when posters throw away my completely ignore the fact that I exist with, "everyone agrees with me."

Cheliax

@Blazej: What did you think of my alternate possibility?
- Provide all the core races adjusted to fit the baseline of 10 (and possibly 15, 20, 25, etc as well), using the building blocks that are priced in relation to eachother.

That gives us our 10, which is about the average of the core races, and makes all the races Actually on par with eachother, for the people who dont want a 7-13 range.

As for the argument: I admit, I assumed it was the same as the Paizo devs, which I didn't agree with.

However, I'm open to hear any new argument you may happen to have, and I'll listen, and try my best not to judge until you have explained your position, and give it thorough consideration before commenting. I try to be friendly. Honest. :)


Darkholme wrote:
I try to be friendly. Honest. :)

Liar. Look at the avatar. Totally stolen from TOZ.

Nice sleight of hand check... thief...

EDIT: I thought this was funny at first, but now I'm paranoid, thinking it might be taken the wrong way. I was just kidding. <<;;

Cheliax

Foghammer wrote:
Darkholme wrote:
I try to be friendly. Honest. :)

Liar. Look at the avatar. Totally stolen from TOZ.

Nice sleight of hand check... thief...

EDIT: I thought this was funny at first, but now I'm paranoid, thinking it might be taken the wrong way. I was just kidding. <<;;

lmao. No worries.

I was thinking you might be serious for a minute there, but I was just going to give you a snarky response.

And to be fair, I picked it before I saw TOZ on the Forums, so it wasnt chosen to copy him, but instead because I looked through like 35 pages of avatars and it was the only one I liked.

Yeah, TOZ and myself get mixed up alot when were in the same threads, because we both happened to pick the best avatar in the list. It doesnt help that I often agree with him on most of his points. I've had a few people think we were both the same person for like 3 pages before they bothered to read the name. lol.


Darkholme wrote:

@Blazej: What did you think of my alternate possibility?

- Provide all the core races adjusted to fit the baseline of 10 (and possibly 15, 20, 25, etc as well), using the building blocks that are priced in relation to eachother.

That gives us our 10, which is about the average of the core races, and makes all the races Actually on par with eachother, for the people who dont want a 7-13 range.

As for the argument: I admit, I assumed it was the same as the Paizo devs, which I didn't agree with.

However, I'm open to hear any new argument you may happen to have, and I'll listen, and try my best not to judge until you have explained your position, and give it thorough consideration before commenting. I try to be friendly. Honest. :)

Thanks :)

I like the idea of having the core races at various power levels (Noble Elves, Advanced Humans that I can use for Hermean citizens, and such) especially considering I might want to just run a more monstrous game and having an easy option for someone wanting to play an advanced halfling. But I imagine it taking at least a page per core race at that point. I would rather have those five pages dedicated to more content and I would be happy to generate whatever advanced race as I need them.

As for my thoughts on why having the core races be defined as all 10s is a good idea, it is similar to the Stephen Radney-MacFarland's argument as I understand it. By setting the bar at them I will know that with this system that I would not be able to generate a standard race that is absolutely better than any of the core races. If I make a simian race, I'm not going to look over and realize I just gave them everything a halfling has and then some. If I want to make a race that is better than any of the core races, I need to make it advanced. I honestly like that feature.

This does discount other poster's arguments. I can see within the system pricing swayed significantly by the core races. Abilities that the dwarves get are cheap compared to similar bonuses (hardy, slow and steady) while abilities that the halfling are expensive for the benefits they grant (Skill bonuses). I do dislike the penalty that imposes on more powerful races who would be deciding between +2 to two skills or immunity to an energy type because I would say that is a pretty easy decision. Not sure what scoring system I would truly be happier with in the long run though.


Blazej wrote:
Melissa Litwin wrote:

It's not that having them normalized to 10 wouldn't be good; it would. It's that artificially forcing a normalization that doesn't exist, power-wise, is a bad idea. We (being the majority of Paizo posters) feel that some races are mechanically superior to others and prefer to see this represented in the point costs of abilities. If that means halflings wind up significantly lower-point than dwarves or elves, that's OK because it means the building blocks are appropriately costed.

As it is, pluses to skills cost more than they should based on their power, in order to force halflings up to 10 points. Certain abilities that dwarves get are too cheap for their power, to shoehorn dwarves into a 10 RP buy. Neither of those situations is good for the system as a whole. That is why having core races normalized to 10 points is a bad idea.

I understand that idea, but I believe that there are real benefits to having all the core races establish the scale at 10 points

wraithstrike wrote:
I see your point, and I understand why it would be good if all the races were 10's, but the issue is all the races are not 10's. They are only disguised as 10's with the first playtest, and nobody wanted to accept it. People wanted the real values.

