paizo.com Recent Posts in Why not make every new race Monstrous?paizo.com Recent Posts in Why not make every new race Monstrous?2012-06-20T16:59:42Z2012-06-20T16:59:42ZRe: Forums: Advanced Race Guide Playtest: Why not make every new race Monstrous?Bwanghttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mybg&page=2?Why-not-make-every-new-race-Monstrous#752011-10-19T02:51:05Z2011-10-19T02:51:05Z<p>Would anyone happen to remember or can lay hands on the GURPS line about playing more powerful races meaning that the player is one of the weaker members of that race?</p>Would anyone happen to remember or can lay hands on the GURPS line about playing more powerful races meaning that the player is one of the weaker members of that race?Bwang2011-10-19T02:51:05ZRe: Forums: Advanced Race Guide Playtest: Why not make every new race Monstrous?Christina Morris (Jon Brazer Enterprises)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mybg&page=2?Why-not-make-every-new-race-Monstrous#742011-10-17T21:06:24Z2011-10-17T21:06:24Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">GoldenOpal wrote:</div><blockquote>For a special, rare race that flies or whatever, it makes sense to me to leave that in the realm of homebrew.</blockquote><p>Homebrew's exactly what this tool's supposed to facilitate, though, isn't it? This isn't (as far as I'm aware), a tool Paizo's going to be using for Adventure Paths. It won't be allowed in Pathfinder Society. I may have just misunderstood what you meant, though.GoldenOpal wrote:For a special, rare race that flies or whatever, it makes sense to me to leave that in the realm of homebrew.
Homebrew's exactly what this tool's supposed to facilitate, though, isn't it? This isn't (as far as I'm aware), a tool Paizo's going to be using for Adventure Paths. It won't be allowed in Pathfinder Society. I may have just misunderstood what you meant, though.Christina Morris (Jon Brazer Enterprises)2011-10-17T21:06:24ZRe: Forums: Advanced Race Guide Playtest: Why not make every new race Monstrous?GoldenOpalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mybg&page=2?Why-not-make-every-new-race-Monstrous#732011-10-17T20:20:16Z2011-10-17T20:20:16Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Kirth Gerson wrote:</div><blockquote><div class="messageboard-quotee">see wrote:</div><blockquote>Even in GURPS, points don't equal points. That's why there's an Unusual Background advantage in the game.</blockquote><p>-
</p>
If it costs points, and gives you access to goodies, then it would seem that points indeed = points. By analogy, instead of making a "monstrous racial trait" as an X-point prerequisite for a monstrous racial trait, we could just raise the prices for monstrous traits by X points to begin with, for the same net effect. (I'd prefer either one to the current situation.) Even if a single entry cost to the "monstrous" tier allowed purchasing of any number of monstrous traits (the cost being shared instead of applied to each one), they're still in effect costing more, and it would still allow costs to be pushed to where monstrous races pretty much had to be built from like 20 points, eliminating the OP's concerns. </blockquote><p>Looking at the GURPS system and why I don’t think allowing standard races to get advanced abilities is the best way to go, as far as baseline-RAW goes anyway...
<p>Unusual Background is for <i>a character</i> to <b>gain access</b> to abilities. You still have to spend the points for that ability – just pointing out an example of how GURPS utilizes balancing tiers. It does <b>not</b> only balance on a point=point basis. Which seems to be a misunderstanding of some of the posters here.</p>
<p>The other part is that in a game where your character has the Unusual Background trait, it represents you having a <i>rare</i> ability. That doesn’t make sense on the racial level. </p>
<p>Another point, using GURPS technology tiers as an example...[Spoiler omitted] </p>
<p>Tech levels are different than racial abilities in one important way. The utility of off-tech level stuff is only as useful/detrimental as the setting/game makes it. Sure you can get the future-tech pistol skill for example, but the setting/GM controls how useful that skill is by restricting its access and/or relevance. And you know that when you take that advantage. </p>
<p>PF racial abilities don’t work that way though. Well... they do to a point, but not really. Why would a <b>whole race</b> have evolved/be built for flying and speed in a cramped-underground-cities-world? For a special, rare race that flies or whatever, it makes sense to me to leave that in the realm of homebrew.</p>Kirth Gerson wrote:see wrote:Even in GURPS, points don't equal points. That's why there's an Unusual Background advantage in the game.
-
If it costs points, and gives you access to goodies, then it would seem that points indeed = points. By analogy, instead of making a "monstrous racial trait" as an X-point prerequisite for a monstrous racial trait, we could just raise the prices for monstrous traits by X points to begin with, for the same net effect. (I'd prefer either one to the current...GoldenOpal2011-10-17T20:20:16ZRe: Forums: Advanced Race Guide Playtest: Why not make every new race Monstrous?Realmwalkerhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mybg&page=2?Why-not-make-every-new-race-Monstrous#722011-10-17T19:26:54Z2011-10-13T18:37:16Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Kirth Gersen wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Realmwalker wrote:</div><blockquote> You are way off base about those of us on the boards as well, we care about game balance otherwise there would be no need for a public playtest. </blockquote><p>Sorry — not ignoring you above, just wanted to answer posts in order.
<p>All I can say is that more than one person has voiced the suspicion that "open playtest" is really mostly "free advance publicity." I'm not saying that's totally true, but the number of times in the past that Jason has replied to what seemed like potentially legitimate concerns with things like "I understand your issue, but it's not going to change, this thread is locked" suggests that identifying bugs isn't necessarily the primary purpose.</p>
<p>I should also point out the threads choked with comments like "I don't care a fig about balance," and "balance is impossible, so don't bother," and "balance is meaningless because a good GM will still make the game fun for everyone." If you, personally, care about game balance in any manner (whether or not you agree with me on it), I strongly believe you're in a minority. </blockquote><p>First of all I've been involved in playtesting since the Magus and most of the locked threads have been boarderline troll attempts, not all but most. The single thread that was locked in this particular thread was a troll attempt as it was nothing but complaints and had nothing to do with the actual playtesting of the product.
