One of my solutions:
Quadruped, Lesser (2 RP): Prerequisites: Any type except humanoid, Medium size or smaller; Benefit: Members of this race possess four legs and two arms, granting them a +4 racial bonus to CMD against trip attempts and a +10 foot bonus to their base speed. In addition, members of this race use weapons and armor as if they were a size smaller. For example, a medium lesser quadruped would use small weapons and armor.
Special: The number of legs can be increased by 2 for each additional 1 RP spent. Each such increase grants an additional +1 racial bonus to CMD against trip attempts, but no other bonus.
The race building chapter should have been its own book; I would've gladly bought a racial archetype/feat/equipment book with a ton of art reprints and a race building book. I guess Paizo's afraid of going 'weird' with their options. Shame.
On a lighter note, I'm eager to see what the 3PPs offer for the new options.
Already in another thread someone asked if Dwarves should count as one level higher because of their RP value
I think a big problem there is the fact that the "cutoff" is a little too stringent. You could easily make a creature with 12RP that underperforms compared to, say, Humans.
I've opted to simply treat the <10RP = "standard" as more of a guideline than a rule.
By the same token, I've had no problem slapping "Advanced" traits onto "Standard" creatures provided they stay within the basic point cost boundaries (no such joy with some of the Monstrous rules, of course). And a lot of the prerequisites I have opted to simply throw out the window.
One thing I kinda wish had been available? Additional ability score penalties. Might just be my old 2E experience bleeding through, but I feel offering up a couple of points (say, 2 or 3) for a non-repeatable -2 to an additional ability score would have left more room for some of the wilder ideas.
Far too many of the weaknesses seem to revolve around sunlight. Yes, it's a time-honored fantasy element... but additional vulnerabilities are out there (a species with brittle bones that is more susceptible to bludgeoning attacks or force effects, for example, or a species with sensory limitations).
I feel it's a system with a fair share of warts (and I'm sorry to hear that more of the playtest suggestions weren't acted upon), but I'm quite thrilled with the possibilities.
And the rest of the book is pretty solid, in my estimation.
|
There is an in-game reason: constructs and half-constructs have no souls, so spells that return souls to a dead creature's body can't restore them once their consciousness expires. Just because you don't like the in-game reason doesn't mean there isn't one.
I get your point yet I would have preferred there be setting information or fluff that gives a reason why they have no souls. It just feels to me at least like they did not want players or DMs to use constructs/half-constructs so they made the option one that would not be used at all or very little unless it was houseruled. No other race options gets screwed over so badly. It'a a pretty bad negative and I can see no one in my games ever playing one or using one myself.
|
I'm disappointed just how much play the Gunslinger gets, and also the Oracle. I think that every common race has one of it's two racial archtypes as Gunslinger, most also have Oracle, and it does not seem very well dispurced between anything else really. Kind of forced, in my opinion.
A disappointment for me, but otherwise it seems like a fairly decent book. I haven't touched the racial building, though, nor did I the playtest materials for it.
|
|
I do like how the book pretty much clarifies that the Common (Elves, Dwarves, Humans, etc. . .) and Presented Races (Aasimar, Kobalds, Kobalds, etc . . ) are specfically presened as being "these are all perfectly fine for starting characters and not so uncommon all in all, ie there is no reason that they should not be allowed for all starter characters and are intended for it".
I'm disappointed just how much play the Gunslinger gets, and also the Oracle. I think that every common race has one of it's two racial archtypes as Gunslinger, most also have Oracle, and it does not seem very well dispurced between anything else really. Kind of forced, in my opinion.
Dwarves: Exarch (inquisitor), forgemaster (cleric), stonelord (paladin).