I'm not sure if you do see my point if you are continuing to argue why I am wrong when I have yet to present an argument why I think it is a good idea. I have no idea why I would even want to try when three people within an hour are already try to say I'm wrong using arguments that seem to assume that I haven't actually read this thread.

Darkholme wrote:
However...

I'm sorry. Four people.

It doesn't especially help that I don't actually think that Paizo is going a bad route whether they sit with the original design or something based on the suggestions in the thread.

It does bother me though when posters throw away my completely ignore the fact that I exist with, "everyone agrees with me."

Virtually everyone agrees? Almost everyone agrees? The vast majority agrees? The percentage of people on one side of a two side issue is the highest percentage ever on these boards? As close as realistically possible there is a total agreement?

How would you like it said?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The assumption that halflings are the weakest of the races is in itself flawed.

My halfling sorcerer puts everyone else in the party to shame quite regularly.

Every race has a niche it excels at.

That being said, there are some wonky pricing issues with the new subsystem, but the core races aren't part of it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

that's because your halfling is a sorcerer.

the small size and enhanced charisma are boons for a sorcerer, but they throw an enhanced dexterity and the only real drawback is that you move slower, because the dumped strength may not matter as much. especially since you can carry more small stuff than a medium guy can medium stuff. you also don't need as many calories to sustain your smaller body. nor do you need as much water. you can get through smaller spaces as well. giving you more potential options for hiding places to cast from. the bonus to saving throws may not be as nice as a Dwarf's, but it's still nice to have.

halflings make excellent sorcerers.

Cheliax

As a spellcaster, its generally better to be small. Tiny, if you can manage it.

But overall the halfling does get shafter in terms of abilities, even if they synergize decently as sorcerers.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Elves make great wizards. Dwarves make great clerics. Gnomes make interesting bards. Halflings make great sorcerers. Humans, half-orcs, and half-elves make good everything.

I think you get where I'm going with this. In the end, they are all relatively balanced with one another.

Everyone saying otherwise is making a lot of hype over nothing.


Yet Halflings tend to make subpar fighters.

The problem with trying to make all the maths equal is that even when they are equal, they aren't.

Your Tiefling might add up to the same X points as the Elf one day, but who is going to be treated differently in Cheliax? That difference in treatment will be significant and game altering, but this isn't reflected in the numbers.

Similarly, a Tieflings resistances are significantly more meaningful than an Aasimars, yet there is an equal pricing.

An Aasimar has a lot made of its two +2's, yet if we believe these forums, Cha is a stat that most people simply choose to play without, yet they are still paying 'full price' for it in the build math.

We could go on pulling apart each race, but not all ARE built equally, and I also think the measures were flawed to begin with anyhow.

These ratings and weightings are absent of in game context which can be equally important. They are being done in a vacuum, which would be awesome if we played in a vacuum.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

Elves make great wizards. Dwarves make great clerics. Gnomes make interesting bards. Halflings make great sorcerers. Humans, half-orcs, and half-elves make good everything.

I think you get where I'm going with this. In the end, they are all relatively balanced with one another.

Everyone saying otherwise is making a lot of hype over nothing.

The point is that when making a point-buy race-building system, it doesn't matter if the Halfling has +2 CHA or +2 CON or +2 STR, since all of those ability scores cost the same amount of points. For this system, the race-points value would be the same, and so it doesn't matter if a Halfling makes a better Sorcerer than a Dwarf.

It's the other abilities that actually make up the difference when determining if one race is "better" mechanically than another, and it's those other abilities many of us want to be costed fairly compared to eachother, rather than some of them being costed too high or too low only to make it so all the core races are 10-point races.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:


That being said, there are some wonky pricing issues with the new subsystem, but the core races aren't part of it.

Yes they are. They all have issues.

A Medium race with the Slow flaw moves at 20 feet even in armor.
Furthermore, the speed is never slowed by encumberance or armor. This is a "drawback" that could really be a positive for a geared up person always in armor.

Why is this? Because Dwarves HAVE TO be 10 points, even though they aren't. Moving at 20 in armor and encumberance with a base speed of 20 isn't a drawback, it is almost a benefit. Reminds me what I learned from a point by system, almost a mantra of HERO: A disadvantage that is not disadvantageous is not a disadvantage.

Halflings are a 6 point race because this system doesn't do skills and skill related feats well. No B.S. You take the 3 plus 2s and you name it Rogueishness and make it cost 3 points, and you make Halfling Luck cost 1 point. The system is delusional. It thinks that for something with the Human type that Skill Focus is worth 1 point, something that will give up to +6 competence, is worth 1 point, whereas a racial bonus, the Skill Bonus, of a +2 to 1 skill is worth 2 points. Furthermore, somebody can make a race that always has say, Deceitful or Animal Affinity and wind up getting +4 to 2 skills for 2 points, which is what the system costs +2 to one skill as.

