Flame wars is not the intention of this post so anyone whom has issue with fourth ed take it else where if your commentary is flame like I will ignore it.
Something I liked from fourth ed. some other people I believe also enjoyed this was the racial powers from fourth, where your charater had an ability that only your race could do.
As things stand the difference between a first level elven wizard and first level dwarven wizard is chalk and cheese however the difference between tenth level elven wizard and tenth level dwarven wizard well all of those raical bonus seems to be wash away under a torrent of other modifiers.
This is also true of other race/class comparisions.
The powers from fourth were fun and viseral, you could see tieflings were people who didn't take abuse and made people pay, dwarves liked there personal space and it was simply more enjoyable than a mere ability modifer and some skill bonus.
I know this is merely a home brew idea but I thought I would throw it out there as this is alpha test and some people may also like the idea ofcorse I am not a professional game designer but there maybe people who read this that have a better way to implement the same idea.
So I simply added a once per day ability to each race and there sub races (ok so you may not use sub races I do).
Also giving racial feats at each fourth level (in place of stat bonus if they wished) to upgrade or get futher racial abilites
It was intutive things such as Grace for elves
If they do they make a reflex save equal to the ammount of damage delt adding there level to the reflex roll, if they pass they take half damage, if they pass by five or more they take no damage and if they pass by ten or more they recive a free attack of oppertunity against the attacker
It is my belief that I am not in alone in this opinion.
Wile I believe that over all 3.5 and the upgraded pathfinder is better than what I have seen of fourth (and I have done my research)
This does not mean that that they didn't come up with good ideas.
I am hedging my bets and I am still going to get fourth ed regardless of how well my campagins are running merely to see everything as a whole.
There's already (at least one) pre-existing discussion on races that you should read.
To sum up the related portion of the discussion:
1. A lot of people want races to make more of a difference in high-level characters
2. Jason Bulmahn doesn't want to have racial abilities that automatically increase with levels
3. The consensus position seems to be racial feats, which seems like a good idea to me.
That way, your race is as important to your character as the player wants it to be.
I prefer races not to be such a big issue.
First of all, to me it makes no sense that racial abilities get better as they advance in levels.
In addition, if you have a race that has as many abilities and takes as much space as a class, changing the race if you don't like the way the race was presented will be a big undertaking. You don't just have to say "my elves aren't treehuggers, they're masters of the arcane" and replace a couple of bonuses. No, you have to go and take away a lot of abilities and make new ones. Take away their tree-step and their forest archery and their sylvan furie and whatever and put in arcane awesomeness and magic mastery and spell superiority. Or something.
I'd rather have a game where I can easily change the game world if I don't like it.
Plus, not everything has to be pinned down with rules. Flavour is a great thing.
Optional rules are great. Kobold quarterly or some Pathfinder version of Dragon magazine could have variations for those who like more options.
Keep the core rules as close to 3.5 as we can while fixing the headaches.
Optional Racial based feats are great add ons. Or even class/race combined feats. Your wizard elf could qualify for a feat at 6th level that a ranger elf would not.
KaeYoss my retort to you is that flavour is a great thing thats why they should have racial abilities.
Wile looking at the race chart they have all of these bonus which give them a great over all view but when it comes down to it, it's just some bonus to abilities and skills and thats not very flavourfull.
So your telling me that a Dwarven Arch Mage and Elven Arch Mage Should be the same?
If you want to chose the best spells for your level ecta. they would be.
But I don't see them being the same I can see a dwarven arch mage standing in one spot unlessing a hail of arcane fire power in contrast I see the elven mage dancing about using a combination of spells that melee, missle, hinder opponent and improve allies.
One is staunch and stout the other lithe and graceful.
But as things stand thats not how they are if your a high level dwarf wizard there is no reason for you to choose different spells.
Where is the flavour in that mechaincily they have one ability bonus as a difference.
So your telling me that a Dwarven Arch Mage and Elven Arch Mage Should be the same?
The gritsucker would obviously be much shorter.
And they would behave in different ways, they would favour different spells, get different feats, and different Archmage Powers.
But why would every elven archmage do the same trick? Is it genetic?
If you want to chose the best spells for your level ecta. they would be.
But I don't see them being the same I can see a dwarven arch mage standing in one spot unlessing a hail of arcane fire power in contrast I see the elven mage dancing about using a combination of spells that melee, missle, hinder opponent and improve allies.
One is staunch and stout the other lithe and graceful.But as things stand thats not how they are if your a high level dwarf wizard there is no reason for you to choose different spells.
Of course not. This is D&D, not diablo, where every necromancer must be male and every sorcerer female. And neither should the races keep telling you how to play your character.
I sometimes like to play characters against the grain. I like it when others do it. But with classes that grant abilities every level, people are discouraged from doing that: "I would have liked to play a brawny halfling rogue, but why should I when I miss out on so many things because they assumed that I would play my halfling rogue agile and sneaky?"
Where is the flavour in that mechaincily they have one ability bonus as a difference.
Exactly. Flavour. The flavour is in the flavour. Not the mechanics.
|
Of course not. This is D&D, not diablo, where every necromancer must be male and every sorcerer female. And neither should the races keep telling you how to play your character.
I sometimes like to play characters against the grain. I like it when others do it. But with classes that grant abilities every level, people are discouraged from doing that: "I would have liked to play a brawny halfling rogue, but why should I when I miss out on so many things because they assumed that I would play my halfling rogue agile and sneaky?"
This is why I've settled on racial feats as my mechanic of choice for dealing with this issue. I like the idea of Racial Feats for both building on a race's inherent traits and tying in to the race's favored class. Anyone who doesn't think characters should get any more development along racial lines can freely ignore them, while they're still available to anyone who likes them.