<p>Each of the playtests did what they were intended to do give feed back to the devs on the product in hand so that they could fix each of the items. The Magus round 1 was horribly under powered and is now a good choice to play, the Gunslinger was also underpowered round 1, the Ninja was slightly overpowered the Samurai was actually on target. The current versions have all improved from round one. </p>
<p>Why is that? because enough people do actually care about game balance and they give good accurate feedback in these playtest threads, the DEVs listen to this and for the most part alter the product based off the feedback given.</p>
<p>Threads in the Playtest section that go off saying that Paizo does not care about game balance and that it is only a way to get publicity should be locked because it has nothing to do with the actual playtest, it gives absolutly no useful information. </p>
<p>I am personally happy and thankful that Paizo trusts it's customers enough to do a public playtest, it does show that they care what our opinions are. Seeing how everything from the Magus Playtest to this one shows they actually listen to our feedback and care what we say.</p>
<p>In a couple of threads in this playtest a major concern was brought up and the Devs acknowledged it a said they would work on a fix. Showing that the feedback was useful and was listened to.</p>Kirth Gersen wrote:Realmwalker wrote: You are way off base about those of us on the boards as well, we care about game balance otherwise there would be no need for a public playtest.
Sorry -- not ignoring you above, just wanted to answer posts in order. All I can say is that more than one person has voiced the suspicion that "open playtest" is really mostly "free advance publicity." I'm not saying that's totally true, but the number of times in the past that Jason has replied to what seemed...Realmwalker2011-10-13T18:37:16ZRe: Forums: Advanced Race Guide Playtest: Why not make every new race Monstrous?Darkholmehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mybg&page=2?Why-not-make-every-new-race-Monstrous#712011-10-13T13:09:32Z2011-10-13T13:09:32Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">TOZ wrote:</div><blockquote> You know, the similarities between us and Trinam are amazing. </blockquote><p>Yep. We seem to agree with eachother alot about the game, and we even used to look alike.
<p>Its pretty odd considering I've never personally met either of you. I imagine we'd make a pretty kickass gaming group. Kirth could play too.</p>TOZ wrote:You know, the similarities between us and Trinam are amazing.
Yep. We seem to agree with eachother alot about the game, and we even used to look alike. Its pretty odd considering I've never personally met either of you. I imagine we'd make a pretty kickass gaming group. Kirth could play too.Darkholme2011-10-13T13:09:32ZRe: Forums: Advanced Race Guide Playtest: Why not make every new race Monstrous?TOZ (alias of TriOmegaZero)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mybg&page=2?Why-not-make-every-new-race-Monstrous#702011-10-13T06:19:35Z2011-10-13T06:19:35Z<p>You know, the similarities between us and Trinam are amazing.</p>You know, the similarities between us and Trinam are amazing.TOZ (alias of TriOmegaZero)2011-10-13T06:19:35ZRe: Forums: Advanced Race Guide Playtest: Why not make every new race Monstrous?Darkholmehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mybg&page=2?Why-not-make-every-new-race-Monstrous#692011-10-13T05:27:20Z2011-10-13T05:27:20Z<p>@Kirth: I Care about balance...</p>
<p>But I also don't run the game straight out of the box.. and I started going through lists of paizo feats and banning the ones that were too strong, or too weak. and there were alot more I removed for being too weak than the other way around. I told the players "If youre really interested in the RP value of one of these feats (its certainly less than 4 - lol) we can figure out how to rewrite the thing to be in a reasonable power range."</p>
<p>And for my spring game, I've started assembling my own altered core book of ogl stuff (mostly prd stuff, but not entirely), and I imagine when its done, my PF Core book, and APG will only get used when I'm a player in someone else's game.</p>
<p>But you're right, I'm probably in the minority.</p>
<p>If I dont like the race balancing system they come up with (if I don't think it's got balanced costs, or I think its too limited to do the things I'd want to use it for), and I dont see anything else worth getting in the book, I just won't buy it. I mean, it really depends on the final product. But if I dont think its any better than the tools we already have (VoodooMike/Golden, LPJ, UK's CCRs) then I'll either keep using those other tools, or Ill write my own.</p>
<p>Now, its also entirely possible that I will dislike the race creation system, but like the rest of the material enough to go out and buy it for that, but given that the race creation system is the primary interest I have in the product, hoping the rest of the material is enough to ensure a purchase from me isnt necessarily reliable, as I know virtually nothing about the other material yet.</p>@Kirth: I Care about balance...
But I also don't run the game straight out of the box.. and I started going through lists of paizo feats and banning the ones that were too strong, or too weak. and there were alot more I removed for being too weak than the other way around. I told the players "If youre really interested in the RP value of one of these feats (its certainly less than 4 - lol) we can figure out how to rewrite the thing to be in a reasonable power range."
And for my spring game,...Darkholme2011-10-13T05:27:20ZRe: Forums: Advanced Race Guide Playtest: Why not make every new race Monstrous?Kirth Gersenhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mybg&page=2?Why-not-make-every-new-race-Monstrous#682011-10-13T03:08:41Z2011-10-13T03:08:41Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">see wrote:</div><blockquote> Even in GURPS, points don't equal points. That's why there's an Unusual Background advantage in the game. </blockquote><p>If it costs points, and gives you access to goodies, then it would seem that points indeed = points. By analogy, instead of making a "monstrous racial trait" as an X-point prerequisite for a monstrous racial trait, we could just raise the prices for monstrous traits by X points to begin with, for the same net effect. (I'd prefer either one to the current situation.) Even if a single entry cost to the "monstrous" tier allowed purchasing of any number of monstrous traits (the cost being shared instead of applied to each one), they're still in effect costing more, and it would still allow costs to be pushed to where monstrous races pretty much had to be built from like 20 points, eliminating the OP's concerns.see wrote:Even in GURPS, points don't equal points. That's why there's an Unusual Background advantage in the game.
If it costs points, and gives you access to goodies, then it would seem that points indeed = points. By analogy, instead of making a "monstrous racial trait" as an X-point prerequisite for a monstrous racial trait, we could just raise the prices for monstrous traits by X points to begin with, for the same net effect. (I'd prefer either one to the current situation.) Even if a...Kirth Gersen2011-10-13T03:08:41ZRe: Forums: Advanced Race Guide Playtest: Why not make every new race Monstrous?seehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mybg&page=2?Why-not-make-every-new-race-Monstrous#672011-10-17T19:24:22Z2011-10-13T02:59:01Z<p>Even in GURPS, points don't equal points. That's why there's an Unusual Background advantage in the game.</p>Even in GURPS, points don't equal points. That's why there's an Unusual Background advantage in the game.see2011-10-13T02:59:01ZRe: Forums: Advanced Race Guide Playtest: Why not make every new race Monstrous?Kirth Gersenhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mybg&page=2?Why-not-make-every-new-race-Monstrous#662011-10-13T02:50:14Z2011-10-13T02:50:14Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Realmwalker wrote:</div><blockquote> You are way off base about those of us on the boards as well, we care about game balance otherwise there would be no need for a public playtest. </blockquote><p>Sorry — not ignoring you above, just wanted to answer posts in order.
