paizo.com Favorited Posts by VoodooMikepaizo.com Favorited Posts by VoodooMike2017-01-12T05:46:32Z2017-01-12T05:46:32ZRe: Forums/Gamer Life: General Discussion: Annoyance with a MunckinVoodooMikehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2prrz?Annoyance-with-a-Munckin#192013-05-20T16:16:43Z2013-05-17T12:21:38Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Michael Riter wrote:</div><blockquote>Okay, let's get this straight, we all hate power gamers who think that 'winning' is the best thing in life. Unfortunately I'm friends with one, and recently introduced him to PFS so we could possibly join games together.</blockquote><p>"We" don't all hate power gamers... power gaming and minmaxing is mechanics stuff, and unless the person is cheating outright, or making themselves incapable of handling normal situations in order to maximize one ability, and it somehow hurts the party in the process, then it's mostly irrelevant, especially if they will actually roleplay well.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Michael Riter wrote:</div><blockquote>He decided that he was going to start up a bard character (sandman archetype) and wrote an 8 page backstory. Legitimately an 8 page backstory. Anyways, he added details about getting a succubus' blessing that gave him a +2 ability score of his choice (or was it bonus? I forget) as well as giving himself an intelligent weapon. I took one look at this, and said, "no. This just isn't allowed." he claims there was no rules against it, and he searched for them. Please help me here... Just.... Yeah...</blockquote><p>If he's human, an the +2 ability bonus is his racial bonus only then sure, let him explain it any way he wants. Backstory does not grant you additional mechanical bonuses, however, unless the DM has expressly declared that you get a bonus for writing a backstory. In this case it sounds a lot more like cheating than power gaming.
<p>That said, the DM is the final arbiter of such things, and if the DM has decided it's ok, then it's ok. That's the way of the game.</p>
<p>Who the hell "power games" a bard?</p>Michael Riter wrote:Okay, let's get this straight, we all hate power gamers who think that 'winning' is the best thing in life. Unfortunately I'm friends with one, and recently introduced him to PFS so we could possibly join games together.
"We" don't all hate power gamers... power gaming and minmaxing is mechanics stuff, and unless the person is cheating outright, or making themselves incapable of handling normal situations in order to maximize one ability, and it somehow hurts the party in...VoodooMike2013-05-17T12:21:38ZRe: Forums: Homebrew and House Rules: How crazy am I? Equal Races.VoodooMikehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pp53?How-crazy-am-I-Equal-Races#42013-04-26T23:56:26Z2013-04-24T03:32:46Z<p>It'll just make the characters a bit stronger than whatever generation method you use normally does. Make sure the adventures you're using are ready for that. If you're making it all up yourself then that's fine... if you're using pregenerated adventure paths, you may find the characters have an easier time than expected, as they have better stats.</p>It'll just make the characters a bit stronger than whatever generation method you use normally does. Make sure the adventures you're using are ready for that. If you're making it all up yourself then that's fine... if you're using pregenerated adventure paths, you may find the characters have an easier time than expected, as they have better stats.VoodooMike2013-04-24T03:32:46ZRe: Forums: Advice: Roleplaying a 7 Int.VoodooMikehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nkxb&page=2?Roleplaying-a-7-Int#532012-02-07T14:52:59Z2012-02-07T08:59:57Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">mdt wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Small piece of data that often get's overlooked,
</p>
An average is not a median. It's an average.</blockquote><p>Overlooked in this case because it is totally irrelevant. Median is used as a measure of central tendancy when the distribution is skewed beyond normalcy. When it isn't skewed then median and mean are going to be the same. The distribution of 3d6 is normal, and the IQ distribution is normal <i>by definition</i>.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">mdt wrote:</div><blockquote>The point being, people keep imagining a bell curve when they talk about 10 being the 'average' but it doesn't have to be a symmetrical bell curve. Most of the time, it's not, especially in D&D.</blockquote><p>If scores are generated using 3d6 then 10.5 is, in fact, the mean and median score.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">mdt wrote:</div><blockquote>Even looking at the maximum of 20 starting out (18 + 2 racial), it's not a bell curve. It's because the minimum int is not 0, but 3. That means it's already a skewed bell curve. </blockquote><p>The +2 comes into play after the initial stat is generated, generated via 3d6 by default method. The result of 3d6 is a value between 3 and 18 and is a "normal curve" if you apply the +2 all you do is transpose the curve, you don't alter it - it is the same normal curve that now has a mean of 12.5 instead of 10.5
<div class="messageboard-quotee">mdt wrote:</div><blockquote><p>The absolute minimum intelligence a character can have and still be sentient is 3. That's someone who's barely sentient (animals are 2). So if we equate that to say, 20 IQ (profound mental retardation, can't care for themselves, but sentient) and 100 IQ being average, then we get the following : </p>
<p>Range of IQ from Minimum IQ to average : 80 pts
