Suicidal's page

Goblin Squad Member. 45 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

Frankly, I think even having Goblins as a base race is idiotic. I get that the goblin is Paizo's mascot, but a waste of paper/space.

So, has anyone noticed that for the past few days (maybe longer) you can't download any files from there? Speaking mostly the various GM Reference documents and aids. But it expands to other areas as well..
Anyone know what's up?

So, just started prepping for running a campaign for my players, ended up deciding on Kingmaker, reading through find Kingdom rules and the like. Look online for streamlining help and the such, Ultimate Campaign and it seems in many ways overwhelming, so continue looking for tools and spreadsheets to help my grasping/layout/etc and lets face it, if it's too tedious, the players get bored... bored players=danger..

So then, I find this sheet... Holy f!!* I'm even more overwhelmed than when I started.... :P

Incredibly detailed sheet. Hope to wrap my head around the various components... but wow, incredible sheet.

So, I remember back in the Beta of Pathfinder, as well as on into Release, and the various discussions about it, that cheers were resounding at the concept of removing Reach from the Spiked chain on the grounds that you could, unlike most reach weapons, hit far and near (Barring feats from other books like Short half as example).

I applauded this, and it seemed as many thought the Spiked Chain was a problem for that reason...

So, I open the Ultimate Combat book... and find they've more or less just put back in the problematic (Depending on point of view) Spiked chain of 3.0/3.5, now named Kama Double-Chain and Kusarigama.

Am I the only one who's confused as to why they did this. Yes, as a GM I just say "Sorry, not allowing those" or whatnot. But I'm curious as to the change in mindset on that subject.

Or am I the only one wondering WTF?


James Jacobs wrote:


While we do periodically "graduate" elements from the back half of an Adventure Path into a hardcover rulebook (we do this quite often with monsters, but other elements like haunts and the chase rules and the character traits system make the transition as well now and then)... but we don't really want to lessen the value of the Adventure Path line by reprinting chunks of them wholesale in compilation type products.

Some day we might consider something along those lines, especially if it compiles material from older, mostly out of print Adventure Paths, but a product that does this to more recent ones (by which I mean APs that are only a year or two old) isn't something we're thinking of doing.....

Totally understand this, I do hope you do it eventually with older ones, and as mentioned you did do it with Haunts and such. Anyways, for now I'll just have to thumb through paths when/if my game store gets them in to look for interesting rule-sets.

Thanks again for picking up and expanding on the model of a game system that I've been playing since 1ed.

Okay, so, Any other paths that had some good new rulesets?

Love Pathfinder, great system, but my gaming group rarely use pre-made adventures. Occasionally we'll pick up one here and there for .. sheer lazyness in map creation or whatnot.

But recently, due to several moves and waiting for another set of friends to move back, our DM ran one of your adventure paths, The Council of Thieves. I gotta say, we were all thought it was brilliant.

But something we noticed in there, the alternate rules for variant Tieflings. These were incredible.

I'm just curious, have it ever been considered to do a Gazetter of sorts every few years and collect some of these great rules (Unique items, spells, feats, etc. as I assume you have such tidbits in your other books)
into one book, even if only in PDF.

Frankly, I know we'd by them. I understand you may not do or consider doing this sort of thing. But I think that'd be a great idea and I know there'd be a market for that.

On another note, any other great rules along those Tiefling lines in your paths that someone should/could mention/catalog. I may go out and buy some of those, just for the added content.


Funky trip wrote:

little bump...

on a side note... is Pathfinder RPG any popular at all? These forums are almost dead compared to other D&D forums. Especially now that the design forums are closed.

I suppose it is possible that it's not popular, but I think the real reason is, we've gotten all, or at least most, of our questions out of the way. Right now it's just the occasional "Hey, what about this" type questions as we await the final version of the game.

I mean, no point debating the playtest rules as, we don't know what was added or removed and at this stage in the game too late to make any more of a difference than it did earlier.

Basically, we're in a holding pattern till release, then I'm sure we'll be b#&%$ing back and forth about this or that. :P


Quandary wrote:

2 Questions:

What is the problem with smaller size weapon damage?

Yes, it's not the basis of rogue's damage. But the statement was in reference to Halflings getting weapon profs, which aren't good to begin with, and even less of a factor being small, so can't really count the sling and halfling weapons as a plus.. least not in my book.

Quandary wrote:

Likewise, how can the lower movement of Halfings/Gnomes be such a problem

You really are kidding me? ... if you can't get into a position to flank, you're of no use.. Tumble? you can tumble 2 squares, 4 if you forego your standard action...

So yes, I see the Acrobatics bonus as not worth much at all.
As you said, clearly being able to flank is of major importance... you have to be able to get into flanking for it to be of use. It will take you longer to get into flanking than anyone with a 30 movement. (Barring something like DM_Blakes home-brew feat as example)

As for ending up in a suboptimal position... that's going to happen more frequently than with a Human for the simple fact that you can't get to an optimal postion as quickly. Something 50' away for example, round 1, human in position to tumble/move into flanking) Round 2, they're flanking.. Halfling, round 1 they're still out of range to be able to, Round 2, they still are, Round 3 Yay, flanking. Once more, it's all variable to how the tactical table looks, but the movement makes the bonus not really a big deal.

Feint's okay, don't get me wrong, but it's a Standard action, with the feat (which a human could get at first level for example) it's a move.. if you're flanking, not necessary.. granted, if you're unable to get flanking (as example cause you're slow as hell) then it's viable at 3rd lvl when you get the number of feats.

Quandary wrote:
Note the Rogue's Skill Points and Class Skills. .....

Absolutely, Rogues get lots of skills, and are very viable to use them in tons of situations.. human rogues, moreso than a +1 bonus to Cha)

Quandary wrote:

In any case, this s@#* can drag on forever. What *IS* your solution?...

I've mentioned a few of them in posts, coming up with feats, making a modification, etc... I've seen some good suggestions in this thread, I've seen some that I have a less than favorable opinion. It gave me some insights and ideas to go from.

Do I have a firm plan yet, no.

Abraham spalding wrote:
Suicidal wrote:
Major_Tom wrote:
Wizards - elves win hands down. The extra +2 penetration - final net +6 vs. the humans net +4 is so huge, the rest of it pales in comparison. And remember, it's not 11 feats vs 10, it's 15 vs 14.
Okay, I'm confused now, perhaps it's my lack of sleep?
The wizard gets bonus feats which means instead of just getting a feat every other level you get one every other level + 1 every five levels.

I see precisely what you mean.

Major_Tom wrote:
Wizards - elves win hands down. The extra +2 penetration - final net +6 vs. the humans net +4 is so huge, the rest of it pales in comparison. And remember, it's not 11 feats vs 10, it's 15 vs 14.

Okay, I'm confused now, perhaps it's my lack of sleep?

DM_Blake wrote:

I mostly agree with your assessment......

Going back to the title of your thread, you asked "Why play anything but a human?"

It seems that for four classes, the answer is obvious, and for three more, the answer is optional, and for the final four, the answer is to play humans. By your own post.

7 classes out of 11 offer choices that are on par, or even out perform humans. By your own post.

I think the question has more evolved, it's still tempered by my experiences since 3.*, as pointed out often by me, but.... Half-Orcs one can say are great stat-wise for a large portion of classes, Int, unless you're a caster with that stat, holds little use in combat, you are down stats, significantly potentially, in skills. Cha, the dwarves dump stat has almost no value in combat either (as you point out in Rogues, there is some, I'll get to that shortly)

Both can make very good martial classes, even excell in it, mostly due to their stat bonuses being of significant value (lets face it, for a 'fighter' or whatnot, the bonus to wis is always helpful at a minimum) and a negative that have little to no real impact on those races.. Ie, dump stat.