A Flexible Human or Half Orc or Half Elf, with racial changes, can give its secondary bonus to Intelligence. This is a +2 to Intelligence for 2 points. Meanwhile, having one more skill a level is deemed to be worth 4 points and getting +2 to intelligence after choosing your stat array is worth 4 points. Clearly shenanigans going on here.

all of the races have shenanigans going on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Uninvited Ghost wrote:

Virtually everyone agrees? Almost everyone agrees? The vast majority agrees? The percentage of people on one side of a two side issue is the highest percentage ever on these boards? As close as realistically possible there is a total agreement?

How would you like it said?

Accurately.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
SPCDRI wrote:

A Medium race with the Slow flaw moves at 20 feet even in armor.

Furthermore, the speed is never slowed by encumberance or armor. This is a "drawback" that could really be a positive for a geared up person always in armor.

Why is this? Because Dwarves HAVE TO be 10 points, even though they aren't. Moving at 20 in armor and encumberance with a base speed of 20 isn't a drawback, it is almost a benefit. Reminds me what I learned from a point by system, almost a mantra of HERO: A disadvantage that is not disadvantageous is not a disadvantage.

It seems I overlooked that aspect of the slow speed trait.

I also agree that the skill pricing is one of the wonky aspects to which I alluded to earlier.

That's about where our agreement ends, however. The core races ARE relatively balanced amongst themselves, even if their "scoring" would indicate otherwise.


Blazej wrote:
Uninvited Ghost wrote:

Virtually everyone agrees? Almost everyone agrees? The vast majority agrees? The percentage of people on one side of a two side issue is the highest percentage ever on these boards? As close as realistically possible there is a total agreement?

How would you like it said?
Accurately.

And that's what Uninvited Ghost asked, what would be the accurate version of what's going on according to you?

There is a majority agreeing here, that cannot be denied, how would YOU like it expressed?


Ravingdork wrote:


That's about where our agreement ends, however. The core races ARE relatively balanced amongst themselves, even if their "scoring" would indicate otherwise.

And you've stated the problem quite well. They are "relatively" balanced, not exactly balanced, and that's the mistake they made in presenting them all as 10 point races.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Talynonyx wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:


That's about where our agreement ends, however. The core races ARE relatively balanced amongst themselves, even if their "scoring" would indicate otherwise.
And you've stated the problem quite well. They are "relatively" balanced, not exactly balanced, and that's the mistake they made in presenting them all as 10 point races.

Short of expanding the scoring and repricing everything (such as making it 100 instead of 10 and pricing everything accordingly) that's to be expected. I don't know about you, but making the system so definite will only serve to make it far more complicated than it needs to be.

Though many traits can be tightened up a bit, things SHOULD stay relative and general.


Dapifer wrote:
Blazej wrote:
Uninvited Ghost wrote:

Virtually everyone agrees? Almost everyone agrees? The vast majority agrees? The percentage of people on one side of a two side issue is the highest percentage ever on these boards? As close as realistically possible there is a total agreement?

How would you like it said?
Accurately.

And that's what Uninvited Ghost asked, what would be the accurate version of what's going on according to you?

There is a majority agreeing here, that cannot be denied, how would YOU like it expressed?

I'm not objecting to the expressing that the majority here is agreeing and really just find the question silly because I was pointing at the real posts that were outright saying that every person was in agreement. They are and were clearly incorrect and were, I would contend, bound to be wrong and hampered by ignoring anyone that may disagree with them.

Cheliax

Ravingdork wrote:

Short of expanding the scoring and repricing everything (such as making it 100 instead of 10 and pricing everything accordingly) that's to be expected. I don't know about you, but making the system so definite will only serve to make it far more complicated than it needs to be.

Though many traits can be tightened up a bit, things SHOULD stay relative and general.

That expanding and repricing, is exactly what I'm pushing for. And by repricing I mean repricing the individual elements in relation to eachother, instead of pricing big packages of individual elements in relation to eachother.

As for Expanding? I dont think it needs to be 100 points. But I could see 50, or 30 (x5 or x3).

But with what they have right now? Prices are so inconsistent I dont believe I can do much with them as a GM. Its unfortunate, but there it is.

I believe LPJ's race cookbook got updated to PFRPG, (though I heard it got bad reviews due to illogical pricing), and I still have UK's guide (it covers more material, but has nearly no organization, and the pre-made packages of stuff are all 3.5 based, so using it as a straight race building guide is a fair amount of work), and then there is Voodoo Mike's Guide, and the Revision by Golden(but they have very limited things that they allow at all). I was hoping for something more usable than the above, and for Paizo to do that, they need more granularity, and more consistent and logical inter-item pricing.