<br />
Range of Int from Minimum to average : 7 pts
<br />
80/7 = 11.42</blockquote><p>Let me introduce you to the idea of <i>Standard Deviation</i>, which is the appropriate measure to use but nothing close to what you're calculating. The standard deviation for IQ is 15, the standard deviation for 3d6 is 2.96, which is how you translate between the two.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">mdt wrote:</div><blockquote>So an Int 7 is about 34 pts below average, or 66 IQ, yeah, Forest Gump is a good example.</blockquote><p>The conversion, using Z-score because both are normal distributions, is 82.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">mdt wrote:</div><blockquote>The scale above the IQ zone is different for Int, the maximum is about 200IQ, so it works at 10 per point. </blockquote><p>200 IQ equates to a 29 or 30 INT. Maximum starting IQ for a human, in D&D, would be about 150, and thus, with natural development, the maximum IQ for a D&D human (discounting other forms of stat improvement) is, in fact, 200 (30 Int) at level 20.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">mdt wrote:</div><blockquote>The issue comes from making 3 the minimum but 20 the max. We're having to map a skewed bell curve (3 to 20) against a standard bell curve (IQ is designed to be a strict symmetrical bell curve from 0 to 200 with 100 being average, and each standard deviation being 15 IQ points).</blockquote><p>The stat you choose to give a bonus to isn't part of the distribution, it is just a choice of an early piece of natural development on the part of your character, making you above average in that stat for the race. Since humans can put their +2 in any one stat, there's no reason to include the +2 in the basic translation between the two.mdt wrote:Small piece of data that often get's overlooked,
An average is not a median. It's an average.
Overlooked in this case because it is totally irrelevant. Median is used as a measure of central tendancy when the distribution is skewed beyond normalcy. When it isn't skewed then median and mean are going to be the same. The distribution of 3d6 is normal, and the IQ distribution is normal by definition. mdt wrote:The point being, people keep imagining a bell curve when they talk about...VoodooMike2012-02-07T08:59:57ZForums: Homebrew and House Rules: NoMin (No Miniatures) Combat SystemVoodooMikehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n47h?NoMin-Combat-System#12013-05-07T05:24:04Z2011-11-11T17:32:51Z<p>A little while ago someone inquired as to how they could run Pathfinder games without using maps and minis, and the consensus was either "you can't" or "wing it", more or less. It got me thinking, and the result is the following system. As always, feedback is welcome, and there's always room for improvement:</p>
<p>—————————-
<br />
NoMin Combat System
<br />
—————————-</p>
<p>The NoMin (No Miniatures) combat system is designed to allow groups to have a miniatures-free/no combat map based Pathfinder game without sacrificing the use of existing feats and combat maneuvers, and without giving up the strategic feel of the normal combat system.</p>
<p>NoMin does not use maps or miniatures, but does require a bit more mental book-keeping for the DM and players. It modifies how certain combat actions work, and introduces some new (optional) combat actions and feats. If the NoMin system is not being used exclusively, the feats should be completely ignored.</p>
<p>Relative Combat Conditions (RCCs)
<br />
————————————————-</p>
<p>Relative Combat Conditions are a type of temporary condition that exists only in relation to one other combatant. These conditions may (and likely will) change, be added and be lost during the course of a combat. Each RCC that a combatant has is specific to one other combatant, and needs to be noted as such. For example, the "adjacent" RCC of Player 1 may be "adjacent to Orc 2". These RCCs are the basis for the NoMin system.</p>
<p>Combat Conditions
<br />
————————-</p>
<p>[Far]</p>
<p>A combatant that is Far is not in the melee combat fray. This is a general Combat Condition rather than a Relative Combat Condition, as it applies to the combat as a whole. This condition affects certain movement and attack options.</p>
<p>[Close]</p>
<p>A combatant that is Close is near enough to other Close enemy combatants that they can be moved to with a 5-foot step. Like Far, this is a general Combat Condition, not relative to a specific enemy or ally.</p>
<p>[Adjacent] (RCC)</p>
<p>A combatant that is Adjacent to another combatant is within weapon's (or assistance) reach of that combatant. </p>
<p>[Guarding] (RCC)</p>
<p>A combatant that is guarding another combatant is actively attempting to prevent enemies from reaching and attacking the person they are guarding. Any movement that adds or removes the Close or Far conditions, or which removes the Adjacent RCC relative to the ally they are Guarding, removes the Guarding RCC. Being rendered prone also removes this RCC.</p>
<p>[Flanked]</p>
<p>Any combatant that is Adjacent to two or more enemies that are not denied their ability to threaten squares, is considered Flanked, as per the normal PF status.</p>
<p>Movement
<br />
————</p>
<p>The following actions may be used for movement during combat. </p>
<p>[5-foot-step]</p>
<p>The NoMin 5-foot step follows the same rules as the normal PF 5-foot step. When a combatant uses a 5-foot step they may do one of the following:</p>
<p>- Give themselves and another combatant the Adjacent RCC, as long as both they and the target have the Close condition, or both they and the target have the Far condition and are allies.
