Race choice doesn't matter enough


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 61 of 61 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Wyrmholez wrote:


I think that was probably intentional. Isn't there a line somewhere that says "their HD are determined by their class levels". The more HD you have the more awesome you are. Elves don't become more elf as time goes along but Wizards do become more Wizardy.

My Example: 6 HD of Giant is not equal to 6 HD of Fighter

I agree but I think the OP's complaint is that the elf seems less like an elf as time goes on. I sort of agree but with the underlying math of the system I'm not sure there's much to be done about it that hasn't already been done (mechanically).

I'm very wary of comparisons to, and complaints of, earlier editions; especially 1st. The game wasn't scaled to 20th level in 1st edition. Your "high-level end of campaign" type modules were ones like Tomb of Horrors and Queen of the Demonweb Pits; both 10-14th level. This is because the game mechanics started to break down once characters hit their "lord" levels; typically, between levels 8 and 10. Racial level limits were almost completely meaningless as the system was already going wonkers long before you hit those caps and especially if you were multi-classing. If you were playing to those levels you already had to houserule like crazy just to make the system work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
yeti1069 wrote:
If you read a fantasy novel, or watch a film, different races tend to have different combat styles, which is simulated a little bit in D&D (Pathfinder) by starting inclinations (an elf is more likely to grab Weapon Finesse, while a dwarf is more likely to wear heavy armor), but then it kind of ends.

1. Not really. If you take Weapon Finesse, that is going to define your character for the entirety of the campaign. If you wear heavy armor, your dex is forever going to be low because you only started out with 12 at most.

Yeah, if you start play at level 10 or 15 you might not make these choices, but that doesn't happen in the "real world". Characters start out a certain way, and will usually continue to organically build on their initial skills.

2. PCs aren't supposed to be exemplars of their race. If they were, they probably wouldn't abandon their home to wander around with three or four people of completely different backgrounds. They would instead be leaders of their people.

Plus, since the PCs *do* abandon their home to wander around with three or four people of completely different backgrounds, it's natural for them to experience a merging of cultures until they eventually identify more with the party and "adventurer" as a concept than with their race. This process is slow - at early levels their race is a big part of who they are, but years later when they reach level 20 and have been through Hell and back, it shouldn't really matter that they started out in a forest and have pointy ears.

Basically, 1. the problem doesn't exist, and 2. even if it did exist, it wouldn't actually be a problem.

Webstore Gninja Minion

Removed some posts. Please be civil, and don't denigrate people for the games that they choose to play.

Grand Lodge

I guess you could always use the Paragon "Race" classes from 3.5. Or... use the ARG to pimp out your race once you hit at certain levels. The ARG has a chart that shows races of 20, 30, and 40 RP are less powerful at higher levels and thus don't have a level adjustment.

Or maybe, Levels 1-5 Standard, Levels 6-10 Superior (raise to 20 RP), Levels 11-15 Heroic (raise to 30 RP), and 16-20 Paragonal (raise to 40 RP).

Just a thought.


Wyrmholez wrote:

I guess you could always use the Paragon "Race" classes from 3.5. Or... use the ARG to pimp out your race once you hit at certain levels. The ARG has a chart that shows races of 20, 30, and 40 RP are less powerful at higher levels and thus don't have a level adjustment.

Or maybe, Levels 1-5 Standard, Levels 6-10 Superior (raise to 20 RP), Levels 11-15 Heroic (raise to 30 RP), and 16-20 Paragonal (raise to 40 RP).

Just a thought.

I think something could be worked out if you had an 'ELF' class that had a handfull of archetypes. For instance, you have the standard elf classes that meshes well with a bow ranger, they have really good perception ('Legolas what do your elf eyes see?' and are masters of bow fighting, and the natural world, a step above a standard ranger in exchange for certain amounts of flexibility. Then an archetype for the elf class that makes it work for say a wizard.

You could also have a dwarf class that works well with cleric, and an archetype that works well with an axe weilding warrior type. Obviously there could be multiple archetypes for each race that lends itself to what those races are good at being. But the point is that if you DONT want to be pidgeon holed into whatever the stereotype for the race is, you just dont take the ratial class, and if you do want to be really 'elfy' you go something like Ranger 2/Elf 10.

Sovereign Court

Huh, I have just the opposite problem, I have trouble finding a class that can't be made better, by being a half-orc. :-)

To each his own.


IMHO, the race options as currently written have sufficient power/skill diversity. I think the race options are clearly significant enough for a min/maxer to scale rate or declare any race optimal for a set build or even class. Some race abilities are taken for granted when they are actually quite nice and very differentiating. Darkvision, for example.

Additionally, i think the expanded race options as developed are robust and offer a variety of effectual tweaking. Even some of the race feats are pretty solid. I for one think some of them, like Steel Soul, are really strong.

Ultimately, this is a roleplaying game so if you want your race to have meaningful impact the onus is on the player and the DM to make the race selection feel significant.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This thread is RACIST.

...someone had to say it.


I'd be fine if every race was the same and it was only flavor that made the difference.

In Glorian I love playing Humans. There so much back story depending which race and where you located. Sure you are exact the same mechanics wise but you entirely difference on personal scale.

I find Elves, Dwarves, and others to be kind of boring that way. They tend to have one way about there. Take elves for example. There are the Forlorn, Mwangi Elves, Kyonin Elves, Spire Elves but really they are all the same just in different locations.

Maybe this is because Humans I am and understand, elves I am not and don't understand as they are a thing of fantasy and I don't live the writers mind.

Given freedom to write up my own elf well then I truly understand them.


Nebelwerfer41 wrote:
yeti1069 wrote:
One thing that really galled me in 3.5, and still does in PF, is that your choice of race typically has only a little impact for the first few levels and then drops off from there.
I agree with the OP in that i would like to see race play a bigger role in character progression. It isn't a matter of it being "better" than any other option, and you shouldn't restrict any races from playing any class, but I think a level 20 elf fighter should be different than a level 20 dwarf fighter.

Ultimately, there's only so many things you can do with any single class - even if PF classes don't follow molds as strictly as, say, 4e, roles do exist.

Mechanically, there's only so many ways to make a character good at any particular role. If you want to do damage, you want power attack. If you want to do maneuvers, you want the improved/greater maneuver feats. So on, so forth. Since the characters fulfill a role by interacting with a small subset of the greater Pathfinder system, the number of effects which can affect a given subsystem is limited, and it's nigh impossible to make all such effects equally viable in the long run. Thus, tying more vital options to races will inevitably limit the number of possible builds.

Note that the game already accomplishes your stated goal in a much more elegant way - while theoretically you can build your dwarf and elf fighters exactly the same, they will not be equally effective with the same build. This gives you the incentive to find builds that synergize better with your racial abilities. You're much better off building an elf fighter as an archer, or making use of his Int bonus to qualify for Combat Expertise and maneuver feats with a smaller hit to more important abilities, than you would be if you tried to match a dwarf fighter in terms of front line stamina.

That way, race matters, but not so much that single race/class combos dominate the game entirely.

51 to 61 of 61 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Race choice doesn't matter enough All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion