Core races add up to 10?


Advanced Race Guide Playtest

251 to 287 of 287 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
i beleive a a range of 7-15 actually works for standard. and as a side note. i don't beleive the Suli are worth 16 points. they only get one use of elemental assault. and it doesn't matter which element it's used for when you are only going to use it at advantageous moments anyway. and the intellegence penalty is a typo. they are being charged quadruple the elemental assault price.

Having a range isn't the point. The point is whatever the top of the range is will be the cap.

I think we can all agree that "equal" is relative and trying to make all core "equal" 10 was a mistake.

What I'm saying is trying to make any number is a mistake.

You should subdivide races into components and then have a menu for those components.

For example:

1: Choose ability score bonuses: Menu of ability score bonuses
2: Choose primary features (menu of primary features)
3: Choose Secondary features (menu of secondary features)

Within the menus, some features are only available to classes that take other bonuses (Hardy only to those who take con bonus for example) and the ability bonuses are set up as I described above (divided between physical and mental if more than one, no mental above 4, etc...)

Classes without racial levels pick from that menu. Period. No point buy, just a menu.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Mok wrote:
drumlord wrote:
Impossible. Find me one person's (or one company's) breakdown of the whole system and I'll find you thousands that disagree. Skills don't even all "equal" each other. Spells' values certainly don't match up. Feats? Forget about it. Try comparing them to each other and you'll just end up frustrated.

It's possible. It's just the amount of work that is put behind it.

I came to this forum because I am working on a Scifi RPG setting that needs lots of Races. My current effort has been to use the Race Creation Cookbook which claims to be Pathfinder compatible. They took three hundred monsters out of the SRD and modeled combats for each of them, and based their costings on how prevalent certain kinds of attacks were. Fire attacks were the most prevalent, so Fire Resistance cost more than Cold Resistance. All of the Abilities were costed using similar methods.

They also balance the costs of different Feats out by the character Class taking them a really bad example is Extra Rage is worth lots to a Barbarian and nothing to anyone else. It's nice that they present these costings by class, but when developing the 8 core races currently in my setting I had to average these costs, or sometimes pick the most expensive one.

I have had to make some decisions in favor of abstraction because there aren't any spellcasters in my setting. No Wizards, Sorcerers, Clerics etc, and no spellcasting Monsters either. So a lot of the numbers based on resisting Magic really don't matter to me.

I am still happier to use a Toolkit which at least considered these things before I throw away the detail I don't need in favor of abstraction.

So it's possible to do what you've described, and in my experience most people will need something somewhere in the middle.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Ion Raven 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.

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.

Last month I started playtesting a scifi RPG setting with 8 core races and I was totally flabergasted that nobody in the test group took a Human character.

I plan on trying to make the core races for the setting under ARG and see how they come out vs. the Race Creaton rules I have been using.


ciretose wrote:


I think we can all agree that "equal" is relative and trying to make all core "equal" 10 was a mistake.

Well personally I don't agree that trying to make all core races equal 10 is a mistake. If I was in Paizo's shoes, I'd try to do exactly the same thing.

Why? Because whilst there has been debate between players as to whether a race is more or less powerful than others, as long as there's no official word saying otherwise, players have to respect the fact that the core races are presented as equal, and their views are not definitive. The GM can easily over-rule such opinion and players don't feel put out.

But if you present players with a numerical system which proves conclusively that core races are not equal in power, oh boy. Suddenly that's much harder for the GM to deal with. Yes, he or she can still over-rule the player's objections, but in my experience, players tend to be far more put out when they feel that the GM decision is unfair. Saying to a player who's just rolled up a Halfling "Well, yes Halflings are 4 or 5 RP points less than a dwarf, but no you can't have any additional traits to make up for it, because we're not going to be including zany new races in this campaign" is going to sit unhappily with even an easy-going player.

Pricing stuff so that it's more balanced to make new races is a noble goal, certainly. But if the cost is potentially disasterous blow-ups around countless gaming tables, then I say that price is too high.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Natura wrote:
Pricing stuff so that it's more balanced to make new races is a noble goal, certainly. But if the cost is potentially disasterous blow-ups around countless gaming tables, then I say that price is too high.