You're assessment on Halfling rogues though I'd disagree with.
First, I'll go on the points I would agree with.
Armor Bonus, agreed, it's a nice advantage.
Skills:... I'll get to why the bonus to acrobatics is about worthless.
Luck: Absolutely, a bonus. (avoiding going into other books feats here)
Weapons: Agreed, Human... however, if they gut that out of the race as I've heard people mention was being talked about, the halfling bonus weapons.. still wouldn't be an advantage to speak of.. Especially as you're small weapons do less damage.
Feats: Big bonus, Perhaps slightly mitigated in PF due to the change in base number you get, but still a monsterous bonus.
MovementOkay, here's were we disagree, and agree.... advantage goes to human... but it's not a minor advantage. It's huge, especially for a rogue to be trying to maneuver into sneak attack position. Move 6 squares, move 4 squares (double for a double move) Let alone tumbling a whole 2 squares (4 for double move setup) Huamns, it's 3/6. This makes the Halfling(and for that matter gnomes and even dwarves(though their Steady part of slow and steady I think could be counted as making up for it) near complete junk in the rogue department, if you can't get to the fight to make yourself useful, let along getting into the right position, you don't matter.

You're assessment on Wizard:
A Con negative is huge.
I'll agree with the elven perception being gravy (though I'm still of the opinion that elves make great rogues based on this gravy, by far better than halflings.. but it's not a Favored class as example)
Spell penetration bonus, it's nice I'm not going to deny it. But I'd disagree with you about wizards jumping on a human made one.. I rarely have seen anyone take Improved penetration as example. There are numerous other feats that are usually taken long before them, albiet, now with the increased number of feats, may not be like that. But it definitely is a nice advantage, but it's not a game decider by any means.
The Immunities, sorry, being immune to junk is not a benefit, it's a waste of any character building design you're utilizing. The bonus to enchantment saves, is an advantage, the immunity to sleep, not so much.
Appraise, once more.. you're not going to be dumping points into appraise as a wizard, hell, you're gonna put it in Perception long long before appraise, so the +2 is worthless.

I'm mostly in agreement with you on this. One thing of Serious note:
Being both elven blood, and human blood.. means elf-bane, and Human-bane weapons affect you. Yes, they could create 'elven' magic items, but I'd say the negative is a higher risk.

I can see a tad of what you mean, and I like do like your movement feat idea.
Without a doubt, statwise they've got an impressive aspect (con is king of stats, and the cha of course)... of course, they really are likely to be easily encumbered, or you're 'dump stat' of str, can't really be a dump stat so you have to put some points in there to offset the negative. (Obviously it's not nearly as bad of a negative as elves)

Some modifications would help the gnomes out some, without a doubt.
The choice of your Scurry feat is without a doubt necessary with that feat being available.. Movement is a HUGE deal.

And we agree, the humans need to be able to be versatile and demi-humans only niches... what we disagree on is what's actual of value/not of value/sucky.

Absolutely, we agree on Dwarves and Half-orcs to a degree (still concider ferocity as example a complete waste of space :P) But they definitely make very potent choices in classes just on the basis of the bonuses and minuses.

Elves and halflings, we don't really agree, based on the PF books. Perhaps with something akin to that homebrewed feat of yours, Halflings would eek up some, but then you're down 2 feats basically against a human... but I think a feat along those lines would be worth it.

Elves are without a doubt inferrior in Ranger (Not sure if we agree or not on this one) and I still feel they're inferrior as Wizards or at best, maybe a wash... both of which are their Favored classes.

They're good ideas at things I can look at to make adjustments.

Thanks for your insight.

Edit: Fixed a few 'WTF's in my wording

Kaisoku wrote:

The problem I'm seeing in this back and forth is perception.

For those that would want something to motivate their players into playing something other than Human all the time, and even give some background influence to the character, I've already posted the Environmental and Cultural feats ideas on page 2.

And I was/am very grateful for the input, can't recall if I commented it or not in between the bickering.

Between something along those lines and limiting humans Favored Class choices to strictly those in the PF book, I think that will more or less solve most of the problems, other races, most notably the worthlessness that is Halflings, I'll need to tweak. Cause I'm sorry, Halfling Rogue.. worthless, if you can't get yourself in a position to flank, you're junk movement is a big negative and nothing they currently have make up for that. Gnomes another near worthless race, but at least they have Con. Half-elves, near-junk as well. As said, the two touted are Orcs and Dwarves, and I'll concede that they are at least a coin-toss, stat by stat they're superior, abilitywise, only the Dwarf shines in comparison. Orc's nothing.

Now granted, I realize entirely this is an opinion thing as to worthless or not *shrugs* some see one thing as great, others see it as crap.

Thanks again for the various ideas and inputs, at least those who posed some suggestions, the others, thanks for decent debates with little penis waggling that usually dominates threads like this. ;p

KaeYoss wrote:
Suicidal wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
(note, defensive spellcasting will no longer be resolved through skills in PF).


Click on the d21 System logo on the upper left corner, then on more info.

Yes.. My Arooo???? was for if you were a tad slow in realizing that it showed up on April fools days.

DM_Blake wrote:

I'm not "conceding the point that humans are better".

I am conceding the piont that humans are more versatile.

And I beileve that every race has at least one class for which it can be said that that race is equally viable to humans.

I completely disagree with this, especially in PF now that humans get a +2 to any one stat.

DM_Blake wrote:

But, I do concede that humans are the only race that can play all 11 classes with mechanical viability. In that regard, their versatility is vastly superior to all the other races.

Agreed, that's how it should be, but in nearly every comparison, a human plays better than any race... With the two exceptions being fairly predominate.

Barbarians, Okay half-Orc can out perform.. on a stat basis, so probably could Dwarf (not it's class skill)
Bard: Humans, once more, stats, no negatives far superior to the other 'favored' with Bard Halflings a complete joke, gnomes... not really.
Cleric: Half-Orcs (not favored) could be considered very viable for reasons that have been said. Dwarves, possibly, even yesish only real negative here is how prevaliant undead are or aren't, but this could be concidered a minor issue.
Druids: As pointed out Half-orc excell because of stats.
Fighter: Dwarves or perhaps Half-orcs (not favored) Simply since no negatives in stats to affect, and feats galore as fighter which negates to some degree the human bonus.
Monk Dwarves or even Half-orcs can actually make decent monks over a human, once more, their 'dump stat' has little to no bearing on the choice.
Paladin: Human obviously and I'd expect this, nobody else is favored with them as example
Ranger:Humans by far, hell, even dwarves would likely make a better ranger than Elves who have it favored.
RogueActually, I put elves in a coin-toss situation with humans in this class, inspite of the negative to hitpoints from con. Halflings, what a favored joke.
Sorcerer Once more, humans significantly exceed Gnome's in their favored class, even if you are focused with Illusions.
WizardOnce more, don't think elves are superior to humans, at best you could say cointoss, still think the human feat and skill surpass the elven penetration, and obviously, a minus to con to any squishy is always bad, but PF did up the Hitdie of them, so perhaps that's not so bad.

So... I keep seeing the same over and over. Dwarf, half-orc.

DM_Blake wrote:

I don't know what the OP wants.

Much of what I've been getting, whether I agree with the statements made, or not. That is to say, commentary about what I'm not thinking about or exploiting, and what can I do to make adjustments. You can say all you want humans aren't the premier choice in nearly every situation, as I've said, since 3.* came out, nearly all human campaigns.. and it's not the same people. It spans across three different states and also Saudi Arabia deployments, gamers of varies backgrounds (Though mostly ChairForce technical personell that rotated around due to deployments and PCS's)

The question is why, the answer that always comes up as responce in my varied games I've been is, was, Cause humans are better, that feat, the extra skill, far exceeds the other races bonus'. I foresee it being pretty much the same.

