|
I'm having a hard time accepting the Pathfinder version of races, but not in whole.
1. Extra ability bonus? Not necessary, but nothing that would send me away. Although, I'm not too keen on Half-orc having no -2 to charisma and now having +2 to wisdom. This doesn't fit my image of half-orcs.
2. Keen Senses. Overall, this is cumbersome. My recommendation would be to keep it simple. +2 to Perception. Period.
3. Elves. Elven magic? Mixed feelings. Frankly, I don't see the need. Unnatural beauty. Sorry. Not biting. It's too subjective, i.e., GM's discretion? Recommend dropping the latter at least.
4. Gnomes. Obsessive? I guess we have to give them something.
5. Half-orcs. Orc Ferocity? Again, if we have to give them something, then fine. What bugs me the most, as stated above, is the change in ability adjustments.
6. Halflings. Unless acrobatics involves move silently (and hide), I recommend that halflings have a bonus to those as well.
7. Half-Elves and Humans. +2 to a chosen ability? Again, this seems to be built along a power continuum to make 'em stronger. That said, I'm thinking that it makes things more complicated ... especially for a DM who's into whipping up NPCs last minute. I've liked having the Humans as a "Base." This gets away from that.
All in all, I'm not seeing big improvements to races. What I'm seeing is only an attempt to make them different . . . and perhaps stronger. But in so doing, I'm concerned that they are getting more complicated instead of more streamlined. (Again, IMO, keen senses should be simplified.)
More to come...
I have a player putting together a half orc Ranger and he is stoked! He has never played one before. He told me he had never even thought about playing one before.
I like the removing the Charisma penalty from half orcs as I view them as having passionate forceful personalities with a violence fetish...
|
|
Prior to this idea, Humans had always been little more than the "Damn, I need ONE extra feat to make this build work" choice for race.
The +2 to any one stat is a bold move, and clearly it does push the power bell curve of races up a bit, but I think it will help with the overall balancing of the races and making all of them viable options.
*grumbles about stupid forum eating his post*
Anyways. I'm loving the new half-orcs. I've never seen them lacking in force of personality, just like I've never seen Dwarves lacking in a forceful personality (and I beleive the Cha penalty should go the way of the dinosaurs as well). The Wisdom bonus fits emphasizing their more instinctual nature.
Keen Senses was placed because Percption covers all five senses, so a straight +2 doesn't make sense. Because really elves aren't known for their keen sense of smell now are they?
The halflings do get a bonus to Stealth checks for their size, a mighty +4 in fact. I don't see any real reason to make them anymore extra stealthy.
|
|
Anyways. I'm loving the new half-orcs. I've never seen them lacking in force of personality, just like I've never seen Dwarves lacking in a forceful personality (and I beleive the Cha penalty should go the way of the dinosaurs as well). The Wisdom bonus fits emphasizing their more instinctual nature.
Okay. I can appreciate this. I think the problem is Cha is not only forceful personality, but eloquence, beauty, and charm as well.
Keen Senses was placed because Percption covers all five senses, so a straight +2 doesn't make sense. Because really elves aren't known for their keen sense of smell now are they?
Again, I'm trying to go for simplicity. By making it a +2, it's just easier to track. Besides, I could see an elf having a keen sense of smell. But I also interpret Keen Senses to stand in line with Perception - which takes on more than just listen and spot.
The halflings do get a bonus to Stealth checks for their size, a mighty +4 in fact. I don't see any real reason to make them anymore extra stealthy.
Hmm. Missed this. You're right. It's under small. My bad.
Saurstalk, I like the changes in ability bonuses.
I run games with the player and myself rolling 4d6 six times dropping the lowest die. The player then chooses which set of scores to use (mine or hers, not the best of both).
I will re roll if either set does not have a net +3 in modifiers or no single score is above thirteen. That hasn't happened yet.
I have rolled a set of ability score that was +15 in total modifiers. WOW!
That player was thrilled, and built a really cool rogue/fighter.
I have found that his method allows stronger characters but also more resources. This allows me(or forces me depending upon POV)more interesting/complex encounters. multiple bad guys of different types, environmental hazards and so on. I guess what I am saying is that I have more fun if the players have more powerful characters. I can do more behind the screen. This is one half of the reason why I like the net positive characters.
The problem with the fact that the SRD lists charisma as "personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness" is a fun one. Consider that it follows right up with "This ability represents actual strength of personality, not merely how one is perceived by others in a social setting".
Physical attractiveness is a large part of how you are perceived in a social setting, and anyone who says otherwise obviously has not attended middle or high school. (I'm being facietious to make a point, but personal experience in this arena make me feel justified.)
Also, consider that the MM lists some of the butt-ugliest creatures as having incredible charisma scores. So if physical attractiveness is a part of charisma, its certainly a small part, small enough to not really warrant including anyhow. A mind flayer is nasty to look at, a beholder is worse, but they radiate force of presence and the moment one comes into the room you know it. Charisma is the salesman who talks you into buying something you didn't really need, or the not so attractive guy who somehow always gets the girls.
Personally, I think "physical attractiveness" should be stricken from the charisma entry; it seems like it would solve a lot of interpretation issues.
But yeah, subtract "looks" from the equasion, and I don't see half-orcs or dwarves taking a penalty. But thats just me.
We had comliness for the longest time as an additional house rule for our groups. At character creation you rolled a % modified by your Charisma, gender, and race.
I had one of the ugliest dwarves in existance hitting a devastatingly horrid 5/100 Comliness...He wore a mask constantly.
We don't use it anymore. And I remind my players constantly that attractiveness is not a large part of charisma. And that it represented more their personality. Low Charisma usually meant you were more likely a doormat or wall flower.