Except when the entire point of this system is to create new races (it's a Race Building tool), not to recreate old races.

If, by chance, all of the core races had ended up at 10 points with all of their traits priced properly, then I doubt anyone would have complained. But, some of the RP costs in the playtest document make it appear as if the costing came afterwards, as a way to force each race to end up at 10 points.

Proper pricing of the building blocks has to be the priority if one wants to create a balanced, useful tool.


Are wrote:
Natura wrote:
Pricing stuff so that it's more balanced to make new races is a noble goal, certainly. But if the cost is potentially disasterous blow-ups around countless gaming tables, then I say that price is too high.

Except when the entire point of this system is to create new races (it's a Race Building tool), not to recreate old races.

If, by chance, all of the core races had ended up at 10 points with all of their traits priced properly, then I doubt anyone would have complained. But, some of the RP costs in the playtest document make it appear as if the costing came afterwards, as a way to force each race to end up at 10 points.

Proper pricing of the building blocks has to be the priority if one wants to create a balanced, useful tool.

If the point is simply to create new races, then DON'T include a complete writeup of all the original races, especially if it's going to cause issues (and if the RP points are uneven, it will).

Dark Archive

This whole system makes me want to dust off my copy of MoO2. Wonder if I can make an Uncreative race that works...

Scarab Sages

Natura wrote:
If the point is simply to create new races, then DON'T include a complete writeup of all the original races, especially if it's going to cause issues (and if the RP points are uneven, it will).

I'm courious what issues you belive it will cause. Will the internet explode with halfling partizans who demand justice for the disadvanted demi-humans?

AsmodeusUltima wrote:
This whole system makes me want to dust off my copy of MoO2. Wonder if I can make an Uncreative race that works...

Wouldn't that be amost any race with an int penality? +1 for reminding me of an awesome game of yore though.


Whether the core races are written up in the book or not will hardly make a difference. If they're not, their totals will be calculated and posted on the forums by people that get the book.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here are my suggestions:

1) Build the system with as accurate prices for abilities as possible, ignoring the PF core book races for the moment.

2) Use the system you built to price out the core book races in a range, rather than forcing them to be 10 each. If it comes out to a range of 8-12, that's fine, just state that other races created in the 8-12 range should balance against the PC races.

3) Then use your rules to build new versions/subraces of the races that all balance out to exactly the same amount. If you decide that you want a set of 10 point races, offer "Hairfoot Halflings" that get a few additional abilities from Core Halflings to get them up to 10 points, and offer "Hill Dwarves" that maybe shave off a few abilities like stone-cunning so they are 10 points too. You might even replace some abilities for others because the design system might include choices that weren't considered when the core book was made.

This really is the best of both worlds... a truly accurate pricing system for races rather than one that is forced to bend and twist into existing races, and new subraces that then give an option for DMs and players to play more balanced versions of the races if they'd like (and the subraces can exist right alongside the Core versions in the world, they don't necessarily need to replace them.)

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

Samurai wrote:
3) Then use your rules to build new versions/subraces of the races that all balance out to exactly the same amount.

We know from designer comments that the ARG is going to have new options for existing races in another chapter. I say, add all of those new abilities as options that can be purchased with RP. And specifically design a few of those options to make certain alternate builds of core races add up to 10 RP, even though the default core race builds clearly don't.


Epic Meepo wrote:
Samurai wrote:
3) Then use your rules to build new versions/subraces of the races that all balance out to exactly the same amount.
We know from designer comments that the ARG is going to have new options for existing races in another chapter. I say, add all of those new abilities as options that can be purchased with RP. And specifically design a few of those options to make certain alternate builds of core races add up to 10 RP, even though the default core race builds clearly don't.

This actually made me think: There's a whole bunch of alternate racial traits that can be taken to modify your race. Someone should go price them out according to this new system and compare them to the prices of the traits they replace. How much of a range does that produce for each race?