DM_Blake wrote:
Beefing up any non-human race will break that delicate balance.

In my experiences, there isn't any balance, that experience is based on the number of non-humans played.

DM_Blake wrote:
If the only problem is that humans are more verasatile, and we want all the races to gain versatility across the board without gaining superiority in their niches, then why is nobody saying this?

Because, speaking for myself, that's not what I want... however, I would like to see some superiority or FFS even coin-toss equivalence, between a race's favored class, and humans.

DM_Blake wrote:
All I'm hearing is that the people claiming humans are superior say that there is no reason to play a non-human, despite being shown many reasons to play them, or to at least aknowledge niche viability with the right race/class combos where those non-humans shine just as brightly as humans (and in a few cases maybe even a little more brightly).

Yes, people like to keep pointing to the Dwarf or Half-orc... the rest meakly stay silent or add "And same with the Halfling".... I think it's more of the aspect of people pointing out the same example as awesomeness don't make the balance between all the races even remotely a fact.

DM_Blake wrote:
Do we really want non-human superiority? Didn't we use to have that in 1e/2e? Personally, I don't want this, but I'll listen to anyone who can offer suggestions or justifications as to how the game would be better to make any or all non-human races mechanically superior to humans.

From my perspective, one of the fixes, or at least the best idea I've seen so far, is limiting the choices of the Human Bonus feat, into something along the lines of regional feats.... but once more that is entirely based on if one's regional feats don't make 'Ubergodness in every situation possible" or whatnot.

DM_Blake wrote:
Do we really want every non-human to be mechanically viable in every class just like humans are? Wouldn't that break the beauty of humans, their core versatility? Maybe we should break the human monopoly on versatility. So is that what we want? Personally, I don't want this either, but I'll listen to reasons why the game would be better if we did this (note: I think the game would be more mechanically balanced from a gamist perspective if we did it, much like 4e is more balanced, but I don't think the game "fluff" would feel right any more - IMO).

Not at all.

Yes it would.
Probably an idea in some respects, as noted with the idea of limiting the bonus feat to Regions
I'm of the firm opinion that the makers of 4E should be put in a mulcher. They may get some props for balancing... err, at least some... but they raped DnD and left it a battered and bruised tabletop World of MMO.

DM_Blake wrote:
Or do we feel that there are races that, mechanically speaking, are never comparable to humans in any possible core class? Persoanlly, if this really is true, I want this fixed, and support anyone who can demonstrate that this is true for any race - if it can be shown true, I'll be one of the first to jump on the bandwagon for fixing that race. I just happen to not be aware of any race for which this might be true, except possibly gnomes and maybe halflings - these two races cut it pretty close to being sub-optimal everywhere.

I think it's more like this... With few exeptions, mechanically speaking, demi-humans are not comparable to humans in their Core classes.... and I agree with you completely on Gnomes and Halflings.. I feel they're very sub optimal, but gave my points up above about the others as well.

KaeYoss wrote:
Caladors wrote:

Why the heck is everyone so darn hostile?

I'm not hostile! How dare you call me hostile? Take it back or I come over and beat you up!!!


Screw that, get the mulcher out, that'll deal with'm!!!! :P

KeaYoss} wrote:

So like I said before rather than restricting humans just give other races unique feat trees or abilities that make them more appealing.

He doesn't concede that they're better, and more than likely I'll restrict the Human Bonus feat to a Regional... obviously I have to not be an idiot with how/what exactly I set up for in the Region, but alas.

As for GentleGient's question about Demi-humans from that region. Not sure how exactly I'm going to do this. If I include racial feats for Demi-humans, then they would not get access to the Regional, as they have their own pool they could choose from at lvl 1 if they're so inclined. If I don't include them, then they'd get access to it, but only if they spent their 1st level feat on it. Humans on the other hand would have to spend their Bonus feat on it, and still have the 1st level feat to choose for whatever.

KaeYoss wrote:
(note, defensive spellcasting will no longer be resolved through skills in PF).


DM_Blake wrote:

I would suggest that at first level, humans decide whether they want a bonus feat (anything on the list as long as they meet the prerequisites) or they want one extra skill point at every level.

Now, in my opinion, this would weaken humans enough that I would always choose ...... an "and" to an "or" and you're done, basically".

Does it balance the humans?

Not even close, it gimps the humans really bad. My intent/desire is not to gimp humans, but I honestly do not see a reason (mechanically speaking)in almost all circumstances to play anything but humans.... as they stand now that is.


DM_Blake wrote:
Da'ath wrote:

Man, I come from work, go to sleep, eat food, and come back to a Penis Measuring contest..... that seems to have resolved itself and gotten back on topic :P

Da'ath wrote:
Human Racial Traits:

Some decent ideas.

DM_Blake wrote:
1. If you put decent feats on the feat list, and decent skills on the skill list, then how would this make humans less privileged?

In one way, by limiting their choices, now granted, if in their list of regional feats, there is an 'uber regional feat of godhood', then your absolutely correct, it'd do nothing, I think it would matter on the type of regionals come up with/modified/placed. One thing it _Would_ do, is put humans on the same par for most Tree feats with any other demi-human. (barring my use of virtual feats if any of them matched mind you, which is/would be my problem entirely to deal with in what feats are regional)

But absolute spot on with the Skill choices DM, that'd be little difference, granted, if looked at from a whole (Ie, regional feats available compared to skill focus, etc) It may or may not be as good, all depends on available choices.

DM_Blake wrote:
To extend your example, how valuable would your Viking cultre be to someone playing an Egyption-themed campaign? Or vice-versa?

It wouldn't, at all.. but it's a good (for me at least) starting point as a possible fix.. even if the Vikings aren't good for my game, it's something I can modify for my campaign to fit the Egyption setting as example.

Da'ath wrote:
Weapon Familiarity: Humans are proficient with weapons (standard) and armor (standard) in accordance with their regional background, in addition to those granted by class proficiencies. (the popular weapons of their culture, list of 3-5)

As mentioned in this post, that may be cut out of the final version of PF, which would be another thing to make Demi's more desireable... well, some of the Demi's, frankly being proficient with a sling and 'halfling' weapons, which I can't think of any off the top of my head, though the PF world may have some in them, don't seem to good :P But that's just one example, others, are more than nice.

Another aspect I think that I'm forgetting, and I haven't seen mentioned on this board that makes humans not as disireable as before is Favored Class:
For one, it's now to be chosen at first level and stuck with.. for another, and this is likely to be my own house rule.. the Favored class can only be chosen from the pathfinder core book (and some home grown base classes specific to my campaign) I know we're not talking about the other books (and grateful for it) but that is a factor that made humans more desireable as well, compared to the choices left to the other races. Especially if using Pathfinders optional rule of Favored class.

Opinions on that?
Once more, thanks again for the input.

Alizor wrote:

Just as a few notes since I didn't see it mentioned anywhere...

Dwarf: The "Slow and Steady" racial ability makes it so that heavy armor never affects your speed.

Very good point I, and others, missed, but, the bonus they get from haste is only 20, twice their normal maximum. The small races are totally hosed on the speed issue.

Alizor wrote:

Half-orc: If you want to look at it, orc-ferocity is equal to dumbed down Diehard feat (1/2 a feat?), 2 martial weapon proficiency feats (technically 2 feats, but could be useless), as well as a "few" exotic weapon proficiency feats (depends on how many orc weapons are available and is useless without martial weapon proficiency). A cleric wielding a Greataxe or Falchion can make a big difference, especially if it were a melee oriented cleric (which a half-orc probably would be).