<p>All I can say is that more than one person has voiced the suspicion that "open playtest" is really mostly "free advance publicity." I'm not saying that's totally true, but the number of times in the past that Jason has replied to what seemed like potentially legitimate concerns with things like "I understand your issue, but it's not going to change, this thread is locked" suggests that identifying bugs isn't necessarily the primary purpose.</p>
<p>I should also point out the threads choked with comments like "I don't care a fig about balance," and "balance is impossible, so don't bother," and "balance is meaningless because a good GM will still make the game fun for everyone." If you, personally, care about game balance in any manner (whether or not you agree with me on it), I strongly believe you're in a minority.</p>Realmwalker wrote:You are way off base about those of us on the boards as well, we care about game balance otherwise there would be no need for a public playtest.
Sorry -- not ignoring you above, just wanted to answer posts in order. All I can say is that more than one person has voiced the suspicion that "open playtest" is really mostly "free advance publicity." I'm not saying that's totally true, but the number of times in the past that Jason has replied to what seemed like potentially...Kirth Gersen2011-10-13T02:50:14ZRe: Forums: Advanced Race Guide Playtest: Why not make every new race Monstrous?Kirth Gersenhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mybg&page=2?Why-not-make-every-new-race-Monstrous#652011-10-13T02:45:44Z2011-10-13T02:45:44Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">GoldenOpal wrote:</div><blockquote><p> A warrior is not a commoner.
</p>
</blockquote><p>And that's yet a second issue, that a CR 5 Commoner is inferior in every way to a CR 5 Warrior... that says to me that the Commoner class needs a steeper CR reduction, not that comparing them is "impossible."GoldenOpal wrote:A warrior is not a commoner.
And that's yet a second issue, that a CR 5 Commoner is inferior in every way to a CR 5 Warrior... that says to me that the Commoner class needs a steeper CR reduction, not that comparing them is "impossible."Kirth Gersen2011-10-13T02:45:44ZRe: Forums: Advanced Race Guide Playtest: Why not make every new race Monstrous?Realmwalkerhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mybg&page=2?Why-not-make-every-new-race-Monstrous#642011-10-13T00:25:34Z2011-10-13T00:25:34Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Kirth Gersen wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
And they can do that and sell a lot of books, too, <b>because no one on these boards actually cares the slightest bit about game balance</b> anyway, except maybe me and one or two others. No one buys Paizo products for balanced game rules design. They buy out of brand loyalty, or because Paizo is the biggest player still producing 3.X material, or because they like the adventure writers and are willing to do the work themselves of converting those adventures to a more rigorous rule set (I'm in the latter group), or some combination of the three. </blockquote><p>If the bolded were true then we would not be having all the discussions we are having on the playtest boards. You are way off base about those of us on the boards as well, we care about game balance otherwise there would be no need for a public playtest. Remember just because they do not agree with <b>YOUR</b> view on game balance does NOT mean we do not care about it.Kirth Gersen wrote:And they can do that and sell a lot of books, too, because no one on these boards actually cares the slightest bit about game balance anyway, except maybe me and one or two others. No one buys Paizo products for balanced game rules design. They buy out of brand loyalty, or because Paizo is the biggest player still producing 3.X material, or because they like the adventure writers and are willing to do the work themselves of converting those adventures to a more rigorous...Realmwalker2011-10-13T00:25:34ZRe: Forums: Advanced Race Guide Playtest: Why not make every new race Monstrous?Nipinhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mybg&page=2?Why-not-make-every-new-race-Monstrous#632011-10-17T19:23:32Z2011-10-12T23:40:41Z<p>In the sidebar which discusses why different traits are designated standard, advanced, or monstrous a house-rule suggestion could be made. Perhaps the designers suggest the following:
<br />
<ul>
<br />
<li>double point cost for choosing advanced traits as a standard race
<br />
<li>double point cost for choosing monstrous traits as an advanced race. <li>triple cost for choosing monstrous traits as a standard race.
<br />
</ul></p>
<p>This is obviously outside of the intended use of the system. The system is balanced around each type of race choosing from their category or lower categories in the hierarchy. The optional rule attempts to keep a <b>simple</b> system in place for balance, but should note that GMs should more closely monitor the power of builds which utilize higher category traits as compared to other options. These rules are heavily governed by the tried and true smell test. The system is really a starting point to begin building your own custom races. Rules should be simple and relatively balanced, but perfect balance does not exist. This is why the section in Ultimate Magic about creating spells specifically says to compare your custom spell with spells from the CRB.</p>In the sidebar which discusses why different traits are designated standard, advanced, or monstrous a house-rule suggestion could be made. Perhaps the designers suggest the following:
double point cost for choosing advanced traits as a standard race
double point cost for choosing monstrous traits as an advanced race. triple cost for choosing monstrous traits as a standard race.
This is obviously outside of the intended use of the system. The system is balanced around each type of race...Nipin2011-10-12T23:40:41ZRe: Forums: Advanced Race Guide Playtest: Why not make every new race Monstrous?Christina Morris (Jon Brazer Enterprises)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mybg&page=2?Why-not-make-every-new-race-Monstrous#622011-10-13T05:12:34Z2011-10-12T23:30:37Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">GoldenOpal wrote:</div><blockquote>Where I am coming from is... I see the bolded statements as contradictory. That is why it is coming off to me like you are confused. Either there is no reason or there are reasons you almost agree with.</blockquote><p>I'm not confused, but I didn't choose my words well. What I meant, I suppose, is that I can understand that a lot of DMs would simply assume flight is too powerful, and Paizo probably does too, which is why the ability is "off-limits," but I don't agree with that. I don't think there's any good reason to declare the ability off-limits when you can use the point system to create the same general result while still letting a DM that cares to have a race with fewer abilities that can fly. It should be priced such that for a "typical" race, it's difficult to acquire it, but it should, in theory, be possible for a race to exist that has flight and has to give up a lot just to have it.
<p>To illustrate what I mean: imagine that flight cost 8 RP. With the standard linguist array, a standard race would only have 1 RP to play with if they were Medium. Now, the race in my game happens to be small, and has a 20 ft. base speed. They also have penalties to both Strength and Constitution (and bonuses to Dexterity and Charimsa), which isn't an array specifically called out, but let's say it's worth -1 RP to be conservative. That leaves the race with a few points to gain a variant Gnome Magic (1 RP), and have room for a skill bonus or another pair of 1 RP abilities.</p>
<p>The Large size trait already works like this. It's available to races of all power levels for a huge cost of 7 points. There aren't going to be many races with that trait as a result, meaning that it's far from "standard," but a DM that wanted to could still build a Large race of the proper power level for his game, though they won't have as many individual bonuses as another race might.</p>
<p>So, in short, what I mean is that there's no good reason to classify abilities in tiers as Paizo's done when we already have a point system that can accomplish the same general purpose without also replacing our Legos with shoehorns.</p>
<p>Is that more clear?</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">GoldenOpal wrote:</div><blockquote>But how is that possible? Anything I can think to compare flight to only illustrates how overpowered it is in comparison to the core races abilities. I’m not saying if I can’t find a way there isn’t a way. I’m no game designer either, but if I was going to demand something, I’d at least have some reasoning behind believing it was possible. </blockquote><p>Flight's most powerful from about levels 1-7. After that point, it takes a sharp decline in power as flight becomes readily available to spellcasters, and thus to the rest of the party when necessary as well. My general reason for believing it was possible is that I've had this flying race in my game for about eight years now, and there have never been any grievous imbalances. I've played in other games with flying races as well and have found the experience to be the same.
<p>That may only be the case for the tables I've played at, but it leads me to believe that flight should be available as a standard ability—this is why we have the points. Even if it costs 10 points to take, setting it at the "advanced" threshold, a race with weaker ability score modifiers, a xenophobic array for languages, or some weakness such as light blindness could have it and be on par with the core races. They're giving up a •lot• for the ability to fly (and they don't even get good maneuverability with it).</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Golden Opal wrote:</div><blockquote>I think it is dangerous to compare racial abilities to class abilities in this context. What adventurers with character class levels can do is not balanced against what commoners can do. Do you really not see how a race where every bum off the street has the advantages of being a quadruped and super speed (I can only hope that is all they get. Tell me they don’t have claws too.) is not balanced with your average human or dwarf bum? I assume not, so I’m interested in hearing what disadvantages you implemented to bring them in line. Or maybe it doesn’t bother you which is fine too.</blockquote><p>Races shouldn't be ultimately balanced according to NPC classes in the first place. Racial balance is important for the PCs relative to one another and relative to the challenges they will face as part of the campaign. Indeed, this could be said for balance across the entirety of the game.
<p>I'll pull my litorians as an example (though this is judging by my previous attempts at balancing the races, without respect to the playtest rules). They have a standard +2/+2/-2 ability score array (0 RP); they're Medium (0 RP). They've got fast speed (1 RP, advanced); low-light vision (1 RP); +2 Perception/Survival (4 RP); variant stonecunning applying to runes like glyph of warding (1 RP); variant fiendish sorcery that applies to wizard/magus for their Intelligence (2 RP since it's broader than the base ability); and weapon familiarity (1 RP). They pay 1 RP for the standard languages array.</p>
<p>So, my litorians clock in at 11 points as an advanced race. Now granted, they have a couple abilities I'm pricing ad hoc since they aren't listed, but this is a race I wrote up a few years ago. Now, assuming, for instance, that the price of skill bonuses may change (it seems high), and the prices for languages may change (it's also inflated, to make sure humans hit that "magic" 10 point spot), this race would be about spot on if, say, fast speed was worth 2 RP instead of just 1 (if you doubled advanced ability costs, or something).</p>
<p>I've had one player play a Litorian (a ranger), and his higher base speed meant he was able to wear medium armor and keep up with the rest of the group. That's certainly a nice benefit, but it certainly didn't make him markedly better than say, a dwarf. Dwarves get a lot of racial traits (and most evaluations of them that don't attempt to shoehorn them into 10 points place them at 12 or 13 points), so I can't see how moving at 40 feet autmatically makes my litorians too good to play alongside dwarves.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">GoldenOpal wrote:</div><blockquote><p>Again I’m sorry. I wasn’t trying to make you feel bad. (Paizo was, but those guys are jerks. ;P) It seems to me you are a good homebrewer that, like I said before, doesn’t need or want to use the race guide, but wishes you did. That is part of what I didn’t get. It makes more sense now that you’ve explained how much of a fanboy (in the nerd-positive sense) you are.</p>
<p>Yeah, some of your races aren’t balanced with the established ‘standard’. Don’t feel bad about it. Paizo is most likely going to put out a book that isn’t targeted to you. Don’t feel bad about it. Really don’t let this make you reconsider playing the game. So your friend wants to use one of your advanced races? Just tell her you’ve found them balanced (except maybe the flying one :P) and let her group make their own judgment call.</blockquote><p>My biggest problem is that there's no real reason I should need to feel bad about it. The standard/advanced/monstrous tiers as hard "don't cross this line" boundaries serve no real purpose that the point system cannot serve on its own.
<p>Imagine instead a system that relied entirely on RP to determine a particular trait's power. That system would have a set of guidelines explaining that standard races range from 7 or 8 RP (the halfling) to 12 or 13 RP (the dwarf). Advanced races, by contrast, range from 12 or 13 RP to 20 RP (or some other number), and then monstrous races, things really outside the norm, tend to have 25 or more points (or again, whatever number, really, so long as the points take that number into account).</p>
<p>This gives DMs like myself the greatest freedom to design our races in such a way that fits our worlds, even if that might mean somebody has claws at 1st level (which, incidentally, is entirely possible for a 1st level natural weapon style ranger, which also means that there's no •good• reason claws should be worth more than the 4 RP cost of a human's bonus feat). It also allows DMs to decide that their races won't have claws because they don't feel it's appropriate to their world.</p>
<p>In both of those situations, each DM is working within the established framework of the system. In Paizo's system, the first DM has to essentially ignore the system to get what he wants, and that also means that the RP costs provided for the advanced/monstrous abilities are of no use to him when balancing his races. He is, in effect, relying on his own judgement, and this means that the system as a whole offers him no value.</p>
<p>Why is it wrong to want Paizo to produce a product that has value to both kinds of DMs? Removing the "do not pass" nature of the tiers does not prevent or make more difficult any attempts to create "standard" races, and it opens up the product to a whole range of potential customers that would find little use to it otherwise.</p>GoldenOpal wrote:Where I am coming from is... I see the bolded statements as contradictory. That is why it is coming off to me like you are confused. Either there is no reason or there are reasons you almost agree with.