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bobson wrote:
This actually made me think: There's a whole bunch of alternate racial traits that can be taken to modify your race. Someone should go price them out according to this new system and compare them to the prices of the traits they replace. How much of a range does that produce for each race?

Many of the alternate racial traits from the APG are already in the playtest document in one form or another, and most of the rest are fairly balanced against the abilities they replace, and thus wouldn't affect a race's RP value.

However, a few racial traits in the APG are worth noting:

  • Dwarves can trade hardy (supposedly 1 RP) for magic resistant, which is nearly as good as lesser spell resistance (2 RP).
  • Elves have an option trading elven magic (2 RP) for hatred (1 RP), suggesting that various elf builds have different RP values.
  • Halflings can trade two skill bonuses (supposedly worth 4 RP) for warslinger, which is arguably worth 2 RP at most.

So the APG suggests that hardy is underpriced, skill bonus is overpriced, and not all variants of core races have the same RP values, possibly varying by a point or two.


Blazej wrote:


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.

You don't have to say why it is good if you already claimed normalized races as your stance, which we agree with. The only differing point is that you want them to be artificially equal since that is the only differing stance.

BlazeJ wrote:

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.

Your above quote already says your point was covered by Paizo, which in this case meant Stephen, so unless you have a different viewpoint that what he put out your point has already been explained.

In short by claiming Paizo has already put your stance out, you are saying you agree with their stance which has already been presented so yes you have you presented your argument.


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.

Relatively balanced is not the same absolutely equal which is what the point system is saying. Some races are better than others. To say otherwise makes me believe you have blinders on.


wraithstrike wrote:
Blazej wrote:
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.
You don't have to say why it is good if you already claimed normalized races as your stance, which we agree with. The only differing point is that you want them to be artificially equal since that is the only differing stance.

Since the majority of your arguments have had nothing to do with my position, I would suggest that it would be a mistake to presume that you know another person's reasons just because you think you have one different point.

wraithstrike wrote:
BlazeJ wrote:

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.

Your above quote already says your point was covered by Paizo, which in this case meant Stephen, so unless you have a different viewpoint that what he put out your point has already been explained.

In short by claiming Paizo has already put your stance out, you are saying you agree with their stance which has already been presented so yes you have you presented your argument.

First, not terribly important but you misspelled my name.

I don't think how the presentation of arguments work. Just because I think that Paizo can handle arguments to explain their rules decisions doesn't mean that my arguments are the same as Paizo's arguments. Of course, even if it did, that doesn't explain why you responded with an argument that failed many times before.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:

Epic Meepo (RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16), Yesterday, 02:29 PM

Bobson wrote:

This actually made me think: There's a whole bunch of alternate racial traits that can be taken to modify your race. Someone should go price them out according to this new system and compare them to the prices of the traits they replace. How much of a range does that produce for each race?

Many of the alternate racial traits from the APG are already in the playtest document in one form or another, and most of the rest are fairly balanced against the abilities they replace, and thus wouldn't affect a race's RP value.

However, a few racial traits in the APG are worth noting:

Dwarves can trade hardy (supposedly 1 RP) for magic resistant, which is nearly as good as lesser spell resistance (2 RP).
Elves have an option trading elven magic (2 RP) for hatred (1 RP), suggesting that various elf builds have different RP values.
Halflings can trade two skill bonuses (supposedly worth 4 RP) for warslinger, which is arguably worth 2 RP at most.

So the APG suggests that hardy is underpriced, skill bonus is overpriced, and not all variants of core races have the same RP values, possibly varying by a point or two.

This is an excellent point, and it shows what abilities Paizo feels are approximately equal before any artificial numbers are placed on them. It means that even if the normal core races were artificially made to be worth 10 points each, the already-published racial ability substitutions don't always work out to the same value. This is just more reason why giving a range of values for the races rather than 1 fixed number is better, as is pricing abilities by their actual worth rather than how many more points are needed to get a race to 10 points.


Blazej wrote:

This Stuff:

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...