<br />
- Remove the Adjacent RCC from themselves and another combatant as long as the acting combatant has a reach equal to or greater than that of the target combatant.</p>
<p>[Move Action]</p>
<p>Any movement action that uses a move action provokes attacks of opportunity from any enemy that is Adjacent to the acting combatant. The acting combatant has the option to use acrobatics to mitigate these attacks of opportunity.</p>
<p>- Trade the Far condition for the Close condition.
<br />
- Give themselves and another combatant the Adjacent RCC and the Close condition. This provokes attacks of opportunity from any combatant that is Guarding the target combatant.
<br />
- Trade the Close condition for the Far condition, and remove any Adjacent RCCs that he or she has. This provokes attacks of opportunity from any Adjacent combatants before the RCCs are removed.
<br />
- Give themselves the Guarding RCC relative to one target ally that is Adjacent.</p>
<p>[Full-Round Action]</p>
<p>- Trade the Close condition for the Far condition, and remove any adjacent RCCs that he or she has. This provkes attacks of opportunity from all but one (acting combatant's choice) Adjacent combatants before the RCCs are removed.</p>
<p>Attack and Casting actions
<br />
—————————————</p>
<p>Attack actions are carried out as normal. Any enemy that is Adjacent to an acting combatant is considered to be within melee range of any attacks. All enemies are considered to be within range of ranged attacks and spells (unless they are Far and the DM judges them to be •too• far for a given attack).</p>
<p>[Ranged Attacks]</p>
<p>Any target that is Adjacent to a combatant that is hostile to them, is considered to be engaged in melee combat for the sake of ranged attacks. Ranged attacks provoke attacks of opportunity from any Adjacent enemies.</p>
<p>[Spellcasting]</p>
<p>Any target that is Adjacent to a combatant that is hostile to them, is considered to be engaged in melee combat for the sake of ranged touch attacks. Spellcasting provokes attacks of opportunity from any Adjacent enemies unless the spell is cast defensively.</p>
<p>[Area Effect]</p>
<p>Any effect that affects an area (area spells, splash weapons, etc) must target a specific combatant. For each 5 feet of maximum width of an area effect (radius of a spell, or distance of a cone, or width of a line) an additional target that has the same distance condition as the original target (Close or Far) may be included as a target. Any combatants that are Adjacent to one of the targets of the effect is also affected. The combatant that is attacking with/casting the effect may choose to exclude one (only one) of the combatants that will be affected. In the case of splash attacks, the targetted combatants are affected by the primary effect and those Adjacent to them are affected by the secondary/splash effect.</p>
<p>Combat Maneuvers
<br />
————————</p>
<p>[Bull Rush]</p>
<p>- The bull rush maneuver gives the acting combatant the Close condition and removes the Far condition. It also gives them the Adjacent RCC relative to a target of his or her choice. If the maneuver is successful against the target, the acting combatant may choose to remove the Adjacent RCC between the target and any number of other combatants, including the acting combatant.</p>
<p>[Overrun]</p>
<p>- The overrun maneuver targets an enemy that is Guarding another enemy. If the maneuver is successful, the acting combatant gains the Close condition and the Adjacent condition relative to one of the combatants that the target was Guarding, but does not provoke an attack of opportunity in the process. If the target chooses to avoid you during your overrun attempt, that target also loses the Guarding RCC relative to the combatant you choose to become Adjacent to.</p>
<p>[Drag]</p>
<p>- If the maneuver succeeds you may remove one Adjacent RCC from the target (and the RCC's target) plus one additional Adjacent RCC for each 5 by which your attack exceeds the target's CMD. If your attack allows you to remove more than one Adjacent RCC, you may choose to apply and Adjacent RCC removal (except the first) to yourself instead. All other rules for the Drag maneuver remain the same.</p>
<p>[Reposition]</p>
<p>- The Reposition maneuver, if successful, allows you to force your target into the Adjacent RCC with any one other combatant that has the Close condition, or remove the Adjacent RCC from that target and the RCC's target. For each 5 by which your attack exceeds the target's CMD, you may force the target into (or out of) an additional Adjacent RCC (subject to the Close requirement). All other rules for the Reposition maneuver remain the same.</p>
<p>[Guarding]</p>
<p>- The Guarding RCC is entered into using a move action as detailed above. You may only be Guarding one target at a time. You grant the target of your Guarding with a +1 dodge bonus to AC, and may, as an immediate action, take an attack that is targetting your Guarding target. You must do this before the attack is rolled. The attack targets you instead. In the case of an area attack that allows a Reflex save, you are considered to have failed your save while the target of your guarding is considered to have succeeded at his or her reflex save automatically.</p>
<p>NoMin Feats
<br />
—————-</p>
<p>[Improved Guarding] (Combat)
<br />
Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise</p>
<p>You grant the target of your Guarding an additional +1 dodge bonus to AC. Additionally, you are not considered to have automatically failed your Reflex Save when actively Guarding your target against an area effect - you may roll your Reflex Save normally.</p>
<p>Optional Reach Rules
<br />
——————————</p>
<p>If you want to include reach as a concept, you can simply alter the rules as follows:</p>
<p>- If a combatant uses a move action to give themselves and a target with a higher reach the Adjacent RCC, the acting combatant provokes an attack of opportunity from their target.