Osirion

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

Short of expanding the scoring and repricing everything (such as making it 100 instead of 10 and pricing everything accordingly) that's to be expected. I don't know about you, but making the system so definite will only serve to make it far more complicated than it needs to be.

Though many traits can be tightened up a bit, things SHOULD stay relative and general.

The costs do need reworked. However,trying to make them fit a fixed point total is the issue we now have. The total is not the issue,10,20,50 or 1000 points,as long as you base the cost of a ability off the number you need it to have to fit in under that fixed value,and not off the cost the power is wroth compared to simaler powers. Then the math will always be flawed,and the toolset you have made will be far less useful and more open to abuse, because you rigged thenumbers and under vauled powers so you could make something fit a point value it can not with honest numbers.

Cheliax

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
The costs do need reworked. However,trying to make them fit a fixed point total is the issue we now have. The total is not the issue,10,20,50 or 1000 points,as long as you base the cost of a ability off the number you need it to have to fit in under that fixed value,and not off the cost the power is wroth compared to simaler powers. Then the math will always be flawed,and the toolset you have made will be far less useful and more open to abuse, because you rigged thenumbers and under vauled powers so you could make something fit a point value it can not with honest numbers.

Balance the individual abilities against eachother so the one point abilities are reasonably priced *against eachother* the two point abilities are reasonably priced against eachother, AND against two 1-point abilities, etc, and if the packages (read: races) come out to be worth different numbers of points, thats because theyre worth different numbers of points. That's fine.

Dont try to fudge the numbers so people thing theyre worth the same number of points.

Don't try to explain the stuff that was just eyeballed as though it went through a thorough numerical test to be equivalent. We get it. its fine. You didnt have a pricing scheme, so you ballparked it, and it doesnt come out even across all options. But youre making a point buy system. So the points themselves need to be consistent. 1 point should always get you 1 point worth of stuff.

Otherwise why have points?

Here's a thought: Let the forumers vote on the costs of the abilities in playtest two.

Take an ability, use it as your fixed standard. Make it 1 point. It is the epitome of all 1 point abilities. 6 of them should be the same general value as a 6-point ability, and 20 of them should be the same value as a 20 point ability. make it simple, make it linear.

Put up all the individual bits, and what you think the prices should be, and let the people vote on what they think the prices should be, based on what theyre likely to pick. you can look at the Mean, and the Median, and the Mode, and compare them with what you put.

It would be very informative.

If there are no such polls here for v2, perhaps I or someone else will do up a site using some javascript and a form and maybe some php, to do this.

For v1, I don't think the individual abilities are priced consistently enough, but it could be done anyways.


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.

In fact, being able to recreate dwarves is pretty much the least useful thing to do with this system. The whole point of mix-and-match should be making something new, or making new sub-races that depart from one or more assumptions of their base race. Restricting certain abilities to dwarves only makes the whole thing pointless; if I want a dwarf with ability X, clearly there already is one. Likewise, point breaks just make the system poorly balanced, and make it less useful as a campaign design tool. What if you wanted to replace dwarves with something else?

You need to come up with sane ability costs, you need to figure out how to make prerequisites properly, and while doing both, you need to get it to approximate the balance of the core races. But if the core races don't exactly balance in the final analysis, that's okay. There are deeper issues than numeric parity. There is no way Fiendish Sorcery has the same value to a race with +4 Cha is it does to one with -2 Cha. Likewise, elves pay full price for elven weapon proficiencies as well as spellcasting abilities, but it's unlikely for an elf to profit from both at full value.

One simple solution: add a charge for multiple picks out of one category. You want to be magical, magic-er, magic-est? You pay a surchage. Likewise, any ability that keys to an ability score or size difference ought to have a modifier. For instance, at -2 Cha, Fiendish Sorcery ought to be priced as a bandaid (1 RP), but it's a decent choice for most other characters (2 RP) and a serious boon for characters with a Cha bonus (3 RP).


RJGrady wrote:
You need to come up with sane ability costs...

Well, I wouldn't say that what's in the playtest is insane, just not quite correct... The numbers are rather low to have huge swings. The difference between a 1 RP ability and a 4 RP ability seems apparent but not vast, and there are some 1 RP abilities that aren't worth 1 RP but shouldn't exactly be free, either. Hatred and Poison Use spring to mind.

Perhaps you are addressing something else, though; I may have misunderstood.

151 to 200 of 287 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Older Products / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Advanced Race Guide Playtest / Core races add up to 10? All Messageboards

©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.