So, if I understand your position correctly you:

1) presume that all races are, in fact, equal (but the pricing of individual abilities may be off) and thus...
2) presume that it would be best to simply place them arbitrarily with the same amount of points (as the races are, in fact, equal)...
3) ... and would like it known that you feel this way, and thus anyone who "spoke for you" on purpose or accident was wrong to do so.

Have I summed your points up adequately? I wish to understand before responding, because I don't wish to offend you, and it does seem (though I, of course, cannot read your mind or heart) that you got offended when others attempted to speak without fully understanding what you were saying.


I think it is a general concesus that all the core races if priced accurately would not equal the same RP total.

The only way to make them equal out is to cheat. And by cheat, I mean allow certain races to buy certain abilities at a reduced cost.

The Gnome does this.

Gnome Magic grants 4 Spell Like abilities (3 level 0 spells and 1 level 1) and a +1 DC bonus to Illusion Spells. All for 1RP.

Meanwhile Spell Like Ability grants only 1 spell 1/day at a cost of 1RP per level of the spell (with 0 level spells costing 1RP) and can only be taken a maximum of 3 times. That means the Gnome's spell like abilities should cost 1RP each, and they should be limited to 3, not 4.

Svirfneblin Magic is worse, as 3 the 1/day spell like abilities are are a level 1 and 2 level 2 spells, plus a constant level 3 spell. All for 2RP. That's 5RP for the 1/day spell like abilities alone.

Honestly, I'm OK with this kind of cheat in general. It demonstrates a type of racial affinity. It provides an example of how races with a particular affinity (represented as a type or subtype prerequisite) can buy abilities at a reduced cost. Granted, any such ability should also be available to any race at a non-discounted cost.

However, I do have a problem with how deep the discount is in the cases I referenced as well as how inconsistent it is. This I feel is an even bigger issue than the forced leveling of core races at 10.

I can live with fudged costs to keep the core races appearing somewhat equal (balanced), but the component pricing and discounts used to achieve that illusion need to be consistent.

tl;dr

Getting core races all at 10 required cheating.
This isn't necessarily bad.
Point costs are wonky.
Type/subtype prerequisites must go, unless they are prerequisites for a cost discount or serve some logical physiological purpose (like requiring an aquatic or amphibian subtype for swim speed)

Suggestions to Developers:
Tweak a few of the point costs.
Rework type/subtype prerequisites to cost discounts or cases where they are physiologically needed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Frankly as arbitrary as it might seem, I think points should be 10 times their current level. My reasoning for this comes from the same complaint above, that not every ability is equal. A easy fix to this would be to modify the costs slightly, but with a scale of 0-10 you have very little room to adjust these values as compared to a 0-100 scale. In short small numbers make adjustments large, large numbers make adjustments small.

Scarab Sages Reaper Miniatures

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthias wrote:
Frankly as arbitrary as it might seem, I think points should be 10 times their current level. My reasoning for this comes from the same complaint above, that not every ability is equal. A easy fix to this would be to modify the costs slightly, but with a scale of 0-10 you have very little room to adjust these values as compared to a 0-100 scale. In short small numbers make adjustments large, large numbers make adjustments small.

This has advantages and disadvantages.

Pros:
more accurate costing for the individual abilities, and ability bonuses.
( An ability could be priced at 10, and a slightly improved version could be 11 or 12, which is more accurate than a 100% increase - such as going from 1RP to 2 RP would be.)

Cons:
The constant tweaking trying to make your Standard Race =100. Not 99. Not 103.

The best option is probably somewhere in between - publishing prices in increments of 5RP, which would be the equivalent now of saying .5 RP or 1.5 RP without making people buy "half points"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I totally agree that the base races are not equal and that this system shouldn't pretend they are. 2 RP for +2 to a skill and 1 RP for skill focus? Just seems wrong. But that's been said many times in this thread already.

I've only skimmed over the middle pages of the thread, but did anyone else notice that some of the races don't even come out to 10 points based on this system?

Dwarf: They gave it Slow in the calculations, but what about the Steady ability that goes along with Slow? "Their speed is never modified by armor or encumbrance" is nowhere in the playtest document. What is the RP cost for Steady? I'd say it's at least worth 1 point, so Dwarf is actually at least at 11 Total RP by the system's rules.