<br />
- A combatant with a higher reach than its target may give itself the Adjacent RCC relative to the target without granting the Adjacent RCC to the target, using any of the above actions that would normally grant the Adjacent RCC to both.
<br />
- If a combatant with a lower reach than a target may grant itself the Adjacent RCC with a 5-foot step if that target already has the Adjacent RCC relative to the acting combatant.</p>A little while ago someone inquired as to how they could run Pathfinder games without using maps and minis, and the consensus was either "you can't" or "wing it", more or less. It got me thinking, and the result is the following system. As always, feedback is welcome, and there's always room for improvement:
-------------------
NoMin Combat System
-------------------
The NoMin (No Miniatures) combat system is designed to allow groups to have a miniatures-free/no combat map based Pathfinder...VoodooMike2011-11-11T17:32:51ZRe: Forums: Advanced Race Guide Playtest: Initial comparison to VoodooMike's systemVoodooMikehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2myd9?Initial-comparison-to-VoodooMikes-system#72012-01-23T17:41:41Z2011-10-12T19:24:05Z<p>VoodooMike doesn't much like the ARG system, for a couple of reasons.</p>
<p>First and foremost, it acts to break pre-made content, which was my specific intent to avoid when writing my own guide (I should mention that I failed on a few points!). I'm a firm believer that any LA0 race that requires the GM to revamp his campaign is a bad race. This means that if the race you build with your guide in some way causes a problem with, say, prefab adventure paths that are made to work, generally, with pathfinder, then your guide is trash.</p>
<p>Similarly, race should not overlap class. Your race should not, in any way, overshadow the ability of any of the classes unless you're in some way paying equal character development resources to achieve it. This was the basic premise of "racial levels" in the past, but even those were misguided, in my opinion, for several reasons (which go beyond the scope of this posting).</p>
<p>Ricardo brings up my distaste for sizes other than medium and small - I maintain this <i>in relation to LA0 races at first level</i>, which is what my guide was written for. A size large humanoid race typically has a 10 foot reach (ARG just arbitrarily ignores this, making you pay extra points for the reach that pretty much all the size large humanoid-shaped creatures have inherently) which is a nutty benefit at level 1. Similarly, your character has to constantly use squeezing rules to deal with the standard 5-foot wide tunnel, and any campaign that has, say, an entrance that is so small that medium characters have to squeeze, is now out for you. That's why I "just say no" to Large. </p>
<p>My rule of thumb for this sort of thing would probably be "if every member of the party plays this same race, does it significantly and immediately alter the game in an important way?" </p>
<p>Flight (this is a place where my guide, at least in its original posted format, fails as well) is also a content-breaker at first level. Unless the GM designs his content around the player's ability to fly, it will ruin certain obstacles and encounters. For this reason, I don't believe flight should ever be a level 1 ability. The earliest that flight should be available is about level 5, which is when content already has to deal with it since wizards can cast "fly".</p>
<p>Second (yes, that was all the first objection), the system involves a ton of looking up because it is based on pick-lists more than anything else... so you get all the hassle of a point-based system <i>combined</i> with all the clunkiness of a pick-list system. I don't find the pricing to be intuitive, nor do I understand why they choose to clump certain things together under a single price value, or give certain things the prerequisites they do. That doesn't mean I'm right, of course, just that I don't see the point(s) of it. </p>
<p>Third, I think the ARG will result in the same thing Savage Species did: a lot of drooling munchkins and a lot of unhappy GMs. It's all very well and good to say that the race building rules are a GM tool, but GMs don't actually need a tool to do things with their own campaign - what they think is ok is automagically ok. Instead, what typically happens is when a company releases an <i>official</i> supplement, players feel it is gospel, and most GMs, who want to say yes to their players, will say "ok" to the players using the supplement, and when those players wreck things in pursuit of personal power (as, lets face it, is pretty typical) the GM will grow tired of running the campaign, and next campaign will disallow the supplement to the dismay of those players, and so on. </p>
<p>I'm sure it'll be peachy for some people, but it could and should have been designed with <i>not letting that happen</i> in mind. I really do think the onus is on Paizo to make better and more conservative design decision than the 3rd party contributors specifically because whatever they release is an official part of the game - people default to accepting paizo products as usable, while people default to rejecting that 3rd party additions are usable... and that's something that makes all the difference.</p>
<p>Fourth... what the hell is with the language stuff and its pricing?</p>
<p>So yeah, that's the short response on the topic (short by my standards, of course!). I'm disappointed in the ARG's system.</p>VoodooMike doesn't much like the ARG system, for a couple of reasons.