Like you said, could be useless, I think Ferocity is, other's won't. Without a doubt the Weapon Prof's are nice, especially if/what exactly are 'orc' weapons (or any race for that matter) But, humans get any martial weapon they wish currently (which is greater than prof in martial x y and z. due to versatility) Though someone did post they believe it's being removed in the final version in which case the weapon prof's are, depending on class of course, significant additions.

Alizor wrote:

I think in the end Human is the Best/equal choice for alot of classes and builds, but each demi-human race has it's own niches that do make it equal to or better than the human. Just as a few examples:...

I've noticed though, that the only race really touted out is the Dwarf... some tout the Half-orc, and I can see some situations, but generally I'd disagree with the usefulness, as for War Cleric... gods, nothing worse than having a party where the cleric won't heal and lets people die cause he's busy swinging at something he can barely hurt in any event (High AC versus the person weilding Flame Blade they let die). Channeling is great in PF, but worthless if a player is still swinging :P

Next time when the individual said he'd play the cleric, everyone including his wife said "NO". Elven Rogues, I've always thought ruled due to their stats and, most notably, the secret door roll... of course, that's not their favored class. And in their favored classes, I'd still put humans as far superior Rangers, and somewhat superior as a wizard (even including the bonus penetration)

Alizor wrote:

I think the most useful part of being human is that it's never a bad choice. You always will get something relevant for your class by taking human, but it could be a bad choice to take certain demi-human races for certain builds. Also as a final note, the best part of being human is the bonus feat, and the usefulness of this wholly depends on the availability of books. If you're only playing a core (whether it is PHB or...

Agreed, though I more put it as.. with few exceptions, playing a demi-human for x will make it almost as good as a human. *shrugs* I do use numerous other books, don't bring them up here as then it starts the debate of 'Well this feat is twinky, that one is worthless, these are" and so forth, so just been keeping most of my babbles at the core races/rules and such.

Thanks for your insight :)

Edited, left something out, sorry.

HaraldKlak wrote:
Apart from that, discussing the numbers, I think there has been severel points made already, why non-humans have some very real advantages.

True, I'm still of the view that the humans stat bonus exceeds the demi-humans 2 bonuses with 1 minus, in most situations. One thing after this thread I know I can increase with a small modificaiton is in utilizing the illumination rules better, negating 'glowy' weapons or flaming to where they only spark/burst/freeze upon impact and therefore do not shed off light, will make the Low-light and Darkvision far more useful because more than likely fighters will get into shadowy illumination places more frequently.


Shifty wrote:
Suicidal wrote:
It's akin to saying it's a great idea in a game to play a fighter with a 9 str, or a wizard with only a 13 int or whatnot(not so much the issue nowadays, but once upon a time, 1ed as example, was a major issue.) You can have a great concept, have a fun character, and more than likely you're ruining the fun of others with a character who is worthless in any situation outside of the local watering hole.

Well then thats the way it goes. My fun isn't 'ruined' or lessened because the other player in my party isn't a rules lawyering min/maxer.

Imaging if life was like an RPG, you'd brush your friend off because he was a sporty type - but wasn't Jock of the Year. Your smart friends weren't maxxed out in Exams101.

Some of my RL buddies have a RL low CHA stat and have a hard time pulling chicks at the local bar, do I ditch them? are they ruininating the evening for the rest of us because they can't pull the girls as fast? should we dump them at the bowling alley? NO - we take em along and all have fun anyway.

RPG's will have a few similarities to RL.

Excellent point, of course, friend or no friend, many sit the bench in friendly sports games as being worthless... I myself am glad to not be dragged into anything other than sidelines of <insert any sports> games, but other friends, get upset about not being asked to join in the actual game... they're still not brought in for being worthless, but we have no problem sitting around in a bar BSing and having a good time all night.... we just don't bring them out of the watering hole and onto the 'field of battle' :P


houstonderek wrote:
Suicidal wrote:
It's akin to saying it's a great idea in a game to play a fighter with a 9 str, or a wizard with only a 13 int or whatnot(not so much the issue nowadays, but once upon a time, 1ed as example, was a major issue.)
Of course, the difference is a Huge Ancient Red Dragon (almost the biggest, baddest thing in the game) only had 88 h.p and a -1 a.c. (the equivalent of a 21 a.c. now) in 1e, so the "issue" you speak of was only an "issue" to proto-munchkins...

I should have explained this a tad better, in 3.* you can add to stats as you level up (Not to mention getting a bonus at 12 now), couldn't really in 1ed. Damage dealt was less from a players perspective, and precisely for the reason you showed, the monsters armor and HP's were significantly lower as well, though Gods, the Solar from MM2 was beyond scary. :P


RiseFlynnsterRise wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
THAT said... a great reason to play a non-human is because of roleplaying decisions. Playing an elf or a dwarf or a gnome or a half-elf or a half-orc gives you some cool built-in roleplaying stuff to play with that the generic human lacks.
Tsk,tsk,tsk Mr Jacobs...haven't you caught on to the fact that apparently, ROLE PLAYING is no longer part of the game? NO...people want to dip into different classes for a level...people what to play the BEST character there is...Why play something that is functionally INFERIOR to the BEST combination of class/race/stats?
KaeYoss wrote:
Suicidal wrote:
*grins* Race is immaterial to roleplaying :)
Not at all. Racial archetypes (call them stereotypes for all I care) and all that can colour a character's, well, character. Plus, it's fun to try to simulate an alien mindset (elves aren't just pointy-eared humans, for example)
HaraldKlak wrote:

But the premise of the discussion was to disregard the character background and focus on dice-crunching.

So let's not waste time on such inferior concerns as roleplaying! ;-)

Precisely.. RP has nothing to do with a game's mechanics/balance/whatever. A good RPer will RP a great <insert class/race/devote follower of the flying speghitti monster> and a lousy one, will make you want to stick an icepick through their or your skull. Has nothing to do with numbers, which I'm sorry, dice games come down to. It's akin to saying it's a great idea in a game to play a fighter with a 9 str, or a wizard with only a 13 int or whatnot(not so much the issue nowadays, but once upon a time, 1ed as example, was a major issue.) You can have a great concept, have a fun character, and more than likely you're ruining the fun of others with a character who is worthless in any situation outside of the local watering hole. Unless the whole game is centered around said watering hole where you never do anything but RP sessions, in which case, the system (PF, 3.5, 4E, Amber, Pendragon, etc, etc, etc) is irrelevant.

Hence, my statement at the start of this thread.

Andre Caceres wrote:
....Humans on the other hand fit any and every class fine because the Feat/Skill ablity lets them in effect mimic the other races advantages in any given class.....More Feats for everyone....Skills...All in all the things you see as advantages over the other races is really only letting Humans mimic other races niches. Probably why humans are everywhere...

You have a variety of good insights, The issue though, for me at least, is that humans not only mimic other races niches, in almost every case, they outperform. (I'm still of the opinion that Elves, as example, make better rogues than humans) The skill change in PF is a coin-toss points wise.. if you're a class with plenty of skills, one can put a point in various skills, or at least lesser used class skills, and have effectivly 4 points in it (as viewed in 3.5 eyes) Which I like the change, however, it's still a very benificial aspect of humans. The free feat humans get is a bit more of a wash over what they were in 3.*, for reasons stated, but it's still the a bigger plus than most races.

And without a doubt, in my world (Or even FR which I mostly ran until the raped the world in 4ed so much that I can't even see running in that world now, even ignoring 4ed story :P)Humans are the most plentiful, I honestly expect to see more humans, but the gross disparity between humans and the total of demi-humans played since 3.0 has had me thinking.

