I saw that someone else just released an Excel sheet, but not having Excel, I'm not sure how it compares.
I've been thinking of redoing it to better handle e.g. custom room augmentations, as the current design is way too clunky to add more with impunity.
Let me know what you think!
Well, insofar as I'd be happy to join alliances that took care of nations/settlements/settlements that failed to revoke the charter of griefers.
I'd probably have some clear lines as to what qualifies, though.
White knights very often are after a prize. Rather than doing good for the sake of good, they're out to try and impress someone with their antics, on the one in a million chance they'll get some(thing) in return.
But yeah, it's bad enough to see Chaotic Neutral types going 'I was just playing my alignment!', we're going to see 'But I'm Lawful Good! Even my conduct says so!'
Because people will be able to stay within the bounds of conduct while managing to be epic jerks.
If this nation forms, though, individuals will probably get left for individual chartered companies to handle, individually.
I can really only go from my experience in Age of Conan when looking at FFA gaming. I played DFO but joined the game too late and didn't last long with their latency. Even though AoC was a themepark game it was amazing when looking into the fishbowl to see the player made factions, griefers, gankers, roleplayers, solo-pvers and white-knights mixed together. Some of the most skilled PvPers in that game were roleplayers and probably more ruthless when it came to retribution griefing.
I think anyone who actually has their eyes set on running a nation with a chance at achieving that goal is going to be a bit ruthless. Not necessarily evil, but I don't think any of the LN organizations are going to spare someone's watchtower in territory they otherwise dominate just because 'someone else put it up first'.
Which is actually what I'm afraid the initial bout of griefing will be - people putting up watchtowers and forts freaking everywhere, crying foul/victim, enjoying the shift of their targets to evil alignment, or both.
Screw that, I'll take the alignment hit. And do it for others, too, for a price. If our George is having problems with similar people, well, happy to help.
GW might have an initial grace period here, or something (i.e. declare that making/owning/defending a building on a hex you don't have a settlement on is not an innocent act), but they can still play victim, and addressing that annoyance in game might be plenty fun.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
You are selling us a book. Some of us want to buy legos. You are offering shoehorns.
I think the core issue with that sort of attitude - 'well you can change it on your own - is: Then why bother with the book? The whole point of material like this is to be able to ignore that in most situations and use it as a launching point for others - but there is no launching point, here. My friend wants to make a troll race, I'd like to make, say, a harpion race, etc.
So, some of us want legos - all of the individual components, as divorced from each other as possible, like I started with here. Most of the races are around ~15 points, there, Dwarves a little more, Half-Orcs a little less, and look - an easy way for GMs to balance different races in a party!
Legos are fun. Shoehorns are a pain.
Most GMs can use their own shoehorn where they need to - that is, after all, basically their job. Sell a lego kit, and GMs can do something much more enjoyable - design their own legos as needed to come up with custom racial abilities without worrying about arbitrary prerequisites and a Gordian knot of attribute assignments.
I hate to say this, especially as my first post (a friend just introduced me to Pathfinder), but I currently do not find the ARG useful. The entire purpose of purchasing such a manual would be to be able to make new, balanced races, sometimes from the get-go. Especially with the way the base stats are purchased, which are confusing and make little sense. The system presented is not useful for balancing races, and trying to figure out costs for new abilities to fit in line only creates more of a headache - I am literally better off just eyeballing race design.
It doesn't help that it doesn't segue well into e.g. template creation.
So, here would be my proposal: Base everything off of its point buy value. Judge the worth of a racial feature or penalty by how many attribute points you would trade it for at character creation.
It won't be perfect, but it makes it a lot easier for GMs who wish to balance their game. They can give the players the option to spend a number of attribute points to pick a new race.
In addition, I am not going to start with the notion that races are balanced. This was expressly not true in OD&D where elves could don armor and cast spells with impunity while swinging a sword just as well as their equivalent-leveled human friends in either arena. It was expressly stated that the reason for this lack of balance was to convince people to play the demihumans.
I think we're past that.
Major Caveat: This will end up being more balanced at lower point buy totals for standard races (~20 and under) than higher ones. GMs running 30 point and up games should be aware of this and consider compensating lower race point totals accordingly.
A single floating racial bonus, such as a human's, is weighted as if they spent nine points in that attribute - 6 points for a +2, 14 points for a +4, 24 points for a +6, 36 points for a +8, 50 points for +10, and so on.
An additional floating racial bonus, or a fixed physical bonus, is weighted as if they spent five points in that attribute, +1 for each +2. 5 points for +2, 12 points for a +4, 21 points for a +6, 32 points for a +8, 45 points for a +10, and so on.
A fixed mental bonus, or a fifth/sixth floating bonus, is worth as if five points were allocated. 4/10/18/28/40
A penalty to a physical attribute is worth a negative number of points equal to 1.5x said penalty. -3 points for -2, -6 points for -4, -9 points for -6.
A penalty to int or wis is worth the raw penalty - -2/-4/-6. This should be halved if a GM does not trust a given player to play these scores, however.
A penalty to charisma is worth half of this - -1 for a -2, -2 for a -4, -3 for a -6. This might not be worth anything at all in some games.
So, stat allocation points per race:
Skills and proficiencies:
A single +2 'racial flavor' bonus to a non-perception skill under limited circumstances (Dwarven Greed, Elven Magic Spellcraft, etc) is not worth any points.
Base Land Speed:
40 feet: 5 points
Size: Size requires at least a given strength bonus or penalty, which must be purchased accordingly as part of the racial package - there is no 'discount' for getting more strength as Large.
Tiny: Requires -4 Str
A GM may wish to double these. Regardless, size bonuses and penalties are not considered to cost or provide any points.
Immortal/Immune to aging penalties: 4 points
Total racial breakdown
Thoughts/criticism/whatever welcome, I didn't agonize over the numbers, exactly.