I'm not confused, but I didn't choose my words well. What I meant, I suppose, is that I can understand that a lot of DMs would simply assume flight is too powerful, and Paizo probably does too, which is why the ability is "off-limits," but I don't agree with that. I don't...Christina Morris (Jon Brazer Enterprises)2011-10-12T23:30:37ZRe: Forums: Advanced Race Guide Playtest: Why not make every new race Monstrous?Snorterhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mybg&page=2?Why-not-make-every-new-race-Monstrous#612011-10-12T23:20:01Z2011-10-12T23:20:01Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">TOZ wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Would it be more clear if you broke RP into separate pools? Standard, Advanced, and Monstrous? Maybe breakup the costs of higher abilities and have them require standard abilities?</p>
<p>Example:</p>
<p>You have 10 Standard RPs and 10 Advanced RPs.</p>
<p>An Advanced ability that costs 6 points in the current system could instead be split into a Standard and an Advanced ability, each of which cost 3 points from their respective catagory, and the Advanced ability has the Standard ability as a prereq. </blockquote><p>Having a Standard/Advanced/Monstrous variants of increasing power could work, especially for changes that are merely (or mostly) cosmetic.
<p>Eg, Horns;
<br />
GM: <i>"I just want my race to look slightly 'devilish', with some stubby blunt protuberances. I don't want or intend them all to be goring people to death, or tossing them into next week. I don't want them to be razor-sharp, dealing 2d100 bleed, with an 11-20 threat range.
<br />
I just want some flavor to justify their Intimidate bonus, that's all."</i></p>TOZ wrote:Would it be more clear if you broke RP into separate pools? Standard, Advanced, and Monstrous? Maybe breakup the costs of higher abilities and have them require standard abilities?
Example:
You have 10 Standard RPs and 10 Advanced RPs.
An Advanced ability that costs 6 points in the current system could instead be split into a Standard and an Advanced ability, each of which cost 3 points from their respective catagory, and the Advanced ability has the Standard ability as a
...Snorter2011-10-12T23:20:01ZRe: Forums: Advanced Race Guide Playtest: Why not make every new race Monstrous?Darkholmehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mybg&page=2?Why-not-make-every-new-race-Monstrous#602011-10-12T23:01:44Z2011-10-12T23:01:44Z<p>Here's two other game systems that use point buys besides gurps:
<br />
1. WoD: I'm sure lots of people are familiar with this one: New Dots x whatever.
<br />
2. Unisystem - A bit less known, so I'll mention some titles: All flesh must be Eaten, Conspiracy X, Dungeons and Zombies, Witchcraft, Armageddon, Buffy, Angel, Ghosts of Albion, Evil Dead, Terra Primate.
<br />
Also point buy, though depending on which one specifically youre looking at it might be new rating X number, or it might be X per rating, up to rank 5, different X per rating thereafter, or just straight up X per rating.</p>
<p>I don't have a big problem with New rating • X if its done well, though it tends to make things overpriced, and the costs increase too quickly. It encourages characters with +1 to everything, before they get a second +2.</p>Here's two other game systems that use point buys besides gurps:
1. WoD: I'm sure lots of people are familiar with this one: New Dots x whatever.
2. Unisystem - A bit less known, so I'll mention some titles: All flesh must be Eaten, Conspiracy X, Dungeons and Zombies, Witchcraft, Armageddon, Buffy, Angel, Ghosts of Albion, Evil Dead, Terra Primate.
Also point buy, though depending on which one specifically youre looking at it might be new rating X number, or it might be X per rating, up to...Darkholme2011-10-12T23:01:44ZRe: Forums: Advanced Race Guide Playtest: Why not make every new race Monstrous?GoldenOpalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mybg&page=2?Why-not-make-every-new-race-Monstrous#592011-10-12T22:44:31Z2011-10-12T22:44:31Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Kirth Gersen wrote:</div><blockquote> we're more or less explicitly told that a 5th level NPC Warrior is equivalent to a 2nd level PC Fighter, by way of the CR system. </blockquote><p>A warrior is not a commoner.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Kirth Gersen wrote:</div><blockquote> Any ability you'd care to name can be assigned a relative value, vis-a-vis every other ability. Is it difficult? Yes! Is it impossible? No, or games like GURPS would not exist.</blockquote><p>Have you played GURPS? You may have noticed a couple of things. First thing is that it is very complex. Second, it utilizes balancing tiers.Kirth Gersen wrote:we're more or less explicitly told that a 5th level NPC Warrior is equivalent to a 2nd level PC Fighter, by way of the CR system.
A warrior is not a commoner. Kirth Gersen wrote:Any ability you'd care to name can be assigned a relative value, vis-a-vis every other ability. Is it difficult? Yes! Is it impossible? No, or games like GURPS would not exist.
Have you played GURPS? You may have noticed a couple of things. First thing is that it is very complex. Second, it...GoldenOpal2011-10-12T22:44:31ZRe: Forums: Advanced Race Guide Playtest: Why not make every new race Monstrous?Darkholmehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mybg&page=2?Why-not-make-every-new-race-Monstrous#582011-10-12T22:28:18Z2011-10-12T22:28:18Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Shuriken Nekogami wrote:</div><blockquote> {i}would gladly remove Tiny/Large from the list.}</blockquote><p>As a GM, the ability to cover Large and Tiny creatures is one of the main draws of this sort of system. The fact that voodoomikes simply said you couldnt do it, basically meant to me "My Race Design System is of little use to you, other than a vague comparison of how good a few abilities are in relation to eachother."