Daniel Moyer wrote:
Dwarf Fighter = Dwarven War Axe(1-hand d10) + Slow & Steady(big armor w/o movement penalties)

Which is nice, however, since their Base Movement is a 20 to begin with, they're up to the same speed as a human with Heavy armor. But, in my experiences, most people have higher dex and wear the Chainshirt, which puts you at about the same AC (With Heavy being able to get 9 total instead of 8), but also allows you to sleep in it without becoming fatigued, making you more prepared for those pesky nighttime encounters.

Daniel Moyer wrote:
Oh gawd, please don't mention Gnomes.....

Oh, agreed, I was just talking numbers games when checking out abilities granted by a race versus another's.. all in all, being small is a massive negative for anything that relies on weapons :P.

KaeYoss wrote:
So let's indeed ignore that huge field of roleplaying called... well, roleplaying :P

*grins* Race is immaterial to roleplaying :)

KaeYoss wrote:
They make good wizards:....good rangers:....They make good....

But in almost every situation, humans make an at least equal, and usually better choice, especially with humans getting +2 to any stat. Mind you, IMO, elves make better rogues than anything else, which isn't even their forte, racially speaking.

hogarth wrote:
(By the way, the half-orc's selling point is Darkvision, not Ferocity, IMO.)

Excellent point

Set wrote:
The 'demihumans' are easy enough to phase out, minimize or equalize....

True, and this is a factor of humans being played nearly all the time, but also, fantasy game.. not human central :P

Set wrote:
Cutting out the human [bonus']....

These are all good suggestions as options to do, but in all honesty, I don't want to make humans... not worth playing.

lastknightleft wrote:
Um you're saying that immunity to sleep effects is only nice?

KaeYoss summed up the answer to this one perfectly (and the only needing 4 hours sleep statement) "Not with the weaksauce sleep magic we have right now."

Once more, thanks all for the continue discussion and insights.

Quandary wrote:

Though Feat and Skill of choice is of course enticing, I think you're selling the other species short.

They pretty much all have MULTIPLE abilities/bonuses that are roughly Feat (or Class Ability) equivalent (usually slightly weaker, but several of them...), and their free Language proficiency would cost a Human one of their bonus Skill Points.

No argument, they'd spend 1 point (2 in 3.5) to get the missing language.. of course, they're not limited in their bonus languages from a high intelligence (save for special languages mind you) Humans have the option of any language, demi-humans are limited with a subset of the languages... which makes sense.. but it's not a point of brightness in favor of demi-humans having 1 free language, and a limited choice of options over the human option of any languages.

Quandary wrote:
It feels like you're saying Feats and Skill Points are great and all-powerful, except when equivalent functionality is granted by Racial Abilities.

Level 1 human, 1 extra skill

Level 1 Elf, 2 extra skill points (Perception) and 2 limited skill points (lets call them 1 point since it's a fairly limited situation of appraise)
Level 20 human, 20 extra skill points (or 40, or 20skill + 20hps if using Favored class optional rule)
Level 20 elf, 2 extra skill points (Perception) and 2 limited skill points (lets call them 1 point since it's a fairly limited situation of appraise)(20 Skill points or 20hps if using Favored class optional rule)
Equivalent?... yeah.

Quandary wrote:

You would have to say that Human PCs NEVER take Feats like Improved Saving Throws (Iron Will, etc), Exotic Weapon Proficiency, Skill Focus, Defensive Maneuvers, or take Ranks of Linguistics for extra Languages. A further benefit is that almost all Racial Bonuses STACK with these Feats, so you can take Defensive Maneuvers IN ADDITION to Dwarven Stability, for example, or Iron Will on top of Magic Resistance.

Imp Saving Throws: Rarely, but yes taken.. of course, it's to all saving throws, not just compulsion or whatnot which races generally are.

Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Only ever seen the Bastard sword taken
And truth told, only rarely and by fighters.
Linguistics: Never seen taken but once after chargen.
Skill Focus: Only if the Prestige they're planning requires (of which case I do count the racial bonus as a 'virtual feat')

Dwarves, no doubt, more viable than the other demi-humans

Quandary wrote:
Take the Half-Elf. Well, if your Human PC still takes Skill Focus, what is the big difference?

Once more, never seen taken baring requirement. Not to say that makes it an invaluable choice, as you get there faster, but it doesn't outweigh the human ability in any way shape or form, or even equal it, which is all I'm looking for, overall balance between the choices of a human versus demi-human.

Quandary wrote:
And I think the Half-Elf is the weakest of the Races in Beta.

I view the Half-orc as being the crappiest of the races. Ferocity is more than likely a death sentence.

Quandary wrote:
I'm not 100% certain on this, but it was mentioned somewhere on the boards that in the Final release, Half-Elves will be able to choose *2* Classes as "Favored Classes" (+1skill/HP per level), which is an obvious benefit for multi-class characters. In addition to their other benefits.

Obviously I'm just going off of the Beta release and without a doubt problems that I see may not exist in the final version offering other aspects to concider.

Quandary wrote:
Or the Half-Orc. Their Orc Ferocity isn't *quite* as good as Die-Hard, but then again, Die-Hard also requires Endurance, adding up to *2* Feats. ......

2 feat to get a crappy ability is still crappy especially mid or higher level play. Most of the time, it's better to be unconcious and not a target, than one hit away from being dead instead of unconcious. Yes it could be useful, as we've seen more often than not, being low on hitpoints instead of unconcious, let alone under 0 but still fighting, means you have a dead character. (Barring good healing being able to be done before the next monsters action). Though as for it being an alternate Pre-Req, I use virtual feats for this factor, some don't like them, understandable, but if class, feat, etc requires a specific feat, and you have something that grants basically the same thing, I count it as meeting the pre-reqs... once more though, not all play that way for various reasons good or bad.

Quandary wrote:
...Basically, I just don't think it's as cut-and-dried as you make it out. ...

You're absolutely right, nothing is cut and dry, but, I can only go by and speak about what I've seen over the years of playing, and what I still foresee as occuring in various games of mine (and my friends who run when I'm burned out/they have a good idea/etc) And what I've seen, and foresee still occuring, barring "This is an <insert race> only campaign" which pops up now and then, it's mostly humans in my fantasy games.

Thanks for your comments :)

Shifty wrote:
Suicidal wrote:
Why choose a race other than human?
Why indeed... because if you have the vintage and fine gaming background you have outlined, you'd be aware there is more to life than stats on a page.

True. But as I stated before, my gamers are number crunching peoples in their lives, as well as in game, great RP, but number crunchers nonetheless who I've often heard the exact question I've posed. Besides dropping my friends and gamers to grab from the pool of generally unwashed masses that hang out at the local gaming store... not really an option.

Shifty wrote:

On the other hand there might be a storyline totally geared around being a particular race as well.

This are most of my exceptions to the rule of them playing humans. :)

Shifty wrote:

Edit - and nothing says "sneaking in the dark" tactics like a Human Ranger or Thief bashing into things they cant see. Blind-Fighting wont cut it there.

Now this, is definitely something I can be more aware of in my designs and whatnot. I do this occasionally, but not as often as I probably should. Though truth told, as they get up in levels this is not really much of an issue due to magic items, or spells or whatnot.. Still a useful tool I need to exploit more. THanks for the reminder.

Kaisoku wrote:
I think I remember seeing somewhere a campaign setting that limited the Bonus Feat from Humans to a background/regional feat. I think it was the Wheel of Time setting book (not exactly sure).

