Subversive's page

My player's cleric has his holy symbol integrated into his shield. Solves that little dilemna.

-Steve

joela wrote:

With so many subtle changes to the rules, callouts that pointed out key changes from 3.5e would have made jumping into this new edition a lot easier.

We made a deliberate choice not to confuse new players with a bunch of conversion tips for a game system they may know nothing about. Conversion information will be available online.

Besides, even folks coming from 3.5 won't miss this after a month or two, and indeed, some may eventually be glad that we didn't waste the space.

We've written this book with the long term in mind.

Vic, is there going to be an online list of changes posted somewhere for the veteran players to peruse?

-Steve

Matthew Morris wrote:

This AP seems to have had all sorts of grief attached to it, neh? Last minute writing changes, sex changes etc. Blame Pugwampies?

No more so than all the other APs, honestly. These things are fantastically complex, and pulling them off requires a LOT of people doing their job to make it work.

But the troubles that have been hitting this AP are a pale shadow of the mayhem that surrounded Rise of the Runelords... THAT one was particularly harrowing to get off the ground.

Having been in an editorial office, I can back that up. If it's not the artist, it's the inker, or the letterer, or the writer, or the color proof. Course that's with comics, and you generally deal with one person for each job area. Generally. I can't even imagine how hard it is to get 5 different writers and multiple artists for one of these books.

-Steve

I would allow that the original post has a point.

It makes sense to have commoners - farmers, unskilled laborers, peasants with pitchforks and torches- in a fantasy game.

It makes substantially less sense to have a Commoner NPC class in a game. Are we really expecting to see 5th Level Commoners? 12th Level Commoners? "I am one of the finest unskilled laborers in the barony!" "I keep hitting the peasant with my guisarme and he won't fall down! Perhaps it's because he's a high-level Commoner."

The kind of NPC you could describe as a mid- to high-level Commoner would certainly be described better as an Expert or Warrior. Or perhaps even a low-level Rogue or Ranger. The archetypical peasant would be a character with no class levels at all.

Once I had the party encounter a 20th lvl commoner. He was a Venerable tavern bar-potato with maxed Diplomacy. Whenever they interacted with him, he'd complain about 'the war' and coorce them into giving him drinking money.

-Steve

I would allow someone who has ranks in Escape Artist to substitute the bonus for their CMB bonus in cases of grapple attempts. As it currently stands in the rules, you can only use Escape Artist to get out of a pin or grapple, not defend against the initial grapple attempt. From a realistic perspective, the initial avoidance and a latter attempt to escape are largely the same.

-Steve

This is just me speaking personally now, but ultimately I think that might fail. The person making the screen would have to understand the perspective involved in making everything appear 3 dimensional even though it was a 2D projection. He would likely have to have a perspective on the room that would allow him to correctly depict it on a flat plane. The illusion would have to be "aimed" at its target. Anyone else at a different position on that side of the room would perceive the projection as flat, and the objects in the room as disproportional, much like a mural or painting would look flat when viewed at an angle, but in proper perspective when approached from the front.

In other words, it's unlikely to work.

-Steve

I did read through the descriptions for various...

The problem here is that in the example you're citing, it wasn't a room that was already there. It was an entirely illusory room. In your case, the player was attempting to make a pre-existing room appear different.

You're right, an illusion doesn't restrict itself to one object. It's as many objects as you'd like inside the space alloted. But altering a room to make the original contents invisible would not work. Since you're altering the perception of items, it by default becomes a glamour. You could add new contents to the room, however, as long as they didn't change the sensory characteristics (touch, taste, appearance, feel, smell) of the room's preexisting contents.

-GM Steve

Has anyone done this? Is there a link? Please? @_@

I had to use a fair amount of improvisation for this however, as I found the descriptions for the spells and the illusion effects to be somewhat diffuse. Could illusions...