Elves: Ancient lorekeeper (oracle), spell dancer (magus), spellbinder (wizard), treesinger (druid)
Gnomes: Experimental gunsmith (gunslinger), prankster (bard), saboteur (alchemist)
Half-Elves: Bramble brewer (alchemist), bonded witch (witch), wild caller (summoner), wild shadow (ranger)
Half-Orcs: Blood god disciple (summoner), hateful rager (barbarian), redeemer (paladin), skulking slayer (rogue)
Halflings: Community guardian (oracle), filcher (rogue), order of the paw (cavalier), underfoot adept (monk)
Humans: Buccaneer (gunslinger), feral child (druid), imperious bloodline (sorcerer), wanderer (monk)
Aasimars: Purifier (oracle), tranquil guardian (paladin)
Catfolk: Cat burglar (rogue), nimble guardian (monk)
Dhampirs: Cruoromancer (wizard), kinslayer (inquisitor)
Drow: Cavern sniper (fighter), demonic apostle (cleric)
Fetchlings: Dusk stalker (ranger), shadow caller (summoner)
Goblins: Feral gnasher (barbarian), fire bomber (alchemist)
Hobgoblins: Fell rider (cavalier), ironskin monk (monk)
Ifrits: Immolator (inquisitor), wishcrafter (sorcerer)
Kobolds: Bushwhacker (gunslinger), kobold sorcerer (sorcerer bloodline)
Orcs: Dirty fighter (fighter), scarred witch doctor (witch)
Oreads: Shaitan binder (summoner), student of stone (monk)
Ratfolk: Gulch gunner (gunslinger), plague bringer (alchemist)
Sylphs: Sky druid (druid), wind listener (wizard)
Tengus: Shigenjo (oracle), swordmaster (rogue)
Tieflings: Fiend flayer (magus), fiendish vessel (cleric)
Undines: Undine adept (druid), watersinger (bard)
Changelings: Dreamweaver (witch)
Duergar: Gray disciple (monk)
Gillmen: Eldritch raider (rogue)
Gripplis: Bogborn alchemist (alchemist)
Kitsune: Kitsune trickster (rogue)
Merfolk: Wave warden (ranger)
Nagaji: Naga aspirant (druid)
Samsarans: Reincarnated oracle (oracle)
Strix: Airborne ambusher (fighter)
Sulis: Elemental knight (magus)
Svirfneblin: Deep bomber (alchemist)
Vanaras: Treetop monk (monk)
Vishkanyas: Deadly courtesan (rogue)
Wayangs: Shadow puppeteer (bard)
Alchemist 6, Barbarian 2, Bard 3, Cavalier 2, Cleric 3, Druid 5, Fighter 3, Gunslinger 4, Inquisitor 3, Magus 3, Monk 7, Oracle 5, Paladin 3, Ranger 3, Rogue 7, Sorcerer 2 (+1 bloodline), Summoner 4, Witch 3, Wizard 3
Rogues & monks had the most at seven each (that's seven more than the monk needed). The archetype-race combos were unnecessary. They needed their own section with suggested races.
"Devil's Advocate"
I'm going to have to make a PFS character named ""Devil's Advocate"" one of these days.
|
|
"Devil's Advocate"I'm going to have to make a PFS character named ""Devil's Advocate"" one of these days.
Me too...
I'm disappointed just how much play the Gunslinger gets, and also the Oracle. I think that every common race has one of it's two racial archtypes as Gunslinger, most also have Oracle, and it does not seem very well dispurced between anything else really. Kind of forced, in my opinion.
I don't know, I was just flipping through and looking and it seems like there where a lot, a lot more Gunslinger things, (though they might have not been just Archtypes). If I'm wrong, I apologize. It still feels that way and like they tried to cram in a lot to get the "other classes" :) on par with the options for the Bard in this book.
It still feels that way and like they tried to cram in a lot to get the "other classes" :) on par with the options for the Bard in this book.
I got that feeling too, especially with the oracle, and I think that the archetypes would have turned out better if they were all crammed into a single section. Limited space means cutting out redundant archetypes and not scratching the barrel for two-paragraph archetypes. Not to mention the fact that some of these archetypes should have been in other books. Spellbinder and the imperious bloodline could have gone in Ultimate Magic - neither are necessarily more human or more elven than the other.
I get your point yet I would have preferred there be setting information or fluff that gives a reason why they have no souls. It just feels to me at least like they did not want players or DMs to use constructs/half-constructs so they made the option one that would not be used at all or very little unless it was houseruled. No other race options gets screwed over so badly. It'a a pretty bad negative and I can see no one in my games ever playing one or using one myself.
There is an in-game reason: constructs and half-constructs have no souls, so spells that return souls to a dead creature's body can't restore them once their consciousness expires. Just because you don't like the in-game reason doesn't mean there isn't one.
If I had access to a GM that would allow me to play a construct, I would have no problem doing so.
A medium construct has a bonus of 20 hp. Outline 10 of them, and simply fall to the ground "bonelessly" when you get there and play dead. I think that it would be a pretty high DC for anyone to figure out that the construct PC was actually only playing dead - no breath or sound when they fall to the ground, etc..
The biggest challenge would be "healing" until someone in the party was high enough to cast Make Whole.
Yes, it would be more of a challenge, but I would consider it playable.
|
|
If I had access to a GM that would allow me to play a construct, I would have no problem doing so.
A medium construct has a bonus of 20 hp. Outline 10 of them, and simply fall to the ground "bonelessly" when you get there and play dead. I think that it would be a pretty high DC for anyone to figure out that the construct PC was actually only playing dead - no breath or sound when they fall to the ground, etc..