This is something I've actually considered doing. Granted, then my fear is all my humans will be from the region with Blooded' or whatnot. :P.. but it's at least something I can work around/shuffle :)

Prestige classes getting to faster usually aren't that big of a deal (especially along the fighter route) It is a factor yes, but truth told, it's never been as big of a factor in my games. Now, Getting to that deeper Tree'd Feat faster, definitely a factor, though often the Skill points required is more of a factor than not. (which yes, is one thing being looked at/concidered/modified for conversion to Pathfinder)

Kaisoku wrote:
The skillpoint is kind of nice, although favored class now can give a skillpoint so it's not as large a bonus.

It's a bigger bonus than it was now Kaisoku. Yes, Demi-humans can get the skill point now :).. Humans can get a Hit-point while still getting a skill point. Granted, the optional rule of Favored class is definitely on my list of things to be considered and whatnot.

Kaisoku wrote:
Now that Pathfinder has increased the number and frequency of feats from character levels, that bonus feat isn't quite as devastating as before... but then again, Humans now have an extra +2 to any stat, once again making them the versatile "I'm not just good, but AWESOME at any build!" race.

Yeup, hence my problem

Kaisoku wrote:
If you don't want to limit the Human bonus feat, the other option would be giving the other races a limited choice of feat towards their favored class (ie, replace the +2 penetration for Wizards with a feat choice of spell penetration, spell focus, skill focus magic related skills, etc).

Not a bad suggestion, as example, though the one benifit of this skill I've seen, is that it stacks with Penetration and greater penetration, which does matter as things go along.... the problem has always been... human still seems better, and I believe in 'virtual feats' so this is still useful without that in my games.. ie, if a pre-req for somthing is Spell Penetration this ability would count (though granted, you couldn't for example take Greater Penetration for a +4 bonus without taking the basic one first)

Kaisoku wrote:

In the current games I've played, only Humans have been chosen. Almost a Dwarf, for roleplaying reasons, but it would have set back the build (the stat rolls weren't good enough to warrant the negative Cha).

Yeah, I know what you mean on this. :P

Once more, thanks for the comments... on to replying to the next post ;P


hogarth wrote:

Human: +2 to one stat, one martial weapon proficiency, one extra skill point per level, one feat

Half-Elf: +2 to one stat, low-light vision, +2 vs. enchantment effects, +2 to Perception, secret door radar sense, Skill Focus

Likewise, Human vs. Half-Orc seems like a toss-up if you're playing a martial class.

Personally, I think that the human's bonus feat (their big attraction in 3.5) is less important in Pathfinder, since everyone gets more feats. YMMV, of course.

That's one thing I keep forgetting, is the every other level feat in Pathfinder. you basically end up with 3 more feats than you did in 3.5, not positive if that's still worth much less than it be, definitely less yes, but feats are still king.

But honestly, the skill points are something pointed out as a factor(and the discussion gets even more slanted to Human if you use the Favored class suggestion of +1hp or Skill point per level).

As I said, I can see the toss up for the secret door aspect, I think it's pretty big, especially since time in a dungeon for example, is actually a big thing in my games. But Half-orc.. I don't see them worth anything compared to a human, Ferocity is IMO actually a bigger negative because: Okay, you're up, next hit you're probably dead instead of being down and out and ignored.

Again, thanks for ideas/suggestions.

James Jacobs wrote:

If you'd rather see more non-human characters in your game, by all means adjust their abilities to make them more attractive to number crunchers. Or simply remove all ability score modifiers from humans and leave that to the demihumans.

THAT said... a great reason to play a non-human is because of roleplaying decisions. Playing an elf or a dwarf or a gnome or a half-elf or a half-orc gives you some cool built-in roleplaying stuff to play with that the generic human lacks.

Ya know I agree with you on the RP reasons, honestly. And also see demi-humans excel in certian situations.. but the things that the various demi-humans excel at when compared to a human in the same situation (talking favored class for example) human still usually wins out, or at best ends up in a coin-toss situation.

And believe me, I have concidered removing the human stats, or modifying them to 2 +1's even (Though honestly, number crunching you tend to get bigger bang for buck like that :P)

Another option of mine is to adjust humans so that their racial feat is based upon the region of my world that they are from instead of any, as example, thus limiting their versatility, which I don't really want to do, but is an option...

I'm just curious for options from the community at large.. yes, humans are the staple of the world... but honestly after, what, nearly 9 years of play in the 3.* world (I think it came out in 2000.. but memory is flakey at times) the disparity I've seen is a bit extreme where in nearly every case, the best that can be said is "Well, it's a coin toss to go with <insert race> over human in this situation"

BTW I really appreciate the insight and comments made, even if I have an excuse/comment for it.... I'm honestly looking for ideas or insights that I may be missing.


Lord Fyre wrote:

You are looking at Elves.

Check out Dwarves, if you want to see how powerful a "non-human" can be!

I have, Slow and steady is nice the CMB is nice... they're still a movement of 20 which is a major negative... Would I, or my players, take a dwarf over a human as a fighter.. it's a cointoss, still on the subject of feat and skill points (stats still a wash across the board) .. Any small race is far under par with the possible exception of gnome, most notably for the speed half-orc, a complete joke comparitively, etc etc....

I've made several home brew modifications for my races to make the more desierable, using the Race Creation guide as at least a baseline for some stuff (which it's a definitely imperfect, and not precise way, but it's a good starting point and then wiggling around with) to bring some of these crappier races up to par (as well as axe the ubergod races, catfolk for example) They're more or less the Pathfinder races with some mods here and there to make them more world specific... and still, generally speaking, Why take anything but a human? (Once more, dealing with number crunching math-types)


Sorry, made an edit and specified as a class

Okay, I've been playing and running DnD since Basic Set (Oh god what uber powergaming kids we were), and 3.* since it came out. I will be converting to Pathfinder when the final version is out.

What this generally entails for me is shifting and modifying my custom races and balancing them all out. But something I've noticed since 3.0 first came out, with very rare exceptions, we've had a fantasy game of humans. Why? Well, lets face it, that extra feat and the skill points is a monsterous bonus, far more in nearly every situation than any of the other racial bonuses. My question:

Why choose a race other than human?
Now, here's what I mean by it. Sure, "Well, elves are cool" or for my character background/vision... ignore those lines of thoughts. I'm talking a numbers crunching logic view... (All my gamers are mathematically inclined in their jobs/lives).

Take human vs. Elven wizards: Ignore the optional Favored class rule in Pathfinder (which I like but truth told makes humans even more favorable) Epic point buy, Planned all wizard.

Human stats: Str 10, Dex 16, Con 14, Int 18, Wis 10, Cha 10.
Elven Stats: Str 10, Dex 18, Con 12, Int 18, Wis 10, Cha 10.
Less hitpoints, 1 more armor, toss up on which is better or worse depending on your philosophy. All in all, in building stat points, they're more or less a wash across the board.

Of matterable/desierable abilities:
Human: Free feat, Skilled.
Elf: Extra 2pts for penetration, Low-Light Vision(not as matterable, but more than the lesser ones IMO)

Lesser materable abilities:
Most of the other benefits from the races, yes sleep is nice, bonus to compulsion nice.. not huge for a wizard as example)

All in all, when under discussion, humans still seem to be and are the chosen race, why? Skill points and Feat.

Suggestions of "You don't know what you're doing" are unhelpful and meaningless to me... 2nd edition and before there were many non humans in all my campaigns.. not so much since 3.0+, and less so in Pathfinder (due to humans getting to add 2 to a stat)



I actually like the Rage system as it stands (Option 1) though there definitely needs to be some rework on the cost of the powers, especially in comparison to 'always active' benefits to other classes that don't run out of time in a given day of usage/benefit. Even moreso with other abilities that don't come into play unless you're rageing.
Though I can see where some do not like the added layer of management.