For answers to this, you have to look up the descriptions of the different illusion types. Figments create their own objects, but cannot alter the appearance of other objects (those are glamours). This means while you can create the illusion of a person, you can't make someone look like someone else. Nor can you make a door look like a wall, or a stream of lava look like a cool river. Whatever you make has to remain physically seperate from something else. As I play, generally, if a character who is aware of the illusion physically enters the bounds of the illusion, either the illusion pops, or observers get an automatic saving throw to disbelieve (as though they had interacted).

However, this does allow for some wiggle room. In the case of the door, while you cannot make it into a wall, you can put an illusory object in front of it, screening it from sight. A river of lava could be covered by an illusory wall or a building of some sort (in this example, characters would certainly still feel the heat from the lava). You could generate an illusory crowd of people to hide in, or a cloud of feathers

In your specific example, the sorcerer would have to take down the cage before replacing it with another illusory one. He would also have to come up with a way to hide the cage. To 'overlay' the room with an illusory one, effectively rendering everything in the room the sorcerer did not want seen invisible would exceed the bounds of the spell.

Edit: I should revise this somewhat, creatures faced with proof that something isn't real need no saving throw to perceive the figment as an illusion. Therefore, moving into a figment to hide would automatically cause someone who witnessed this to disbelieve it.

-DM Steve

I'm curious, has the idea of releasing miniatures based on pathfinder iconics or monsters ever been bandied about in the Paizo offices? Lead? Prepaints? Too much of an effort for too little potential return?

-Steve

I like this idea too, but with some reservations.

Take for a counter-argument the fact that for a forgery to be successful, it needs to use the right language. I don't mean language in the sense of elven, common, sylvan, etc. I mean that it has to use the right terminology and phrasing.

For a lieutenant to follow the forged orders of a captain, the document has to read like it came from a captain of the guard.

For a passport to be accepted, it needs to use all the proper phrases and terminology.

I'm not saying this is enough to keep me from using your idea, but it's worth debating over.

-Steve

Subversive wrote:

I don't think it makes sense if the shield you are using provides a smaller AC bonus to you then it does to your allies, as is the potential with Greater Shield Ally

-Steve

The original Shieldmate Feats also gave the shield bearer a +1 bonus to AC, but I did not want to step on the toes of the new playtest Feats Jason posted, Shield Mastery, etc. Or add too much Non-OGL content to the body of the Feats.

Combining them with the Shield Mastery Feats on the other hand would be great IMO... as per suggestion from 'Brutesquad07'.

I have no problem with feats that improve your shield AC, nor with being able to share that bonus with allies. My issue is when your allies get a greater benefit from your shield then you do. It violates common sense.

I would suggest putting a clause in there that the AC bonus granted to allies cannot exceed the overall bonus provided by your shield.

-Steve

I don't think it makes sense if the shield you are using provides a smaller AC bonus to you then it does to your allies, as is the potential with Greater Shield Ally

-Steve

Eric Mason 37 wrote:

Currently this DR is proposed as a fighter feat, and they do have armour mastery at lvl 19 which grants DR. When the fighter playtest was being done, people requested that the DR be doubled if the fighter was also using a shield in addition to armour. These feats are a way of granting it without making it free.

While I understand that, I feel that giving shield users a feat that adds their shield bonus to their touch AC, would be more useful.

I don't think that a shield works correctly in this regard. How would a shield prevent an incorporeal touch attack? Are you going to put rules in place specifically for this exception? That would result in needless complication.

-Steve

Jason, in regards to Strike Back,

I'm not sure if the text makes sence. A limited number of weapons actually offer a 15 ft reach. For larger foes, reach weapons can really extend their space. How does the text justify that attacks against that?

Personally, I'd restrict the feat to use against natural weapons or foes without reach weapons. I'm not really analysing the effect of the feat, but I'm a little cautious about the flavor. I'm not sure if this is the forum for that or not.

-Steve

I still want to know why anyone would put gravy on perfectly good cheese-fries.

In Jersey they call them Disco fries, and they generally come with brown gravy with the option of American Cheese or Cheez-Wiz. As for the flavor? Groovy.

-Steve

As to your other point, that it would clutter combat with too many AoOs...

Well, that's what fighters DO. They attack things. Do we really want to put the clamps on that?

It's simpler and faster to resolve than spellcasters casting immediate-action spells in any case, to say nothing of quickened spells, summoned monsters, charmed monsters, confusion, poison, or any number of other round-to-round effects that clutter up the battlefield.

Sure, it's a weak argument to say "they do it too!," but the alternatives are:

1. Nerf the caster down so they can't do any of those things (the 4th Ed approach);

2. Allow the casters to (continue to) reign over non-casters because they get to do more things (and a greater variety of things) than the non-casters do, including taking what amount to extra turns; or,

3. Allow the fighter-types to play the same game as the casters by letting them take extra turns too.

While I understand your argument here, my basic contentions are thus:

1. One of the ideas of Pathfinder is to reduce the time a round of combat takes at high levels. Several feats have been released that allow fighters to trade iterative attacks in favor of other bonuses.

2. For your proposed idea to be best utilized, it would mean taking combat reflexes. Assuming decent Dex, this leads to a much-expanded pool of iterative attacks, as well as move adjustments. This attack number is increased further by extending the threatened area of the fighter's zone of control. This will further slow down high level play.

3. While your proposed feats, by themselves, are actually quite nice, they run contrary to one of the goals of Pathfinder, and I have to assume that Jason will probably disregard them for that primary reason.

In addition, if you feel you need to continue developing this feat concept, I would suggest addressing any questions that arise from wielding a reach weapon, especially the spiked chain, which already threatens both 5' and 10' squares.

I would also suggest holding off further discussion on this feat set (or any set of feats) until feats are addressed on the design forums. It was my initial intention to discuss "stickyness" as a fighter power, rather then a feat. I fear it's gotten away from that. I realize that it's difficult to discuss fighter concepts without talking feats, so maybe this whole discussion is better held off until later development forums open up.

-Steve

Yeah, I know it's not "feat chapter" time, but here are two I cooked up in the same vein:

Swift Counterstrike (Combat)
You are skilled at defensive positioning and controlling the approaches to your allies.

Prerequisite: Combat Reflexes, base attack bonus +6

Benefit: Treat your reach as 5 feet longer than normal when determining the area you threaten for attacks of opportunity. When an opponent triggers an attack of opportunity from you, you may take a 5-foot step before making the attack; if you do so, reduce your movement by 5 feet on your next turn. You may use this feat once per round.

Normal: You may not move before taking attacks of opportunity.

Roving Counterstrike (Combat)
You are a master of controlling the field of battle, a veritable whirling dervish reacting swiftly whenever danger approaches.

Prerequisite: Combat Reflexes, Swift Counterstrike, base attack bonus +12

Benefit: Treat your reach as 5 feet longer than normal when determining the area you threaten for attacks of opportunity. When an opponent triggers an attack of opportunity from you, you may take a 5-foot step before making the attack. You may use this feat each time an opponent triggers an attack of opportunity.

If you make one or more 5-foot steps with this feat, reduce your movement on your next turn by the total distance moved. If this would reduce your movement to 0 or less, you cannot move on your next turn, though you may perform other move actions.

Normal: You may not move before taking attacks of opportunity. You may only make a 5-foot step once per round.

A problem I see with this feat is that it has the potential to slow the game down greatly as the multiple AoO's are addressed.

I also wonder if there would be some gimpyness of dealing with the reduction of movement next round. For example, what if the fighter decided to go into rough terrain? What if he 5' adjusted within rough terrain? The rules covering 5' adjusts state that you can *always* 5' adjust even in difficult terrain that would ordinarily reduce movement to zero.

-Steve

I'd prefer a fighter who's primary role was one of liberally distributing whoopass to one who was basically a sticky speedbump.

Where did this stickiness idea come from anyway?

Sam

The idea is due to the fact that most traditional fighters have a low movement speed, high AC, excellent Hit Points, and moderate damage potential compared to artillery classes, puting them in the role of defending those classes against high-damage attackers that could overwhelm their traditionally lower defences by standing in the front lines. IE: they become linebackers.

The problem is that this role breaks down when you reach mid-to-high levels, where opponents either can fly or have other non-standard means of travel like teleportation. Then you're left with a big slow guy that has lots of HP and noone to attack.

-Steve

I posted this on another thread, but was afraid it might get lost in the shuffle. Any thoughts?

After careful consideration, I think that Weapon Training could benefit from borrowing the concept behind the Ranger's Favored Enemy mechanic.

Weapon Training
Starting at 5th level, select one group of weapons, as noted (see Pathfinder Beta, pg. 27). Whenever a fighter attacks with a weapon from this group, he gains a +2 to attacks and damage.
Every for levels after that (9th, 13th, and 17th), a fighter can select a new group, gaining the benefit listed above, or choose to further his mastery of an already selected weapon group, gaining an additional +2 to attacks and damage.

So... you want to co-opt the ranger's main combat strength... but make the fighter better at it?

-Steve

I think the solution is to allow the fighter to end a negative condition on their next turn, using an action to make a special save even if the effect does not allow one. This falls in line with things like hold person, but gives the fighter a bit of an edge when actually trying to end the effect. The wizard takes the fighter out for one round, the fighter gives up his round ending the effect. This would apply to any spell that has a limited duration effect, such as slow, ray of enfeeblement, but not things like blindness/deafness or bestow curse.

The fighter can sacrifice their only expendable resource - hit points - to gain a bonus on the escape save. 2 for 1 would probably work. So, to gain a +10 bonus on a save to end an effect, the fighter gives up 20 hit points. It means the spell still had an effect, the fighter has expended both time and resources, and combat continues as normal. I think this could work as either a feat or a class ability to replace bravery.

What do you think?

Jal, this is just the sort of thing I was thinking. I would limit it to effects that involve will saves, however.

-Steve

I'm a fan of the -3 option myself. It makes them functional in a battle situation. However, I wonder how that would balance out with the Hunter's Bond party option.

-Steve

Intimidating Belch to disrupt Teleport spells?

I can see that forcing a Spellcraft check for Concentration :)p

-Steve

One thing I would like to see for fighters is a trait or feat that actually makes them better, more viable blockers at the front lines of the party. It's been mentioned before: once a certain level is hit, many opponents have the meants to circumvent the front line combat types, be it by Fly or teleport or incorporealness, or whatever, to directly attack the weaker support characters. This reduces the effectiveness of the fighter's primary role.

I'm curious if anyone has ideas or suggestions for improving the fighter's ability to make an opponent "stick."

-Steve

I, too, think that those weapons feel quite exotic and primitive, and I don't see them fitting my image of general halflings... Blowgun might suit halfling assassins and rogues, since without poison it is practically a useless weapon...

Hand crossbow, short bow, sling, dart, dagger, bola... those are the weapons I see halflings using.

Personally, I'm still a big fan of having the halflings use some sort of War Bolas. I think they mesh well with the idea of halflings as wanderers, they play toward their characteristic strength with throwing weapons, and compensate for their movement weaknesses vs. medium opponents by letting them make trip attempts.

Personally, I'm all for letting them keep the +1 to thrown stuff. Players will generally record this correctly when they stat out their characters' weapon slots on the character sheet. And if the DM forgets to include it, it's not the end of the world, so it shouldn't significantly slow the creation of NPCs

-Steve

Yet it could be said that +1 HP/level is one way to ensure that the design goal of "viable" high-level play is realized. I am currently playing an 11th level Sorcerer with 70+ HPs (almost max. HPs and 16 Con) in 3E, and I still find myself often wishing for more HPs...

Yes, PF characters are more "powerful" than their 3E counterparts, yet if the NPCs and monsters are also "tweaked" to match them, I think the system is in balance. 4E has done this, too, but in less elegant ways -- I think increasing HPs is a far more better way than giving everyone static HPs, Healing Surges, and Second Wind, or whatnot.

I'm sure that as a player you often want more HP for a sorcerer. But it is not the role of a sorcerer to have high hit points. Artillery is intended to be fragile health-wise.

Secondly, there are already new mechanisms in the redesigned game that give more Hit Points, in general, to mages. They have higher base HP dice; toughness is now a viable option as a feat, and the classes have extra feats in their progression. Your sorcerer will not be wanting for health nearly as much.

-Steve

Except that most games are not played out till 20th level. The PF Adventure Paths tap out about 15th or 16th.

Robert

My two statements to this are that, A) one of the stated goals of the Pathfinder RPG is to make very high-level play viable again, and B) as was already said, there are several good abilities spread out throughtout the levels of the core classes, especially at higher levels.

-Steve

After playing and DM'ing for over 25 years, I don't find the +1 skill point or +1 HP to be game breaking. In my mind, it certainly balances with the goal of reinforcing iconic race/class combo's. I agree there may be other ways to do it, though the current ability design doesn't. My initial comment was directed more toward those that want to remove the favored class concept entirely. I have seen many great ideas on these boards (and keep a list of the ones I really like in case they don't make the final version I can house-rule them in). Eliminating favored classes is not a great idea. The final version may be called something different, but it should accomplish the goal of promoting iconic race/class combo's.

Scott

Everyone in favor of the current system keeps saying that the +1/lvl bonus isn't that much, but it's a contributer to the overall power-creep that the Pathfinder version of the game is showing, and I feel that this is what opponents of the bonus are worried about. I think I saw a post about this on a prior thread, examining the HP of a lvl 10 sorcerer before and after Pathfinder.

3.5 lvl 10 Sorcerer (assuming average HP, 12 Con, and Toughness): 39 hp

Pathfinder lvl 10 Sorcerer (also assuming favored class): 70 hp

Assuming I grok math, it's an increase of almost 45%.

There are lots of different ways to promote racial class preference. In the original 3.5 edition rules, that promotion essentially did not exist unless you multiclassed, and did so in very specific ways. It was a silent rule, and in many ways rather elegant. Compared to that rule system, the current racial preferences are far more obvious and cumbersome. You either gain a direct benefit, or you lose a direct benefit. I feel that those in favor of this rule are playing a far more draconian version of the game then the original design intended.

-Steve

Zynete wrote:

So we shouldn't try to find someway that makes a larger group of people happy? I don't think that we should be saying that other people should just deal with things they don't like this early in the playtest.

I agree. I believe the majority is happy with favored classes in some shape or form. I happen like the beta version. Others like different versions. Not everyone will be happy with the final form of favored classes. Removing favored classes completely will be the surest way of upsetting the vast numbers of us who like them and disconnecting the races from their stereotypical / iconic class combos of the past, which I happen to like.

Scott

There's a big difference between short-run happy and game-design happy. I'm sure it's great having another bonus that you can add to your characters, but from my perspective, as someone who's DMed for a long time, I'm worried about the game balance issues that these modifiers will cause. I also think that there are other ways to encourage iconic class choices, like racial ability design and revising the classes to encourage players to take all 20 levels.

-Steve

Hey there all,

Interesting discussion, and one that is happening in numerous threads. Right now, I am seriously considering changing the favored class bonus to work more like humans, for all races. That said, the other option is to eliminate it entirely. What I want out of this mechanic is simple. I would like a mechanic that encourages characters to stick, primarily, with one class. Multiclassing, as it stands in 3.5, gives a number of numerical options with little or no cost (if you pick the right classes) and this rule is intended to offset that. That said, there was initially some intent to make the rule one that reinforces racial stereotypes, but I am beginning to think that the new race design does that well enough on its own.

I should note that I like the idea of racial feats and racial progressions, but I am afraid that the final book will probably not have enough space to gives these systems the treatment that they require.

I am, as always, open to debate.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Hey Jason, vie gehts? I'm glad that my thread is contributing to the discussion.

Personally speaking, I think that giving the classes effective higher-level abilities has largely obliviated much of the concerns associated with Multiclassing. Now, if a character takes a level in another class, they will lose out on the 20th-level abilities of their initial class. This encourages them to make a more balanced choice between sticking with their first class and taking a second either out of powergaming desires or fulfilling some character concept. This is the most effective and most viable means of obtaining your design goal without eclipsing the goal of encouraging player choice.

If you feel that you must encourage racial class stereotypes beyond this, then I recommend giving the races powers and abilities that encourage choices in their stereotyped classes. Personally, I'm a fan of the a'la cart method proposed, where the races get a set of culturally-based abilities that they can choose from when building their initial characters.

My biggest concern as the beta stands right now is with power creep. There are already a lot of small bonuses that are being added to both races and classes. Individually, they are not much, but added together, they create a much bigger impact. The Skill Point/HP bonus is yet another bonus, and it's one that we don't need.

As far as racial feats and progressions are concerned, I can see where you're coming from, since the Pathfinder book is already the DMG and the PH in one. I hope you can find room in future supplements though!

-Steve

I have never been happy with the idea that halfling and gnome weaponry does less damage than anyone else's, regardless of the reasoning behind it.

No one in my campaign has played either one of those races, except for a sorcerer, due to the fact that they do less damage in combat.

That's balanced out *greatly* by the fact that halflings, gnomes, and other small creatures get +1 to hit and +1 to AC. Ultimately, an average of 1 damage-point-less for small-sized weapons is inconsequential, especially at higher levels.

-Steve

& perpetuated by Drew Hayes' Poison Elves.

"(...), the first Elfquest series is one of the most amazing comic book runs ever. Period. You can blame the length of my Elves' ears on Wendy Pini."

Poor Drew, I hope that his fund raiser got enough for his kid to get a decent college fund.

-Steve

This does have to do with ability scores: namely, how much higher they are than the max damage of almost all poisons. Take deathblade poison, which in 3.5e did 1d6 Con/2d6 Con, for a max of 18 points. A person with average (11) Con could easily die. Now it does 2 Con/rd. for up to 5 rounds -- 10 max. A person with 11 Con CANNOT die from it unless multiple doses are used, and with a save every round, it's much more likely to deal less damage.

Is this intentional, making poisons less of a threat and more of a nuisance?

It looks like they changed the poison to reflect its average damage (namely, 10.5 con over 1 minute).

I'll also note that 5 rounds happens a lot faster than 10 rounds, and often combat will not last a full 10 rounds, thereby reducing the original version of the poison as a tactical factor. All-in-all it seems like a balanced tradeoff.

-Steve

Subversive wrote:

I agree with you. It is cultural. It makes no sense for a dwarf, raised by elves, to know about battleaxes and fighting orcs.

-Steve

That's a rather extreme example. Freaks by nature are what define the outside limits of the rule. Freaks are what you create houserules for, not to set the standard for the norm. The majority of dwarves, not even a significant minority, are not going to be raised by elves.

And a Freak character should take a development hit or two for being a freak.

It was an extreme example, but it demonstrates a point.

Dwarves that don't live near giants or orcs should not have those as racial enemies.

Dwarves that live in jungles probably wouldn't specialize in Urgoshes.

Gnomes in a world without Kobolds wouldn't know how to effectively fight them.

Half-orcs in tribes that are using stone-aged technology won't specialize in double-axes.

Should I go on? Please don't attempt to specifically refute every example I just listed. That would just be tedious. The point is that there are lots of examples and settings where the racial characteristics above don't make sense.

-Steve

Subversive wrote:

No, for this to work as a replacement for preferred character classes out of the box, it would have to be applicable to a general setting.

I completely agree. A set of generic traits should be included but custom racial and regional feats should be slightly better to encourage the players to adopt their heritage. Any traits section in the core book should be fairly small and simple though.

I'm not sure if the feats/traits need to be *better* for the regional and racial ones. I think you just need to have more focused choices for the races.

I'm going on vacation starting tomorrow. I'll be gone for about ten days. Might have a limited access to the internet, but certainly not as much as right now. Hope you all have fun while I'm out.

-Steve

Human character customization could be regional, people from here choose from these, etc. Really only works if there is an established setting, like Golarion; but that's, more or less, where we're talking about, no?

No, for this to work as a replacement for preferred character classes out of the box, it would have to be applicable to a general setting.

I'm not running a Golarion setting myself, and I would like some general characteristics that I could use without having to take the time to personally develop them.

Development efforts here not-withstanding...

-Steve

Subversive wrote:

Brett Blackwell wrote:

Personally I'm not a huge fan of the martial weapon ability of the humans anyways. It just doesn't sit right with me for some reason.

Bastardsword-Wielding Commoner.

That's an exotic weapon.

BTW...
Human Bastard Sword FTW!

When used two-handed, it's considerd a martial weapon. :p

-Steve

Laurefindel wrote:

Just a question here...

Could/should this mechanic replace the concept of favored class (which I am not too fond of) by giving options that are aimed at the performance of particular classes?

If so, that would definitively win my vote.

See the changes I made to the gnome race in the last post. You could easily make several traits geared more towards specific classes which would encourage characters to take those favored classes.

I would make Fey Blood more limiting, since it's supposed to be half a feat. Why not limit it to spells of the enchantment/illusion schools?

I realize we're sort of tilting at windmills a little here, but I think this is a good process.

-Steve

Personally I'm not a huge fan of the martial weapon ability of the humans anyways. It just doesn't sit right with me for some reason.

Bastardsword-Wielding Commoner.

I think you're really overestimating the attraction of the favored class bonus. I realize that there will be some examples of a variety of classes and profession among all the races. There will just be more of those within the favored classes. It's been my experience that players who choose traditional, "stereotypical", or "generic" race/classes have found a way to tweak them and make them unique. those who choose to play for instance, a dwarf ranger act like a sterotypical dwarf, and a sterotypical ranger, but remind you every so often that that chose something "different" and use that juxtaposition as a replacement for real creativity. It's my assertion that the favored class rule will deter that type of player, or lead him to try harder to make a chracter that is distinct. A player with a good character concept tends to be itching to try it out and will be willing to forego a minor bonus for it.

To be honest, and I mean no insult by this, your argument is so subjective I can't even respond to it. How can you assert that someone playing a non-archetypal class is better or worse or an RPer than someone playing an archetypical one? It's an entirely subjective argument, because it relies on an accurate assessment of who's a better roleplayer, and that can never be determined.

-Steve

Ok, I'm not sure what the Polymorph 'fixes' are but the issue has always come up when a character changes races somehow (Polymorph/Reincarnate/Mind Switch) what abilities go and what does he gain?

In most cases groups have to do an all-or-nothing rule or split things up into physical racial traits and cultural racial traits (for example, Stat bonuses are physical, weapon proficiencies are cultural).

Let's do this from the get-go to keep things nice an organized. It will also help for people who want to have "Jungle Elves" in their home campaign, they can just change the cultural stuff. That way you don't get High Elves, Grey Elves, Sun Elves, Wild Elves, Wood Elves and Dark Elves all with different stat bonuses.

These are the current pathfinder rules for Reincarnation:

A reincarnated creature recalls the majority of its former life and form. It retains any class abilities, feats, or skill ranks it formerly possessed. Its class, base attack bonus, base save bonuses, and hit points are unchanged.Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution scores depend partly on the new body. First eliminate the subject’s racial adjustments (since it is no longer necessarily of his previous race) and then apply the adjustments found below to its remaining ability scores.

The reincarnated creature gains all abilities associated with its new
form, including forms of movement and speeds, natural armor, natural
attacks, extraordinary abilities, and the like, but it doesn’t automatically speak the language of the new form. A wish or a miracle spell can restore a reincarnated character to his or her original form.

See, I challenge you to make your dwarf fighter exciting. I've seen more interesting dwarf fighters and elf wizards than those who played odd combinations. That's where I've seen players fall to the stereotypes as a crutch.

How is it an odd combination to have a dwarven rogue or a dwarven ranger? These are core classes, and should be available to all the races. They are available to all of the races by *definition* actually. If you have a dwarven city, there will still be a sizable portion of the population who are sorcerers, wizards, paladins, rangers, rogues, and monks. Not all elves are rangers and wizards, nor should they be. You've put the race concepts in far too tight of a box.

-Steve

Yeah, this is exactly the sort of thing I envisioned. If it were used to replace the Preferred Character Classes, I would add traits that improve abilities relating to Bard and Sorcerer classes (Sorcerer's ok, actually, but Bard could use more, maybe).

I realize that you just did that as a demonstration, of course.

-Steve

Calling it a penalty or a bonus is irrelevant, the effect is that it discourages non-favored class/ race combos. This goes way beyond the effect of the favored class rule in the core SRD which only effected multi class characters.

Indeed, power creep is my primary concern with the skill/hp bonus as well.

-Steve

Like I've said - I think the favored class should have ONE class per race (the historically cliche class/race combo), and allow for a player to choose a second class - so that you can still multi-class freely among the cliche' class and the new one without missing out on the benefit of the favored class, OR choose a single-class option that is outside the standard cliche and still have the benefit.

Robert, thinking about this, it's not a bad idea. All things being equal, I wouldn't be too upset if this became the default rule.

That being said, I still question the need for a HP or skill bump. The classes and races have already been decently up-powered, and 20 extra hp or skill points isn't nothing. I wonder if there are more flavorful means to convey advantages that the races have with certain classes?

-Steve

I just want to clarify something. I realize that the original purpose of the rule was to curb multiclassing. I also realize that Jason & Co. are trying to make the classes attractive enough to make that redundant. My purpose, and the reason I want to keep the rule, is a secondary effect of encouraging classic archetypes. When I refer to rule as "doing its job," this is the effect I'm referring to.

Also, I'm all for DMs who want to adjust the favored classes to fit their own campaigns. It lets the players know what kinds of PCs are going to be appropriate for the campaign.

It's not necessary. Why encourage the archetypes this way when the ability scores of the races, and their accompanying features, can accomplish that more effectively and flavorfully? The encouragement becomes a straightjacket.

It seems like you agree that the classes have been modified enough to encourage people to follow through with 20 levels of them. If that's the case, aren't there better ways to encourage stereotyping?

-Steve

Roman wrote:

That's a good point. On the other hand, Half-Orcs are often considered a bit underpowered, so perhaps this might give them the needed boost. Of course, a single +2 to one ability score does not have this problem. Hmm...

Half Orcs were considered under powered when they had +2 STR and two negative mental attribute bonuses. I guess they don't have a lot of racial bonuses outside their stat boosts but a +2 CON is a lot better than most racial bonuses. They also have darkvision which is nice.

I am willing to bet that with +2 STR and +2 CON we would see a lot more half-orc barbarians around.

That would be unbelievably overpowered.

-Steve

Subversive wrote:

I still think they need a +2 to to intimidate and survival to make the class perfect.

-Steve

You know, that is actually a very good suggestion! :)

Rather than giving Half-Orcs +2 to WIS or any bonus to Perception, I think it would suit them thematically and mechanically nicely if they get +2 to Intimidate and Survival -- or maybe they should get to choose between Diplomacy and Intimidate, as some half-orcs may actually learn to be very "adaptive" and manipulative among humans?

Why not give them the skill bonus and the bonus to Wis? Wis works for Half-Orcs, regardless of the racial characteristics of the 3.5 Orc

-Steve

Racial Traits = interesting option but also increases paperwork

Switch to racial feats = choice of taking a certain type of feat when you take a feat, no extra feat, just the option to take the feat

Previous favored class mechanic = multiclassing XP penalty waived, didn't matter with characters with just the one class or one class + favored class or favored class + prestige class or one class + prestige class or one class + X number of prestige classes or favored class + X number of prestige classes

You're also forgetting 2+ classes within one level of each other.

The racial traits option does not add any extra paper work if the starting default abilities are reduced, and a set of choices made available from a bank of options. Essentially, you're already writing down that a gnome has the spell-like ability to cast prestidigitation. Now instead of writing that down, you might write down that he gets +1 DC to illusions or something like that (to pick a bad example off the top of my head) assuming you picked that trait.

-Steve

I don't see what's wrong with the Wis bonus, either. They're stubborn and cunning, but not too bright.

I agree.

I still think they need a +2 to to intimidate and survival to make the class perfect.

-Steve