The biggest challenge would be "healing" until someone in the party was high enough to cast Make Whole.
Yes, it would be more of a challenge, but I would consider it playable.
I like your suggesstion. I may borrow it if anyone ever decides to play a construct/half-construct in one of my games.
|
My only concern is the races in the ARG that do not have RP totals. The Merfolk, Kitsune and Samsaran come to mind. I know that yes I can wade through the book and piece them together. (I also know that the Merfolk aren't that easy to do so). But it would have been nice for them to include totals of all the races in the book at the very least.
Also I would like clarification The slow speed. If your a medium creature does that automatically mean that the speed is never modified as it states in the description or really is it more up to aesthetic choosing? If the race is frail in some way therefore slower would being encumbered then slow them further?
Personally I would have liked to have seen the archetypes like construct, half-construct, dragon, undead, etc all broken down more. Mostly so I can do something like warforged living constructs.
Didn't reaf the whole tread yet - so if this have been said - forgive me :-)
Like the book - lots of options - some better than others - but what I really missed was rules for favored class benefits under race builder.
When I want to build a char i start with a class - then look at the races that wouldn't suck at that (-2 str for a str based build for instance).
Then I have a look at the favored class bonuses - they can really make a diffence.
The Human +1 known spell for oracle makes then a really solid choise - so if I was to make a new race I would wanna include favored class options.
As it is now it's up to the GM - I would have liked rules...
Humans don't get a racial language. Are they a special case?There is a little "(if any)" disclaimer after the bit about getting a racial language. So it is a special case that is already dealt with generally. Doesn't make the poor humans feel any better, though.
Totally agree. The system is far better than it was in the playtest, but still has more rough edges than I would hope for in a published product. It could really have used another round of playtesting, I think.So the good news: Pretty much all the changes made from the playtest are in the right direction.
The bad news: Not enough was done. There are still some mind boggling decisions about some of the costs. Not to mention the missing options that Mikaze touched on.
I usually assume a human's racial tongue is their nationality in the setting, if any. Cheliaxians, I give Infernal free.
As for the overall debate of this thread, IMO the races are overall balanced in being the range they are. The problem lies in creating a building system. You need a base point total for the SYSTEM, and that is 10. Now, why is your totally new custom race only 10 while the Aaasimar is 16? Because you aren't getting the benefit of taking every little trait you want. Aasimar have set abilities, with a few switchouts available maybe. If you want a dragon-blood aquatic fey race, your "payment" is having to keep to the constraints of 10 points.
|
* Is it me or is there now way to get a +2 -2 ability adjustment?
* When pricing a flaw of -2 to a saving throw, compare to the feats that raise saving throws (2rp for a feat with no prerequisites)
* Claws are awesome because a rogue gets two attacks at full BAB at first level.
What I was hoping for was rules on how claws affect Flurry of Blows damage.
I also miss the half-plant type. I was planning on making something like Delvians from Farscape.
OTOH, I also miss things like Immunity to Poison, Disease etc, as traits you can select for RP. Because if you're going to make a plant race you might want them immune to diseases that affect meat-people, while leaving them vulnerable to Charm spells. Just as an option.
There seems to be a great deal of things missing from this book, to include (I believe though I may have overlooked it) enhanced senses.
I don't think there is a way to get the +2-2 ability adjustment.
Just the+2 or +2+2-2...
* Is it me or is there now way to get a +2 -2 ability adjustment?
I don't think there is a way to get the +2-2 ability adjustment.
Just the+2 or +2+2-2...
Take Greater Weakness (-4, -2, +2, -3 RP) and then Advanced X twice (4 RP each; one on the -4 stat, and the other on the -2 stat). Sure, it costs 5 RP and requires your race to be Advanced, but it can be done.
|
|
* Is it me or is there now way to get a +2 -2 ability adjustment?Take Greater Weakness (-4, -2, +2, -3 RP) and then Advanced X twice (4 RP each; one on the -4 stat, and the other on the -2 stat). Sure, it costs 5 RP and requires your race to be Advanced, but it can be done.I don't think there is a way to get the +2-2 ability adjustment.
Just the+2 or +2+2-2...
Then that'd just be a complete waste.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm surprised that SR and DR haven't been brought up more. While there is probably no real way to price them exactly compared to a feat, their pricing is a big issue in my opinion.
Exalted Resistance (3 RP): Prerequisite: Outsider
(native) with ties to Elysium, Heaven, or Nirvana; Benefit:
Members of this race gain spell resistance equal to 6 +
their character level against spells and spell-like abilities
with the evil descriptor, as well as any spells and spelllike
abilities cast by evil outsiders.