First and foremost, it acts to break pre-made content, which was my specific intent to avoid when writing my own guide (I should mention that I failed on a few points!). I'm a firm believer that any LA0 race that requires the GM to revamp his campaign is a bad race. This means that if the race you build with your guide in some way causes a problem with, say, prefab adventure paths that are made to work, generally, with...VoodooMike2011-10-12T19:24:05ZRe: Forums: Homebrew and House Rules: Metrification of PathfinderVoodooMikehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mre1&page=3?Metrification-of-Pathfinder#1342011-08-31T15:45:46Z2011-08-30T21:20:38Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Nebelwerfer41 wrote:</div><blockquote>Secondly, Paizo (and D&D before it) designed it's product for their main audience in mind. Really, it makes no sense to alienate Paizo's core market to appeal to a small foreign market. I'm sure those who want metric measurements make up a VERY small fraction of their target market.</blockquote><p>Sorry, I was under the impression that Paizo's main audience was "roleplaying gamers" rather than "americans". I suspect the people who care <i>at all</i> about the units of measurement in either direction are a small fraction of the target market, especially considering many games use metric distances without being shunned by the american market. The point was, simply, that the vast majority of the planet works in metric.
<p>If Paizo wasn't interested in having a customer base outside of the USA then they wouldn't be interested in translations, either.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Nebelwerfer41 wrote:</div><blockquote>BTW, since you're so worldly, can you please capitalize America/American?</blockquote><p>I guess now is a good time to talk about the difference between <b>can</b> and <b>will</b>. I certainly can, but I'm not going to. You can take deep offense to it, if you'd like, but that'll be a factor of your chauvenistic tunnel-vision given the fact that I didn't capitalize "canadian" in my post either. If its any consolation, I'll likely use capital letters when I type USA :)
<div class="messageboard-quotee">KaeYoss wrote:</div><blockquote>I'm sure he made an honest mistake and didn't mean to show his disrespect towards Americans. ;-)</blockquote><p>It's not a mistake, I just find the convention of capitalizing words referring to the people of a country to be silly, so I don't do it in casual writing.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Vic Wertz wrote:</div><blockquote>I'll tell you this much: there are times when setting the digital thermostat to 68° feels too cold, 70° feels too hot, and 69° is just right. But that's probably all 20° to you.</blockquote><p>We could split it even further, too, by making the range between the freezing point and boiling point of water be 1000 degrees instead! Or we can work on getting the basic math proficiency rate in the US higher than 32% so that people aren't afraid to leave their whole-number comfort zone. Our thermostats have <i>decimal places</i>.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">hogarth wrote:</div><blockquote>You've never used an oven? :-)</blockquote><p>What the hell? I didn't get married for nothing, buddy.Nebelwerfer41 wrote:Secondly, Paizo (and D&D before it) designed it's product for their main audience in mind. Really, it makes no sense to alienate Paizo's core market to appeal to a small foreign market. I'm sure those who want metric measurements make up a VERY small fraction of their target market.
Sorry, I was under the impression that Paizo's main audience was "roleplaying gamers" rather than "americans". I suspect the people who care at all about the units of measurement in either...VoodooMike2011-08-30T21:20:38ZRe: Forums: Homebrew and House Rules: Surely Golarion can have psionics now (since guns have been added)VoodooMikehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mnqi?Surely-Golarion-can-have-psionics-now#42011-08-15T11:32:24Z2011-08-06T05:00:07Z<p>I've never really understood the point of psionics in this kind of setting - is it not effectively the same thing as magic, just with an implied different source? We already have a variety of sources of magic by way of sorcerer bloodlines.</p>
<p>Psionics in all previous D&D setups has been little more than an alternate magic system that has to be crammed into campaign settings after the fact. While I understand the point of genuinely •different• forms of supernatural power (ie, the way binders worked, or chakra slots worked, and so on) but if the effect of the new system is to just cast spells again, you're adding clutter without benefit.</p>
<p>Make a psychic bloodline for sorcerers and voila.</p>I've never really understood the point of psionics in this kind of setting - is it not effectively the same thing as magic, just with an implied different source? We already have a variety of sources of magic by way of sorcerer bloodlines.
Psionics in all previous D&D setups has been little more than an alternate magic system that has to be crammed into campaign settings after the fact. While I understand the point of genuinely *different* forms of supernatural power (ie, the way binders...VoodooMike2011-08-06T05:00:07ZRe: Forums: Conversions: Warforged ConversionVoodooMikehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2konq?Warforged-Conversion#192013-12-05T02:56:37Z2010-04-05T18:34:58Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">houstonderek wrote:</div><blockquote>I should have mentioned the wings of flying and boots of speed, but yeah. There are ways to neutralize one, but a well equipped Juggernaut is a PITA for enemy wizards.</blockquote><p>A well-equipped anything is a pain in the ass for enemy anythings. There's nothing especially true in that statement when it comes to juggernauts and wizards.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Summon Monster VI wrote:</div><blockquote> In a custom setting I tend to take a lot of creative liberties with how things came to be and generally work. In the game I'm running now, nobody even calls the warforged character a warforged. The guy who built him just thinks of him as a sentient robot, one of the other PCs has nicknamed him "Frying Pan," and we all crack jokes about how he can make toast.</blockquote><p>In a custom setting where you don't want to carry over any previous fluff there's little reason to "convert" the race at all. Just invent your own from scratch. IOW - if you don't care about the concept behind a race then why care about the stats and qualities? Races are more than mechanics in games, theoretically.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Kaisoku wrote:</div><blockquote>Regarding the balance... I think the immunities give a LOT. Sure they can't heal naturally, and less from normal healing, but they have auto-stabilization, a whole line of curative spells that do work fully, and immunities to a lot of the non-hitpoint problems everyone else has to face.</blockquote><p>The healing thing is pretty huge, actually. Warforged tend to have high HP, but it is hard for them to get themselves back up to their maximums. This gets especially hard if you go the Juggernaut route and become completely immune to healing magic. It is akin to playing a no-magic campaign where your players have to rest for a week or three between encounters to heal up.
<p>The immunities are big on paper but not as bad in-game. The base racial immunities are immunities that certain classes and PrCs will give you over time. To get the heavy immunities you need to use the juggernaut PrC, and that comes with the price of being unable to heal in any useful fashion.</p>
<p>Similarly, while Adamantine Body seems huge on paper, you have to remember that it is only huge at very low levels (a feat in exchange for slightly weaker adamantine full-plate). As you get into the mid to high single digit levels the other fighters can get a hold of fancy full-plate as well, and their adamantine full plate will have the full 3/adamantine DR rather than the reduced 2/adamantine, and doesn't cost them a feat, only gold, which becomes more and more disposable as the game goes on. Likewise, they can trade up when better armour is found - the warforged cannot.</p>
<p>Most people who think warforged are overpowered are people who have never played in a serious campaign that included warforged PCs.</p>houstonderek wrote:I should have mentioned the wings of flying and boots of speed, but yeah. There are ways to neutralize one, but a well equipped Juggernaut is a PITA for enemy wizards.
A well-equipped anything is a pain in the ass for enemy anythings. There's nothing especially true in that statement when it comes to juggernauts and wizards. Summon Monster VI wrote:In a custom setting I tend to take a lot of creative liberties with how things came to be and generally work. In the game I'm...VoodooMike2010-04-05T18:34:58ZForums: Homebrew and House Rules: PF Race Building GuideVoodooMikehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2knsd?PF-Race-Building-Guide#12016-01-26T20:22:01Z2010-03-28T23:16:47Z<p>There have been a lot of homebrew races posted in these forums, and a great many of them are quite broken and very one-sided. There ARE some minor guidelines in the pathfinder conversion guide for making or converting races (which are often ignored, I might add) but not a lot of information on building up races that will lack an adjustment. So, after looking over the races I've written up a rough set of guidelines for making a race that will not be game-breaking, and which will be roughly on par with existing races, without having a level adjustment (typically).</p>
<p>Start here for stats. For the purposes of the guidelines, stat category means "physical" or "mental":
<br />
<ul>
<br />
<li>+2 to a stat of choice if the race is at least half human.
<br />
<li>+2 to a predetermined stat and +2 to a stat of the other category, balanced with a subtraction from the same stat category.
<br />
</ul></p>
<p>Bonuses are racial bonuses, penalties are untyped penalties. Thus, racial bonuses do not stack, but the penalties do. The guidelines for races in PF are not "any combination of stats that sum to +2" as some people seem to believe.</p>
<p>As for racial abilities, races should have roughly the equivalent of 2.5 feats worth of abilities. To avoid dealing with fractions, we'll convert the 2.5 feats into 10 points... thus, 4 points is equivalent to 1 feat. Here are some examples of racial abilities and their "point cost":</p>
<p>10 point racial ability:
<br />
<ul>
<br />
<li>Improve a racial stat bonus from +2 to +4
<br />
</ul></p>
<p>8 point racial ability:
<br />
<ul>
<br />
<li>A feat of the player's choice
<br />
<li>Add a new +2 bonus to a stat that lacks it in a category that already has a bonus
<br />
</ul></p>
<p>4 point racial abilities:
<br />
<ul>
<br />
<li>up to 30 foot fly, burrow, climb speed or up to 50' swim speed
<br />
<li>negate -2 worth of racial stat penalty.
<br />
<li>switch a racial stat bonus to the other category.
<br />
<li>+2 to a stat in a category with no stat bonuses yet.
<br />
<li>+1 bonus to all saving throws
<br />
<li>+1 AC bonus (armor, natural armor, etc)
<br />
<li>spell resistance of 6+class levels
<br />
<li>One natural attack that deals 1d6 or two (ie claws) that deal 1d4
<br />
<li>anything that resembles an existing feat (ie, gnome magic's +1 DC is identical to spell focus)
<br />
</ul></p>
<p>2 point racial abilities:
<br />
<ul>
<br />
<li>1 bonus skill point per class level
<br />
<li>+2 save bonus vs. small set of specific things (ie, fear, poison, disease... up to 3)
<br />
<li>+2 racial bonus to two different skills.
<br />
<li>Immunity to one type of effect (ie fear, sleep, poison)
<br />
<li>+5 spell resistance if the race already has it.
<br />
<li>One natural attack that deals 1d3 points
<br />
<li>Amphibious (breath both air and water)
<br />
<li>Darkvision 60'
<br />
<li>speed not reduced by heavy armor
<br />
<li>anything that resembles an existing feat but with half the bonus
<br />
</ul></p>
<p>1 point racial abilities:
<br />
<ul>
<br />
<li>+4 dodge bonus vs. a specific creature type.
<br />
<li>+4 CMD bonus vs. one type of combat maneuver.
<br />
<li>+2 save vs one very specific thing
<br />
<li>+2 racial bonus to a skill.
<br />
<li>+1 attack bonus vs. specific creature types (one type - for humanoid and outsider must select up to two subtypes)
<br />
<li>Low-Light vision
<br />
<li>Weapon familiarity (up to 4 martial weapons - if only exotics for the race, costs 0)
<br />
<li>anything that is fairly trivial or minor
<br />
</ul></p>
<p>Things that give you MORE points to work with are generally penalties that are half as powerful as their same-point positive equivalents.</p>
<p>-4 point racial drawbacks
<br />
<ul>
<br />
<li>-2 penalty to a stat that lacks a penalty in a category that has no existing penalties.
<br />
<li>-10 foot movement speed (a 5 foot penalty is worth nothing)
<br />
<li>Vulnerability to fire or cold.
<br />
</ul></p>
<p>-2 point racial drawbacks
<br />
<ul>
<br />
<li>-2 penalty to a stat that already has an adjustment (positive or negative).
<br />
<li>Negate racial bonus to one stat
<br />
<li>Vulnerability to electricity, acid or sonic.
<br />
</ul></p>
<p>-1 point racial drawbacks
<br />
<ul>
<br />
<li>-2 penalty to a stat in a category where additional penalties have already been applied.