Half-Orc: In the calculations they have Low-light vision listed when they actually get Darkvision 60 ft. which would also put them at 11 Total RP by the rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pluvia33 wrote:


Dwarf: They gave it Slow in the calculations, but what about the Steady ability that goes along with Slow? "Their speed is never modified by armor or encumbrance" is nowhere in the playtest document. What is the RP cost for Steady? I'd say it's at least worth 1 point, so Dwarf is actually at least at 11 Total RP by the system's rules.

The dwarf gets slow and steady for -1 RP. Look at the slow speed it stats medium creatures are not effected by armor or encumbrance. It was placed there as another way to rig the numbers. They get it free or a -1 RP take your pick.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
pluvia33 wrote:


Dwarf: They gave it Slow in the calculations, but what about the Steady ability that goes along with Slow? "Their speed is never modified by armor or encumbrance" is nowhere in the playtest document. What is the RP cost for Steady? I'd say it's at least worth 1 point, so Dwarf is actually at least at 11 Total RP by the system's rules.
The dwarf gets slow and steady for -1 RP. Look at the slow speed it stats medium creatures are not effected by armor or encumbrance. It was placed there as another way to rig the numbers. They get it free or a -1 RP take your pick.

Ah, I see that now. Oversight on my part. Seems like another way to fudge the numbers to make all of the base races "balanced" to me. I'd think Slow and Steady should be equal to Normal Speed (0 RP) or Steady should be added for 1 RP. Either way, I'm glad this is still in the playtest phase.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

pluvia33 wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
pluvia33 wrote:


Dwarf: They gave it Slow in the calculations, but what about the Steady ability that goes along with Slow? "Their speed is never modified by armor or encumbrance" is nowhere in the playtest document. What is the RP cost for Steady? I'd say it's at least worth 1 point, so Dwarf is actually at least at 11 Total RP by the system's rules.
The dwarf gets slow and steady for -1 RP. Look at the slow speed it stats medium creatures are not effected by armor or encumbrance. It was placed there as another way to rig the numbers. They get it free or a -1 RP take your pick.
Ah, I see that now. Oversight on my part. Seems like another way to fudge the numbers to make all of the base races "balanced" to me. I'd think Slow and Steady should be equal to Normal Speed (0 RP) or Steady should be added for 1 RP. Either way, I'm glad this is still in the playtest phase.

On the other hand, most special movement abilities require Normal speed as a prerequisite, so this means a typically built dwarf-type can never, say, get a swim speed. No river dwarves! :) Now maybe you don't want river dwarves, but it's not possible (unless you want your river dwarves to be unusually speedy).

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

If I may point out another 'faux balance' issue.

Weapon Familiarity doesn't differentiate by weapon type.

So Racial familiarity in greatclub and sap is worth exactly the same as elven curveblade and falcata. (Or club and blowgun for that matter)

Silver Crusade

Mort the Cleverly Named wrote:
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
While some of you seem against this, one of the things we want this system to do is to create different versions of existing races. We want people to make snow elves, half-dwarves, and goblins from Akiton and so on. Because of that some subtype requirements will probably stay, allowing specific iconic features to stay within their race. But we will have robust options for creating entirely new race abilities also.

I'm sorry, but I am having a difficult time understanding this. Nobody is against using the system to create different versions of existing races. We just don't see how requiring only elves get "Elven Magic" helps that. I can decide to include that feature in a new Snow Elf race, or decide to leave it out. The prerequisite is irrelevant to making sub-races. All it does it is prohibit me from making "Arcane Dwarves" with the same ability, even if it is a perfect fit for them. Yes, I can choose to ignore the prerequisite. But if everyone does, what is the point of using a line of text on it in the first place?

This is why I, and others, would love to see you "file off the serial numbers" and go for a fully modular system. Instead of "Elven Immunities," have an "immunity to sleep" ability and a "+2 vs. School" ability. You can recreate the Elven Immunities ability, or make your own "Slugfolk Immunities" from the same base. It is more robust and versatile, and in no way impacts the ability to create all the Snow, Moon, or Pudding Elves of your dreams.