Option 2 would work I think rather well, with as you said some tweakings.

Basically, I like the options that the Rage system gives you.

I prefer option 1 with power reworks (though 2 would be the next acceptability).. the management isn't that bad from a GM point of view, especially if you give some pointers/guidelines for making barbarians quicker and easier. Hell, do what 90% of GM's do with casters "Hmm, this spell would be useful right now.. guess he has it".

From a player point of view, .... I'm sorry, it really isn't that much work to keep track of that s+&~.... if you're lost, write it out on an Index card.

SneaksyDragon wrote:
...and if I could get someone to playtest a fighter in one of my games. I am currently running three games, one with back up characters already built ( a particularly dangerous game) and I have 4 barbarians, 2 paladins 3 rangers and NO FIGHTERS. I cant bribe them to play em.

This I have never seen as a problem, they all take one look at the Barbarian, and Fighter, and all go fighter.

That being said, especially with the changes and whatnot 3.p has made, Definitely should be in the realm of the fighter to reduce the movement penalty based upon their level of skill. As the OP mentioned, that lack of movement is a REALLY big deal, in so much as Almost every person I've seen roll out with something other than a Chain Shirt, has had some way of moving faster, be it a naturally faster race or boots of striding and springing. Definitely something that should be looked into changing for the Fighter, and at higher levels so people do not level dip for them.


S W wrote:
DR 5/- at level 19 is not enough to matter. DR doesn't mean anything once the game gets into higher levels unless it's at least in the mid-teens. Barbarians need a boost in DR, and fighters should get DR with armor training AND armor mastery.

Except when you take into account the Viscious weapon. Which is a great bonus to a weapon, arguably the best, if you have the DR to mitigate most/all of that backlash damage. It's a Barbarian thing, shouldn't be a fighter thing too.

I like the idea people have presented about reducing the speed penalty at higher levels of the skill. Makes heavy armor more attractive, I think something needs to be done to make Board and Sword more desireable, even if it's give them some shield bashing special abilities or such.... But I don't think double dipping is a good idea, not at all.
The chance to Dodge all damage from an attack" no... f&%! no.

One thought, though I do NOT think fighters should get DR, I'm sorry that's a Barbarian thing, giving them that on top of the fighter armor bonus' is a tad ridiculous. Rage Powers aren't as good (and are finite on a daily basis) to offset the constant armor bonus, AND getting DR... though, one idea that may work, and make heavier armors more desireable, is have Armor Mastery give 1/- Dr if Light armor(Whether light from material, or from type.. ie, Mithril Chainmail still is only 1dr) 2/- if Medium, and 3/- if Heavy. This, on top of the above mentioned skills of reducing the speed penalty might be good.

If Pathfinder rules state there is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed..... I don't think you'd be able to add an off hand attack via TWF+ feats.

I know you quoted the SRD on monks for off hands... But there have been significant changes to the base classes that I wouldn't think it'd matter unless it was specifically mentioned in the Pathfinder book due to the number of changes. *shrugs* I'm sure that'll be one of the many questions/debates when we get into classes as the focus :)

So far though I've enjoyed you're sharing of how a monk's been working for you in Alpha/Beta.


Roman wrote:

We could make multiclassing cost something. Perhaps every multiclass could cost a feat.

I don't think anything needs to be 'charged' for multi-classing, nor do I think they need to be penalized.... however, there should be some SOLID benefits for being single classed, and if you think you not recieving those benefits because you're multi-classed is a penalty.. tough.

As to the Racial preferred classes, I like them to a degree, however I can see entirely the view of "I'm playing a single classed Wizard, who happens to be a dwarf... sorry, I don't get the bonus' of an elf"... while this makes complete sense, sorry, Dwarves have never been known for magical aptitude... this is in some ways a throwback to 1ed.. Okay, you're an elf, you live a thousand years... sorry, you only get to go to a lvl 11 wizard.. Wait, you're Int score is what?... Okay, that's different.. 12.

That was something I generally didn't like in 1ed, of course, it was supposedly balanced out by being Multiclassed back in that incarnation, since humans couldn't do that... and dual classing was... *shudder*

Anyways, You may want to let anyone, regardless of race, pick their favored class at level 1... but give a small bonus of some such, to races that pick their sterotypical lot in life. *shrugs* Could be something from Social negatives amongst their kind, and others, which requires DM decisions on case by case, or something more concrete in a simple modifier to various skill checks.


Dennis da Ogre wrote:
tergiver wrote:
I've used the rules for reducing level adjustments by paying XP. I think it works pretty well, and it reflects that LA is a bigger deal at low levels than high.
It works well except for the fact that it's clunky and a pain to calculate.

.... It's called basic math.

Though I do agree with what's been said by some, in light of Pathfinder's take on upping base races slightly, it more or less negates the +1 Level Adjustment races 'benefits. Still think humans shouldn't get the +2 but as I've said elsewhere, since 3.0 most of my fantasy adventures I've run have been groups of humans, as opposed to earlier versions of DnD games.


Actually, I don't mind parts of the Pathfinder version.
I actually like the BaB or STR whichever is lower part, but I don't like the all or nothing. Keep the restrictions on the range perhaps, but allow the variable of what a person wants to modify it with.

ckafrica wrote:
Psychic_Robot wrote:
ckafrica wrote:
You are aware that twink is a derogatory term referring to homosexuals, and therefore insulting to a myriad of people in a myriad of ways, right?
Twink also happens to have another meaning, and it has nothing to do with homosexuals. Much like how one could talk about smoking f@gs in Britain.
wikied it, fair enough, though it is equally derogatory in the same way as referring to a munchkin player. Either way it is suggesting negative traits regarding people who might choose to play that way.

Yes, and I meant Twink totally in the aspect of munckin players, derogatory and all towards that style of play :P. Gay Straight or otherwise, munchkins (with the exception of the card games) need to be treated like baby seals... beat with a club.

As to the statement of a wand of Scorching ray's being more powerful and useable by various classes than the Warlock. You also have to understand, in order for that to be so, it has to be cast at 11th caster level to be so, and we're talking a $16,500 magic item so they can cast the spell all day (or half cost with a 660xp cost of course) While, no argument, quite helpful and not overly expensive when we're talking higher levels, it's still, if used with impunity(sp?) an expensive habit, unlike the Warlock.

Furthermore, back to some of the other assessments of how armor and to hit scale where touch doesn't scale so much. THat's true enough, more or less, of course, with the exception of upping your dexterity, you really don't scale your to hit with spells like you do with magic weapons (cost to bonus ration for example) .

Now, and I apologize in advance if I missed something, I'm tired after a long night. The valid fix to the system of adding half your level to your armor bonus.. are you insane?

Yes, this does go both ways, both for and against players, but you realize you just made it almost impossible for a lvl 20 wizard to hit a remotely equipped lvl 20 wizard with a touch spell.

Cause at lvl 20, I have a +10 BaB (plus any stats mind you).... I'm suddenly needing a 10, to hit a completely naked, unarmed, unbuffed, 10 dex wizard.... Thrown on the items you would expect a lvl 20 wizard to have, and the chances of hitting them is rather low. Let's think of it in the terms of a Pit Fiend, CR 20, 18 hit dice, now need a 26 touch. Then, when I finally hit 1/4 of the time (slightly more or less for stats) I have to get through a SR 32... which actually turns out to be easier than the hitting part, I at least get to add 20 to the roll (Plus any penetration feats).

Touch AC is almost exclusively utilized by people with poor or mediocre BAB's. Not entirely, there are too many prestige/alternate base classes, etc etc to say otherwise. But if you go by the base classes, that's mostly so.

Now, let me once again aplogize if you took offense to my view on some of the suggestions, as I said, tired and perhaps over-critical after a long night. Though if you took offence to the Twink comment (in reference to munchkins) I have done my job appropriately.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
The main problem I see is the ridiculously low touch ACs of nearly all monsters. Once you reach 15th+, your Warlock with his infinite touch attack eldritch blasts has little problem dealing with most bad guys. At times it is a good thing, at times it is bad. I would just like to see it actually become contested rather than the only-miss-on-a-one way it is now.

Warlocks were the twinkiest class I have ever seen (I'm sure some can point out other editions/combo's to remind me of twink factor... (or combos like the Scout Dervish) ... not allowed in my games period :P... But you're absolutely right, a Lock makes touch ac pretty much a joke due to their pre-4th edition mindset in making the class have never ending powerful 'at will' powers.... but then, a severly broken class should not cause one to rethink a mechanic that's used... the class needs to be rethunk.

Speaking as a mage player (on the odd time I get to play instead of run) I hit my share of things, especially some of the larger monsters (hard to miss a barn) but I've missed more than my share of trying to scorching ray that damn rogue/high dex monster/ what have you. I mean, 11th lvl wizard, with a 14 dex is a Bab of 7... Big large slow things... I can hit.. anything with dex I have missed far more often.


Subversive wrote:

I'm someone who is actually still a fan of the old 3.5 method of multiclassing to a degree, and while I find the newly-proposed system interesting, I have some issues with it.

To wit, the skill bonus makes sense, but the HP bonus does not. As a race who has a focus in one or another class, it generally makes sense that you would have greater exposure to that class' skills.

It does not make as much sense that you are a naturally tougher individual just because you (as, say, an Elf) choose wizard over sorcerer when deciding what you want to be when you grow up. To resurrect two terms that are horribly overused and cliched. While the skill point bonus seems simulationist, the HP bonus feels gamist. It feels like a rather blunt-force approach.
-Steve Bennett

Depends on your view of hitpoints Steve, though this in itself has been an ongoing argument in various groups of mine over the years... While I see exactly what you mean, or what I think you mean in that. I'll giveya my logic/view on it.

Hitpoints are not only just your toughness. It's also part of your skill... When you're level 1, and that guy swings a sword at you, hitting you for a whole 10 points of damage out of your 12 starting hitpoints, for example. The swing connected and did serious damage to you and your vitals, or limbs, or what have you... When you're level 10, and that sword hits you for a whole 6 damage, it's a mere fleshwound, because you skillfully avoided most of the 'real' damage.

Conversly, in my games at least, if someone is utterly and completely helpless (Not held/stunned/etc during the heat of an ongoing battle)... You give them a second smile from ear to ear... you're not doing a max damage/auto crit or what have you... yer killing them.


Only thing I gravely dislike, is giving the humans a +2.

I mean since I started playing 3.0 at launch, Easily 2 out of 3 of my players have played humans (If I discount Tieflings being played it'd be closer to 5 out of 6)... the skill points and the feat make it far far more viable. And most of the non-humans being played (Once more, discounting the Tieflings) have been of the Fighter variety, ya know.. where you get a feat every time you sneeze... So, that one feat from being a human wasn't as big of an advantage.

IMO, something needed and should be done to make the Non-humans more viable, and I like the extra +2 for them, it also makes converting older +1 level adjustments simpler.. ie, Okay, done... (for the most part)

But, if you're game is doomed or broken by a +1 DC save to a spell, or +1 damage.... Learn to DM... I agree, I don't want people with all six uber stats, which was why I loved that 3.0 made +1 bonus'occur at 12 instead of 13-15=+1, 16,17=+2 and 18=+3 in Dnd and needing a 16 or better for most useful bonus'in ADnD.

But you ALWAYS, at least in the instance of Primary caster, put your max points or otherwise in that caster stat.... if you're a non-standard race that seems to favor spellcasting to some extent, more than likely it's a 20 anyways, or (if using the point buy) an 18 with some extra points to boost up weak spots.

I've played with all types of players (Through every edition except 4th) Mostly in DnD, some in other genre's of games. Some are munchkins, twinks and people who should have been steralized before they had a chance to breed, some have aspects of those other three, some are solidly good players who have quirks, issues, or whatnot.

Thankfully, mine that I currently have only have a few minor problems, and only one whose viewed a larger problem.

Soooooo, now that I've gone way off topic in my rant :P... I don't think the bonus' to Demi-humans was overpowering, or even ill advised, in fact, I think it's necessary for them to be desireable choices.. cause in my experience, ever since 3.0, I've had a fantasy group of humans more or less, cause the feat alone, was worth more than that +2 the vast majority of the time... (excluding the Tiefling phenomenem of course)


My group has debated simplifying this, and as someone who has little enough time to set up with all my other hobbies and work and whatnot. This is probably what I'll end up doing with a House rule.

If they're immune to crit (based on current 3.5 rules) then Sneak attack damage will do 1/2 added damage. Much like the reasoning of damaging the structure, or whatnot... Just one less thing to adjudicate/plan for on all my conversions. Of course, the option will still be there for the 'oddity' that isn't affected at all.. DM perogative and all..... Though I'm still trying to figure exactly how to work Armor Fortification into this mindset, ehh, it'll come to me.

A few things, first, this is my first delving into Paizo's Forum boards (Don't like their layout :P).

While, I'm sure when I finish reading all the posts (I'm sorry, not about to read 1400 posts in 107 threads before I get my points out, I'll forget them by then. :P I'll catch up on the boards over time.. hopefully won't be so far along by the time the next focus comes out.

Ability Score Generation: I think you hit the nail on all of the 'common' systems I've seen over the years. Yes, there are thousands of others, but, I think you've done great with the ones you've listed. Seen a few other good ideas on here, cards and the like, but all in all can't have every house rule added.

Race Balance: No, they're not balanced. One thing I've noticed since 3e came out, everyone plays humans (Or races from other books).. that +2 to other races... nice, but no wheres near as valuable as the skillpoints and free feat, let alone the ability to choose any favored class (Kudo's btw for making it one being chosen at lvl 1, great idea)... Now, you've given other races 2 +2's and a single minus.... but given +2 to any of humans (as well as giving them a choice of any one martial weapon)... *shrugs* My players, as expected, all play humans still. Really not much /reason/ to play one of the others, even moreso now.. Elf gets an int.. great help for a mage, as example... human can put it in there too now... okay, dex, nice as a mage for the elf, but the con negative hurts more... Frankly I'd like to see more effort/focus on not giving humans even more diserability than they already had.

Races:Well, I like how you've both expanded and limited the Favored class. Most notably requiring them to choose the class at first level. (Side note, mine is using this but with a twist, Favored class is based on region/nationality you're from, at least for Humans and Half Elves and Half orcs) All in all, I like all that you've done to make the non-human races more desireable, and Do not see them unbalanced with each other.. only thing I see as a bad thing, is the above mentioned issue involving humans.... which is not anything new as far as a problem goes.

One thing I've noticed, at least on several of the races, while I like giving them each a familiar weapon and reducing 'racial weapons' to Martial instead of exotic for them... I see only Dwarven or Gnomeish weapons (granted, some of the other books added elven weapons for example, but don't think I've ever seen any 'orc, or halfling, or whatnot weapons for example) While this may be a point for a latter focus, equipment for example, it's kind of a cross over due to this entry.. maybe come up with some specific racial weapons within your system

Okay, think that's it for now, love the book (with some obvious issues :P) Thanks for going this route Paizo.