<br />
<li>Light sensitivity
<br />
<li>Very situational penalty (ie, merfolk not liking to be out of water for long)
<br />
</ul></p>
<p>These are by no means complete or comprehensive, but they do give a rough guideline for building PF races that have no level adjustment and are on par with the existing examples of races from the Core books. Here's a quick look at a few of the existing races:</p>
<p><b>Human</b>:
<br />
+2 to any stat
<br />
bonus feat of choice (8 pts)
<br />
+1 skill point per level (2 pts)</p>
<p><b>Half-Orc</b>:
<br />
+2 to any stat
<br />
Darkvision (2 pt)
<br />
Intimidating (1 pts)
<br />
Orc Blood (1 pt)
<br />
Orc Ferocity (4 pts)
<br />
Weapon Familiarity (1 pt)</p>
<p><b>Gnome</b>:
<br />
+2 Con, +2 Cha, -2 Str
<br />
Small (none)
<br />
Slow (-4 pts)
<br />
Low-light vision (1 pt)
<br />
Defensive Training (1 pts)
<br />
Gnome Magic +1 DC Illusions (4 pts)
<br />
Gnome Magic cantrips (4 pts)
<br />
Hatred (1 pts)
<br />
Illusion Resistance (1 pt)
<br />
Keen Senses (1 pt)
<br />
Obsessive (1 pt)</p>
<p><b>Dwarf</b>:
<br />
+2 Con, +2 Wis, -2 Cha
<br />
Slow (-4 pts)
<br />
..and steady (2 pts)
<br />
Darkvision (2 pts)
<br />
Defensive Training (1 pt)
<br />
Greed (none - so specific that its fluff)
<br />
Hatred (1 pt)
<br />
Hardy (3 pts) - ad hoc +1 adjustment since "spells and spell like abilities" is pretty broad
<br />
Stability (2 pts)
<br />
Stonecunning (2 pts) - ad hoc +1 adjustment for the utility of 10' notice range
<br />
Weapon Familiarity (1 pt)</p>
<p><b>Merfolk</b>:
<br />
+2 Dex, +2 Con, +2 Cha
<br />
Slow x 2 (-8 pts)
<br />
Negate racial penalty (4 pts)
<br />
Swap bonus to other category (4 pts)
<br />
+2 bonus to another stat (4 pts)
<br />
50' swim speed (4 pts)
<br />
Ambibious (2 pts)
<br />
Low-light vision (1 pt)
<br />
Can't (or won't) spend too much time out of water (-1 pts) ad hoc</p>
<p><b>Goblin</b>:
<br />
-2 Str, +4 Dex, -2 Cha
<br />
Improve +2 Dex to +4 Dec (10 pts)
<br />
-2 Str (-4 pts)
<br />
Negate bonus to mental stat (-2 pts)
<br />
Darkvision (2 pts)
<br />
Skilled (4 pts... +2 to two skills x 2)</p>
<p><b>Orc</b>:
<br />
+4 Str, -2 Int, -2 Wis, -2 Cha
<br />
Improve +2 Str to +4 Str (10 pts)
<br />
Negate mental bonus (-2 pts)
<br />
Penalty to mental stat with bonus (-2 pts)
<br />
Penalty to new mental stat (-1 pts)
<br />
Penalty to new mental stat (-1 pts)
<br />
Darkvision (2 pts)
<br />
Ferocity (4 pts)
<br />
Light Sensitivity (-1 pt)
<br />
Weapon Familiarity (1 pt)</p>
<p><b>Hobgoblin</b> (12 pts, thus +1 adjustment... or CR 1/2 rather than 1/3):
<br />
+2 Dex, +2 Con
<br />
Negate racial penalty (4 pts)
<br />
Swpa bonus to other category (4 pts)
<br />
Darkvision (2 pts)
<br />
Sneaky (2 pts)</p>
<p><b>Kobold</b> (0 pt, thus -1 adjustment.. or CR 1/4 rather than 1/3):
<br />
-4 Str, +2 Dex, -2 Con
<br />
-2 Con (-4 pts)
<br />
-2 to Mental stat with bonus (-2 pts)
<br />
-2 to Strength with penalty (-2 pts)
<br />
Darkvision (2 pts)
<br />
Armor (4 pts)
<br />
Crafty (3 pts) +2 to 3 skills, and two are always class skills ad hoc +1 pt
<br />
Light Sensitivity (-1 pt)</p>
<p>As always, the best guideline is to look at a racial ability and say "would I accept this ability as being about as powerful as a single feat? Would I let players have this ability as a feat without reservation?" If no, its worth more than 4 points! In fact, if its something you probably wouldn't let a player have as a feat, the race as a whole probably needs a level adjustment and thus the ability should be worth 8, 10, or even more points. You'll note, for example, that no 3.5 race had "Powerful Build" and 0 level adjustment... Goliaths and Half-Giants were both +1 ECL... and yet maybe a third of the races people post have powerful build with 0 adjustment. </p>
<p>Also notice the diminishing returns on stat penalties in the same category. This prevents people from category-loading their penalties in order to super-charge the race's stats in the other category and/or give lots of racial abilities. The Orc is an example of how you can category-load your penalties and get a pretty decent focus on the other category, but not superhumanly so! </p>
<p>I hope this helps some folks. Obviously when you get into fancy and intricate races you'll need to use ad-hoc point adjustments in conjunction with your common sense - the latter being the best tool of all.</p>There have been a lot of homebrew races posted in these forums, and a great many of them are quite broken and very one-sided. There ARE some minor guidelines in the pathfinder conversion guide for making or converting races (which are often ignored, I might add) but not a lot of information on building up races that will lack an adjustment. So, after looking over the races I've written up a rough set of guidelines for making a race that will not be game-breaking, and which will be roughly on...VoodooMike2010-03-28T23:16:47Z