This.

If a strong component of this product is the ability to create variant races from Golarion, then include a line somewhere that indicates that subtype requirements only apply to variant races in that campaign setting. After all, maybe in the DM's setting, elves aren't magical at all but are known for their speed. This will cut off rules arguments later, and also help assuage the little 'You're houseruling, you shouldn't be houseruling, what would the great god RAW think?!' voice another poster mentioned. We can still have things like Hardy require a +2 Con, as that's more generic.

(Although the specific case of hardy confuses me -- poison and magic resistance in combination is specifically a dwarven thing, but could also make sense for even a frail construct race, or a half-dwarf race that doesn't get the con bonus -- these bonuses should probably be purchased separately and not necessarily tied to con, although maybe they could have a discount if you already have a con bonus)

I could also see, maybe, offering a small discount on certain bundles of abilities (like Elven Immunities for Elves) if you still want to go the 'core races all the same RP cost' route or something similar, it might help numbers match up while also showing that that's because these are established golarion races.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

Scottbert wrote:
I could also see, maybe, offering a small discount on certain bundles of abilities (like Elven Immunities for Elves) if you still want to go the 'core races all the same RP cost' route or something similar, it might help numbers match up while also showing that that's because these are established golarion races.

Yes, this.

Discounts on particular bundles of core race abilities are fine, just as long as those abilities are then priced realistically when not bundled.


Bryan Stiltz wrote:


This has advantages and disadvantages.
Pros:
more accurate costing for the individual abilities, and ability bonuses.
( An ability could be priced at 10, and a slightly improved version could be 11 or 12, which is more accurate than a 100% increase - such as going from 1RP to 2 RP would be.)

Cons:
The constant tweaking trying to make your Standard Race =100. Not 99. Not 103.

The best option is probably somewhere in between - publishing prices in increments of 5RP, which would be the equivalent now of saying .5 RP or 1.5 RP without making people buy "half points"

I see where your coming from that while the changes are more minute it might become cumbersome, but unless you completely change the current system I think your given example values of 99 or 103 would be just fine, as some of the examples given in the playtest currently are higher or lower than the base; Sylph for example are worth 6 RP while Aasimar are 13 (Both are CR 1/2).

Also discount bundles sound cool, but I would think you would have to tie them to more expensive abilities and perhaps some that might be considered undesirable, for dwarfs as an example Hatred being paired up with Weapon familiarity or Darkvision with Stonecunning

Dark Archive

Epic Meepo wrote:
Discounts on particular bundles of core race abilities are fine, just as long as those abilities are then priced realistically when not bundled.

Disagree. If the core races are getting abilities on the cheap in packages to cheat them to 10 pts, why shouldn't my homebrew race get the same discounts, if its supposed to be the same power as a core race?


Darkholme wrote:
Epic Meepo wrote:
Discounts on particular bundles of core race abilities are fine, just as long as those abilities are then priced realistically when not bundled.
Disagree. If the core races are getting abilities on the cheap in packages to cheat them to 10 pts, why shouldn't my homebrew race get the same discounts, if its supposed to be the same power as a core race?

Go ahead. Nothing is stopping you.

And that is just fine.

The important thing is that the discounts used in the ARG must provide a consistent guideline for reference.

Currently, they do not.

I would also strongly recommend a line (preferably in a side bar so it stands out) stating:

All custom built races are subject to GM approval, and the GM retains the right to disallow any custom built race, even if it strictly adheres to the guidelines presented.

Dark Archive

Freesword wrote:
Go ahead. Nothing is stopping you.

It would be houseruling it in. the base system does not allow for you to make discounted packages, along the same lines of what they gave the core races. That is my point. So either there should be guidelines on how to put together discount racial packages (a waste or time imo, but maybe theres some case where a discount is valid) or they should stop giving discounts to the core races.