<p>As a gm, I want to be able to include large and tiny. Ideally I should be able to shift the scale up a bit, make Large size the standard assumption, and offer huge, for an all-giants campaign or whatever. If I want to say: we're going to be using small and tiny races, instead of medium and small, it shouldn't be a pain to do, even if one guy wants to make a dwarf.</p>
<p>I don't agree with you that +4, -2 is better than +2 +2. +4, is better than +2 +2. Its a little better than +2 +2 +1, but its worse than +2 +3. As for how to represent that well in the rules elegantly and simply, that would take some pondering. The current "pick a stat array" method is kindof crappy in that it leads to a bunch of cases that you can't do without paying an outrageous amount for (like that kobold that someone built a few days ago).</p>Shuriken Nekogami wrote:{i}would gladly remove Tiny/Large from the list.}
As a GM, the ability to cover Large and Tiny creatures is one of the main draws of this sort of system. The fact that voodoomikes simply said you couldnt do it, basically meant to me "My Race Design System is of little use to you, other than a vague comparison of how good a few abilities are in relation to eachother." As a gm, I want to be able to include large and tiny. Ideally I should be able to shift the scale up a...Darkholme2011-10-12T22:28:18ZRe: Forums: Advanced Race Guide Playtest: Why not make every new race Monstrous?Kirth Gersenhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mybg&page=2?Why-not-make-every-new-race-Monstrous#572011-10-12T21:55:20Z2011-10-12T21:55:20Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">GoldenOpal wrote:</div><blockquote>What adventurers with character class levels can do is not balanced against what commoners can do. </blockquote><p>Except that they are; we're more or less explicitly told that a 5th level NPC Warrior is equivalent to a 2nd level PC Fighter, by way of the CR system. Any ability you'd care to name can be assigned a relative value, vis-a-vis every other ability. Is it difficult? Yes! Is it impossible? No, or games like GURPS would not exist.
<p>What Paizo is doing here is basically saying they want to make a GURPS-like system for race building and sell it, but that they're not up to writing GURPS-quality material, so they just throw some "balancing tiers" at the problem, assume that a 2-point standard ability is somehow undefinable in terms of advanced-level ability values, and trust the GM (as usual) to hand-wave everything into workability.</p>
<p>And they can do that and sell a lot of books, too, because no one on these boards actually cares the slightest bit about game balance anyway, except maybe me and one or two others. No one buys Paizo products for balanced game rules design. They buy out of brand loyalty, or because Paizo is the biggest player still producing 3.X material, or because they like the adventure writers and are willing to do the work themselves of converting those adventures to a more rigorous rule set (I'm in the latter group), or some combination of the three.</p>GoldenOpal wrote:What adventurers with character class levels can do is not balanced against what commoners can do.
Except that they are; we're more or less explicitly told that a 5th level NPC Warrior is equivalent to a 2nd level PC Fighter, by way of the CR system. Any ability you'd care to name can be assigned a relative value, vis-a-vis every other ability. Is it difficult? Yes! Is it impossible? No, or games like GURPS would not exist. What Paizo is doing here is basically saying they...Kirth Gersen2011-10-12T21:55:20ZRe: Forums: Advanced Race Guide Playtest: Why not make every new race Monstrous?GoldenOpalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mybg&page=2?Why-not-make-every-new-race-Monstrous#562011-10-12T21:40:33Z2011-10-12T21:40:33Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Kevin Morris wrote:</div><blockquote> <b>There is absolutely no reason that they can't design a point system that gives a value for claws (or fast, or whatever else) assuming you're giving it to a standard race.</b> If this means the average "advanced" ability doubles in cost, then they can simply increase the expected point values used for an advanced race. [...] <b>I can almost see the case for flight being locked out from standard races</b></blockquote><p>Where I am coming from is... I see the bolded statements as contradictory. That is why it is coming off to me like you are confused. Either there is no reason or there are reasons you almost agree with.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Kevin Morris wrote:</div><blockquote> It's not about "nerfing" my races. It's about being able to accurately represent them in a way that keeps them on level with the Core Races. [...] I would appreciate a book from the designers that helped me see how much flight is really worth [for a standard race]. </blockquote><p>But how is that possible? Anything I can think to compare flight to only illustrates how overpowered it is in comparison to the core races abilities. I’m not saying if I can’t find a way there isn’t a way. I’m no game designer either, but if I was going to demand something, I’d at least have some reasoning behind believing it was possible.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Kevin Morris wrote:</div><blockquote> I certainly can't see that case for claws when a level 1 sorcerer can grow claws, and there are a number of feats and archetypes that grant natural weapons of some kind. A level 1 barbarian can have a 40 ft. land speed—why can't a race of lion-men?</blockquote><p>I think it is dangerous to compare racial abilities to class abilities in this context. What adventurers with character class levels can do is not balanced against what commoners can do. Do you really not see how a race where every bum off the street has the advantages of being a quadruped and super speed (I can only hope that is all they get. Tell me they don’t have claws too.) is not balanced with your average human or dwarf bum? I assume not, so I’m interested in hearing what disadvantages you implemented to bring them in line. Or maybe it doesn’t bother you which is fine too.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Kevin Morris wrote:</div><blockquote> Also keep in mind that most races who take claws are going to be looking at something like d4 damage, which no respectable fighter is going to use as his primary weapons when he can pick up kukris and have an expanded threat range to boot. </blockquote><p>Here is a good example of why what I said above can’t be stressed enough. <b> What adventurers with character class levels can do is not balanced against what commoners can do. </b> Most lion-men are not fighters, respectable or otherwise. Regardless it is not the damage or threat range that makes claws powerful, it is them being two free permanent weapons that aren’t subject to TWF penalties.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Kevin Morris wrote:</div><blockquote> I guess that's my fault for wanting to buck the trend and have a world where a number of the monstrous standards aren't monsters at all, but developed cultural members of a greater society.</blockquote><p>I think this an unfortunate attitude to have. Please understand you are the one who is drawing the distinction between monstrous and a developed culture, not Paizo. All the monstrous category does is describe the relative power level.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Kevin Morris wrote:</div><blockquote> For shame...</blockquote><p>Okay. I’m sorry. I’m sorry. You can stand up straight and remove the back of your hand from your forehead now.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Kevin Morris wrote:</div><blockquote> In a way, they're telling me my races aren't appropriate for the standard game. [...]If Paizo truly has the "holier than thou" attitude that you seem to do in this instance, GoldenOpal, it's going to really bother me. [...]Advanced Races Guide is the first book I've seriously considered not purchasing, and I'm the type of person that takes brand loyalty in his RPGs very seriously. </blockquote><p>Again I’m sorry. I wasn’t trying to make you feel bad. (Paizo was, but those guys are jerks. ;P) It seems to me you are a good homebrewer that, like I said before, doesn’t need or want to use the race guide, but wishes you did. That is part of what I didn’t get. It makes more sense now that you’ve explained how much of a fanboy (in the nerd-positive sense) you are.