Spell Resistance, Lesser (2 RP): Prerequisites: None;
Benefit: Members of this race gain spell resistance equal
to 6 + their character level.
Spell Resistance, Greater (3 RP): Prerequisites: None;
Benefit: Members of this race gain spell resistance equal
to 11 + their character level.
How did these get through?
To be perfectly honest (following the current vanilla base prices) I would leave Exalted Resistance as is. I'd make Lesser Spell Resistance an Advanced Trait, costing 6 RP. And I'd make Greater Spell Resistance a Monstrous Trait, costing 9 RP. Yeah it's expensive. Why on earth wouldn't it be?And then Damage Reduction. Why is DR 5/Magic priced and ranked higher than DR 5/silver. Sure you can get a silver weapon cheaper than an enchanted one, but let's be honest, outside of vampire/werewolf themed campaigns, how often are the PCs going to encounter enemies with silver weapons? where as, once you reach a certain level, all enemies are going to have enchanted weapons and some beasts will have claws that count as enchanted. I can understand Fey DR being cheaper (it requires Fey type), but not Moon-Touched DR. I would knock Moon-Touched up to 5 or 6 RP (DR 5/Good/Evil/Law/Chaos is 6 RP). And move Damage Reduction down to advanced.
Unfortunately, these prices are a little ambiguous, as there is no real direct comparison to draw.
|
|
I dunno. If we make all the small races normal speed, you've kind of taken the point out of it.
Likewise, why do they need Acrobatics and Climb as class skills? Most likely they're gonna be some kind of rogue anyway that already gets them as class skills.
If you really wanna upgrade them, maybe give them spell resistance; there's a reason they can resist the One Ring longer than most people.
I HATE the Halfling Valuation. I was crying about this in the pre-test and it still stands. There is no way it is 9 points. I mean, at least they finally acknowledged that it isn't 10 points in the book.
+2 to Acrobatics, Climb and Perception is worth 6 points? When skills are the most easily replicated things of all time from magical items and spells? When flat feats like Athletic and Alertness would be 2 points?
Uggh. Just call that whole package worth 3 points.Halflings are like a 6 point race that nobody plays. A ground up rebuild of them works better.
Non-Sucky Halflings
+2 Dexterity, +2 Charisma 2 points
Small 0
30 Foot Movement 0
Standard Language 0
Fearless 1
Luck, Lesser 2
Skill Bonus Package 3
Acrobatics and Climb as Class Skills 1
Sling Weapon Familiarity 1Bang, 10 points. Totally worth playing now.
Seriously? I love halflings. Playing halfling slingers provide me with some of my most fun moments.
I found it strange that the human +1 skill point a level was 4RP when so was advanced intelligence which gives you +1 skill point, and then all the other benefits of a higher intelligence.
Like some of the above I am not sure what it should be priced at, but I do know it is badly priced compared to other traits.
Seriously? I love halflings. Playing halfling slingers provide me with some of my most fun moments.
I have to agree with you. My favorite characters have been Halflings(a paladin, a warlock, and a druid), and I'd play them just about anytime.
Fast (1 RP): Prerequisite: Normal speed; Benefit:
Members of this race gain a +10 foot bonus to their base
speed. Special: This trait can be taken more than once, but
each time it is, the cost increases by 1 RP. Its effects stack.I assume you could take that over and over.
The way it is explained is that option is only available to "monster" races. It explains breifly what that means, a point value, but it doesn't really make a lot of sense.
I ran a Halfling Ranger (guess where I got the inspiration and you'd be wrong...) for a dozen sessions and had a blast! I ran a 'Boggie' (un-nice Hobbit, ala 'Bored of the Rings) Sorcerer for a bit and had way too much fun. Still haven't run a Rogue in 3.anything, yet...
I ran a Halfling Ranger (guess where I got the inspiration and you'd be wrong...) for a dozen sessions and had a blast! I ran a 'Boggie' (un-nice Hobbit, ala 'Bored of the Rings) Sorcerer for a bit and had way too much fun. Still haven't run a Rogue in 3.anything, yet...
I don't find rogues to be all that enjoyable. They're just meh. If I do play one, I play a scout or the new half-orc greataxe archetype. Sneak up on some poor dumb guy and cut him in half, move on.
I would not be so critical if we were given an in game reason.There is an in-game reason: constructs and half-constructs have no souls, so spells that return souls to a dead creature's body can't restore them once their consciousness expires. Just because you don't like the in-game reason doesn't mean there isn't one.
This explanation suggests that magic is not needed to restore them to "life". Under that concept they'd only go inactive at negative hit points and a simple repair would be all they'd need. That's not bad at all then.