Freesword wrote:

I would also strongly recommend a line (preferably in a side bar so it stands out) stating:

All custom built races are subject to GM approval, and the GM retains the right to disallow any custom built race, even if it strictly adheres to the guidelines presented.

It shouldnt be a sidebar. it should be the first sentence under the section header for race building. lol.


Darkholme wrote:
Freesword wrote:
Go ahead. Nothing is stopping you.

It would be houseruling it in. the base system does not allow for you to make discounted packages, along the same lines of what they gave the core races. That is my point. So either there should be guidelines on how to put together discount racial packages (a waste or time imo, but maybe theres some case where a discount is valid) or they should stop giving discounts to the core races.

Freesword wrote:

I would also strongly recommend a line (preferably in a side bar so it stands out) stating:

All custom built races are subject to GM approval, and the GM retains the right to disallow any custom built race, even if it strictly adheres to the guidelines presented.

It shouldnt be a sidebar. it should be the first sentence under the section header for race building. lol.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Discounting needs to be consistent and clearly defined.

And I went with sidebar as a consideration to page count. It really should have a page all to itself.


I have to agree with the consensus here. Having all core races at 10 points is counterproductive, because they are not balanced well enough to ensure justify such equality. That, in turn, cascades across the system and distorts the costs of the various abilities.

It would be possible to choose one race, let's say humans, and have it at 10 points (or have 10 points be some sort of average for the core races) to provide a baseline to cost the other abilities around. Once you do it with more than one race, though, the math gets distorted. Note that even choosing one race or even the average to be the 10 point baseline can pose granularity issues, but at least it does not create distortions beyond that.


Mok wrote:
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?

Combat. That's the core point of the whole system.

How many hit points can be removed.
How to avoid having hit points removed.
How to beat saving throws.
How to avoid failing a saving throw.

Everything else are just varying degrees away from those central premises.

A race that is packed with non-combat utility abilities can be plenty fun, but once you get into combat they generally won't fare as well as a race that had a +4 Strength and +4 Wisdom. The first race might be good at getting information that is important to the fight or the trap ahead, and may even help with getting a surprise round, but the second race is going to chop things to bits and be able to resist nasty mind effects that would stop them in their tracks.

I have to respectfully disagree. If that was the case the core rule book would be perhaps 150 pages, maybe 200.

As Stephen pointed out before things can very greatly from one game to another.


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? 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?

If you want to play a fighter, dwarves are clearly superior, but they are terrible if you want to play a sorcerer or a bard. Halflings are great if you want to play a rogue or a bard, but are not very good at being barbarians. Humans are great generalists, there is no doubt about that.

By looking at the pros and cons of the core races in general, we could create a system that works in general. While we may not have the exact point costs nailed down, I still don't see the flaw in the reasoning, and don't see what we gain by saying that some core races are always better than others in the creation of system that's main purpose is to help GMs create races that are relatively balanced to the core races that we already have.

In measure to itself. It's only a quick look at many of the threads. A +3 to any skill of your choice which then turns to +6 at 10 ranks and is also a prereq for Eldritch Heritage should NOT cost half of a +2 to a predetermined skill. This is what some people call internal inconsistency.

In this case we have a stack of 2 quarters and a stack of 5 pennies, 4 nickels, and 3 dimes, they're roughly the same value and hey quarters are more widely accepted. But it's kind of a pain when you try to change the value of the coins so that they're absolutely equal and some of those nickels aren't even worth some of the pennies. It's even worse if this system of measurement is only used when determining coin stacks and a different currency system is used when trying to buy snacks.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Ion Raven wrote:
In this case we have a stack of 2 quarters and a stack of 5 pennies, 4 nickels, and 3 dimes, they're roughly the same value and hey quarters are more widely accepted. But it's kind of a pain when you try to change the value of the coins so that they're absolutely equal and some of those nickels aren't even worth some of the pennies. It's even worse if this system of measurement is only used used when determining coin stacks and a different currency system is used when trying to buy snacks.

Your analogy is deeply arcane. I become lost in the depth and subtlety of your teachings. :D

251 to 287 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
Recent threads in Advanced Race Guide Playtest