<p>Yeah, some of your races aren’t balanced with the established ‘standard’. Don’t feel bad about it. Paizo is most likely going to put out a book that isn’t targeted to you. Don’t feel bad about it. Really don’t let this make you reconsider playing the game. So your friend wants to use one of your advanced races? Just tell her you’ve found them balanced (except maybe the flying one :P) and let her group make their own judgment call.</p>Kevin Morris wrote:There is absolutely no reason that they can't design a point system that gives a value for claws (or fast, or whatever else) assuming you're giving it to a standard race. If this means the average "advanced" ability doubles in cost, then they can simply increase the expected point values used for an advanced race. [...] I can almost see the case for flight being locked out from standard races
Where I am coming from is... I see the bolded statements as contradictory. That...GoldenOpal2011-10-12T21:40:33ZRe: Forums: Advanced Race Guide Playtest: Why not make every new race Monstrous?Maurilhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mybg&page=2?Why-not-make-every-new-race-Monstrous#552011-10-13T04:59:28Z2011-10-12T17:54:57Z<p>Someone said it above and I think it's my biggest problem so far with this system (which I absolutely love the concept for). All RP are not created equal, which seems silly to me. If 1 RP doesn't equal 1 RP elsewhere, something should change, and I think it should be the RP values.</p>
<p>The tiers, as they stand, aren't real limitations. The only real limitations are RP values and the APL adjustment table. If the new race doesn't breach 15 RP, then it will likely have zero effect on the APL of the group, meaning that it should be treated as balanced to the normal races. If that APL adjustment table had said "standard", "advanced" and "monstrous" instead of listing RP values, then the tiers would have had a mechanical effect on the game.</p>
<p>If the attempt with the tiers is to keep things out of the range of races that are supposed to be balanced with the core races, then price them that way. Things that "standard" level races should have should be priced so that standard level races can get them. Things that standard level races shouldn't have should be priced so that standard level races can't afford them and still be a reasonable race. Since this is a GM tool, "reasonable" is a term that can apply. If I spend only 10 RP but only have a single ability and four drawbacks to make afford it, that's not a reasonable race. If I have one ability that's currently advanced tier and two abilities that are currently standard tier instead of five standard tier abilities, I see that as probably reasonable.</p>
<p>If certain abilities are just too powerful for "standard" races to have, give them pre-requisites of lower level powers. If Paizo thinks flight is too good for a standard race, then make flight be an upgrade from a gliding ability. Energy immunity too much? Require that you take a few levels of energy resistance first. Things quickly price themselves out of the range of standard races.</p>
<p>You then say, "Anything that uses more than X RP points is considered an advanced race and causes an APL adjustment according to the following table". You then give the table that's at the beginning of the playtest document indicating how RP totals affect APL.</p>
<p>This opens all abilities to all races from the beginning, with consequences for spending more than X RP. You just can't not get several advanced or monstrous abilities without spending more than X points.</p>Someone said it above and I think it's my biggest problem so far with this system (which I absolutely love the concept for). All RP are not created equal, which seems silly to me. If 1 RP doesn't equal 1 RP elsewhere, something should change, and I think it should be the RP values.
The tiers, as they stand, aren't real limitations. The only real limitations are RP values and the APL adjustment table. If the new race doesn't breach 15 RP, then it will likely have zero effect on the APL of the...Mauril2011-10-12T17:54:57ZRe: Forums: Advanced Race Guide Playtest: Why not make every new race Monstrous?Christina Morris (Jon Brazer Enterprises)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mybg&page=2?Why-not-make-every-new-race-Monstrous#542011-10-12T21:48:54Z2011-10-12T17:44:56Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">GoldenOpal wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
It sounds like the main complaint you have is Paizo’s idea of ‘relatively balanced’ is underpowered compared to yours at least as far as certain abilities are concerned. So you want to use a system to fine tune your homebrew races, but only if the fine tuning doesn’t involve nurfing your races – that is unless you agree it is overpowered but built it that way anyway and called it balanced. You are sure you’re not confused? ;) </blockquote><p>There is absolutely no reason that they can't design a point system that gives a value for claws (or fast, or whatever else) assuming you're giving it to a standard race. If this means the average "advanced" ability doubles in cost, then they can simply increase the expected point values used for an advanced race.
<p>It's not about "nerfing" my races. It's about being able to accurately represent them in a way that keeps them on level with the Core Races. My race with flight has fewer abilities than other races primarily because flight is so good. But I would appreciate a book from the designers that helped me see how much flight is really worth.</p>
<p>For a race balanced with the core races, in the current system, flight is currently "priceless." I can almost see the case for flight being locked out from standard races, but I certainly can't see that case for claws when a level 1 sorcerer can grow claws, and there are a number of feats and archetypes that grant natural weapons of some kind. A level 1 barbarian can have a 40 ft. land speed—why can't a race of lion-men?</p>
<p>Also keep in mind that most races who take claws are going to be looking at something like d4 damage, which no respectable fighter is going to use as his primary weapons when he can pick up kukris and have an expanded threat range to boot. Claws are not so good that they have to be limited to "special" races. They really aren't.</p>
<p>Any point system of this nature is going to have a certain amount of arbitration involved within it, but Paizo's simply gone too far toward enforcing their own vision of what you can do with a "standard" race. But I guess that's my fault for wanting to buck the trend and have a world where a number of the monstrous standards aren't monsters at all, but developed cultural members of a greater society.</p>
<p>For shame that my kobolds would dare to have claws and consider themselves no more powerful than an elf! And for shame for me for wanting to be sure that if someone liked what I did with my kobolds and wanted to introduce them to his or her game that they would be balanced with the other core races. Likewise for the litorians and the kenku, who outpace a human by 10 feet a round due to their natural celerity.</p>
<p>I've striven to balance these races with the other standard ones, and rarely have my players complained about the balance between them. (I can only think of one instance, which was simply due to synergies instead of actual abilities Paizo classifies as "advanced.") But, I'm no professional designer, and I look to Paizo for guidance as always when handling the mechanical aspects of my world.</p>
<p>In a way, they're telling me my races aren't appropriate for the standard game. For someone that likes to avoid house rules where possible and stay within established frameworks, the Race Builder had me very excited, as it would allow me to both keep the homebrew races I've grown to be very fond of •and• stick to that Pathfinder framework.</p>
<p>Except it doesn't do that at all because I stepped just the left of center with my race design. (Okay, flight might be one step further, but it's the outlier here.)</p>
<p>If Paizo truly has the "holier than thou" attitude that you seem to do in this instance, GoldenOpal, it's going to really bother me. Will it keep me from playing Pathfinder? I doubt it, but the Advanced Races Guide is the first book I've seriously considered not purchasing, and I'm the type of person that takes brand loyalty in his RPGs very seriously.</p>GoldenOpal wrote:It sounds like the main complaint you have is Paizo’s idea of ‘relatively balanced’ is underpowered compared to yours at least as far as certain abilities are concerned. So you want to use a system to fine tune your homebrew races, but only if the fine tuning doesn’t involve nurfing your races – that is unless you agree it is overpowered but built it that way anyway and called it balanced. You are sure you’re not confused? ;)
There is absolutely no reason that they can't...Christina Morris (Jon Brazer Enterprises)2011-10-12T17:44:56ZRe: Forums: Advanced Race Guide Playtest: Why not make every new race Monstrous?GoldenOpalhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mybg&page=2?Why-not-make-every-new-race-Monstrous#532011-10-12T15:47:41Z2011-10-12T15:47:41Z<p>@Kevin Morris: Sorry, I did not read your post as complaining, but as confusion. </p>
<p>It sounds like the main complaint you have is Paizo’s idea of ‘relatively balanced’ is underpowered compared to yours at least as far as certain abilities are concerned. So you want to use a system to fine tune your homebrew races, but only if the fine tuning doesn’t involve nurfing your races – that is unless you agree it is overpowered but built it that way anyway and called it balanced. You are sure you’re not confused? ;) </p>
<p>My heart goes out to the designers. Think about it. They are trying to keep you happy. On the other side there are those who are calling for nurfs because they got mixed-up and added advanced options to their standard races. If you can build ~18 races that you are happy with even if they aren’t balanced - by your own standard mind you – and be happy... and find any official rules that conflict with your homebrewed vision to make the system and thus the book useless in its entirety... </p>
<p>I think I see where you are coming from. If I’m correct about that, frankly I don’t think you should spend the $40. Say Paizo changed everything you’d like to see changed exactly the way you’d do it. Why pay them for a ruleset you already have in your mind? Browse your friend’s copy for inspiration or whatever and keep doing what you are doing. This book is not for you. You either won’t need it or won’t want it. Take that $40 and buy your group pizza or something.</p>@Kevin Morris: Sorry, I did not read your post as complaining, but as confusion.
It sounds like the main complaint you have is Paizo’s idea of ‘relatively balanced’ is underpowered compared to yours at least as far as certain abilities are concerned. So you want to use a system to fine tune your homebrew races, but only if the fine tuning doesn’t involve nurfing your races – that is unless you agree it is overpowered but built it that way anyway and called it balanced. You are sure you’re...GoldenOpal2011-10-12T15:47:41ZRe: Forums: Advanced Race Guide Playtest: Why not make every new race Monstrous?Foghammerhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mybg&page=2?Why-not-make-every-new-race-Monstrous#522011-10-12T14:43:37Z2011-10-12T14:43:37Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Thalin wrote:</div><blockquote> Natural armor is +2 for 1st point and +1 each additional. </blockquote><p>I don't think you read it right. Natural armor costs 2 RP for a +1 bonus, and may be taken up to the three times (as a standard race) for a total of +3 Natural Armor at 6 RP.Thalin wrote:Natural armor is +2 for 1st point and +1 each additional.
I don't think you read it right. Natural armor costs 2 RP for a +1 bonus, and may be taken up to the three times (as a standard race) for a total of +3 Natural Armor at 6 RP.Foghammer2011-10-12T14:43:37ZRe: Forums: Advanced Race Guide Playtest: Why not make every new race Monstrous?Christina Morris (Jon Brazer Enterprises)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mybg&page=2?Why-not-make-every-new-race-Monstrous#512011-10-12T13:50:21Z2011-10-12T13:50:21Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">GoldenOpal wrote:</div><blockquote>The rules don’t cover ‘RP tier exchange rates’. The power levels are there to tell you that 1 RP for a standard power level ability does not equal 1 RP for an advanced ability. If you want to build an ‘otherwise standard race with X advanced ability’ you have to houserule how that works with the understanding that no matter how much you increase Fast’s RP cost, that race is probably not going to be well balanced against the core races or other races that only have standard options. </blockquote><p>The reason I asked the question I did was because earlier there was some indication that Paizo had heard and was going to perhaps listen to our feedback in this regard. Since you're not a designer, you can't directly answer the question, but to respond...
<p>I know exactly how the system works right now. The problem is that I don't like the way it works, as it makes it useless to me. I can •already• eyeball races with abilities slightly outside the norm and balance them with the core races in a very rough sense.</p>
<p>My setting has 18 races, most of which are homebrewed to some extent or another (some are variants, but most were created from scratch). Six of these have abilities Paizo has classified as advanced, and I've been using them for around eight years now, largely unmodified. There have never been any balance problems with these races, and in fact, hardly any of them have ever been played.</p>
<p>Some advanced abilities, like flight, should probably stay there (though to be honest, one of my races has that, too). But others, like claws or fast speed, really don't need to be separated as they are. If Paizo decides to keep things separated like this, I'd have to largely ignore the system (and therefore the book, since alternate race options for races I don't use isn't that useful to me). I can already do what I'd be doing if I weren't following the system properly without spending $40 dollars on this book.</p>
<p>I'd like to be able to purchase it and be able to use it to really fine tune my races, as I'm sure they're not •perfectly• balanced, but they're certainly close enough that if the book won't help me with that, I don't need to buy it, especially when it's very likely to end up on the Reference Document at some point.</p>
<p>Does that give you a better sense of where I'm coming from?</p>GoldenOpal wrote:The rules don’t cover ‘RP tier exchange rates’. The power levels are there to tell you that 1 RP for a standard power level ability does not equal 1 RP for an advanced ability. If you want to build an ‘otherwise standard race with X advanced ability’ you have to houserule how that works with the understanding that no matter how much you increase Fast’s RP cost, that race is probably not going to be well balanced against the core races or other races that only have standard...Christina Morris (Jon Brazer Enterprises)2011-10-12T13:50:21Z