Also, I personally would lean away from racial substitution levels or racial paragon classes, but only because they encourage multi-classing for anyone who's looking to make their character a little more race-y ;)
Then we create racial feats that play to the strengths of a race but make it so you do not have to take them if you want to play against the gain.
This allows the races to feel distinct if the player would like that kind of feel but not force the races into being pigeonholed.
Then we create racial feats that play to the strengths of a race but make it so you do not have to take them if you want to play against the gain.
This allows the races to feel distinct if the player would like that kind of feel but not force the races into being pigeonholed.
Dang, beaten to the punch by grrtigger. I guess that is because that is what tiggers do best.
|
|
Dang, beaten to the punch by grrtigger. I guess that is because that is what tiggers do best.
No worries! The more the merrier ;)
ps, in case you haven't already seen it in the various places I've posted this here on the boards, I left some more specific ideas over in the Racial Feats thread.
This is why I've settled on racial feats as my mechanic of choice for dealing with this issue.
And I approve of racial feats.
I would also like to see the difference between races become more pronounced.
The Alpha release goes a small way towards this, but I would welcome anything else that does so.
Racial feats are a good idea in my opinion.
The problem with feats as they stand is this everysingle racial feat system has relied on the fact that you must take lots of raical feats for it to be any good as it says "for each 'fey' feat you have X"
A new system maybe great and I would love to see on work I do not know how they would intend to implment such a system but the problem with the past ones is that you have been an Elf that can cast spells not an Elven Spellcaster.
To be more preise in what I am saying they made you choose your race over your class and you shouldn't have to do that.
In addition this does not show the difference between how one race would go with a certain class.
Sure have brawling halflings but is a brawling halfling going to try and fight like a half orc?
Not on your life.
And why must mechaincs and flavour be seperate.
Sure you may like role playing and doing things that way, however i am running two new groups and one of the best ways of them understanding something is it to have something relvent rules wise.
Wizards are of poor health why because they have d4 hit dice (in standered 3.5 mind you they haven't switched yet)
That maybe obious but there are other things like that the cleric is melee charater as well as a spell caster why he has high hit points and can wear armour.
Hold up there is mechanical effects and flavour at the same time!
Sorry I just find the idea that one can only find flavour in the role playing absered.
How I plan to implement it in my game is there is going to be six different paths by giving them effectively free feats as a swap for the ability bonus (but hey I already said this but hey remember some people don't approve of racial feats until someone else has said something about it)
One the Core race path feats
One for sub races
And one for each of the four charater paths ie one path for arcane users, one for divine users, one for combat charater and one for skill intensive charater.
That way there are halfing brawlers but they do it the halfing way, they knee cap there opponents they don't wildly swing and axe and hope it connects.
To Kae Yoss
Sure say you like something, say you dislike something even use stronger words such as hate or lothe or love and adore.
But approve?
I am sorry but you don't have any athority here you may subscribe to an assortment things but do you think that makes you better than some other people?
Because that it is how it presents itself.
And second of all degrading my comment to that of a video game well I don't believe I said anything so generic and if you think I did you should re-examine.
I'm not sure you know this but you come off with the personality of a smug and aggrogant...
Well to frank, your cander is less than adquate.
And if you found mine to be less than adqute consider how you have responded thus far.
I find it offencive that you (Kae Yoss) feel that it is nessary to let us know that you approve of such and idea.
Sure say you like something, say you dislike something even use stronger words such as hate or lothe or love and adore.
But approve?
Yeah! Go on. Pick on the foreigner because he doesn't speak the language perfectly!
Who piddled in your soup? (Was that right? Or should it be into? I'm always willing to improve my poor English.)
|
The problem with feats as they stand is this everysingle racial feat system has relied on the fact that you must take lots of raical feats for it to be any good as it says "for each 'fey' feat you have X"
A new system maybe great and I would love to see on work I do not know how they would intend to implment such a system but the problem with the past ones is that you have been an Elf that can cast spells not an Elven Spellcaster.
To be more preise in what I am saying they made you choose your race over your class and you shouldn't have to do that.In addition this does not show the difference between how one race would go with a certain class.
Sure have brawling halflings but is a brawling halfling going to try and fight like a half orc?
Not on your life.
While I would like to see rules that make your character race choice continue to have effect past first level, I feel that recial feats might make races too complicated. I believe that your class should define your character role more and that your race just kind of add a bit more flavor.
I would like to see something simple, such as additional bonuses that kind of get added as you level up. For example, I could see a dwarf and half-orc getting regular hit point bonuses as they level up, while a halfling would get AC and saving throw bonus. This would make a higher level dwarven wizard still be a tough block of a character, taking a searing light or two in the chest and still kicking, while a halfling wizard would be a spy little bugger thats a pain in the butt to hit. Elves could get AC and to hit bonuses to represent their advanced training and humans could continue getting their extra skill points every level to show off their versatility. It might seem a bit boring, but it would be much easier to show newer players.
Hi!
Okay, this is my first post here.
I although prefer that races shouldn't make a big deal.
You'll get some changes to your attributes score and some specials, but i think that all other changes should come from classes and the idea, that each player had from the version of race, that he plays.
I had seen - and played by myself - arrogant elves, that cared only for the destruction of orcs, for example, and on the other side i've seen and played elves that cared for the greater good and hadn't made a big deal with their elfhood.
I've read 'bout changes of 4th Ed., most on german boards - cause i am a german guy, and i want to say an excuse to all, that will be insulted by my poor english - and all i could see IS a diablo like version of DnD. Until now all they talked about is fighting. I heared nothing 'bout real roleplaying. WoTC prefers style at the moment. And in my opinion they don't care about wishes of the players. So many found elves too strong or too important in DnD and now: elves and eladrin as standard races. Why?
Ok. This had to come out at me at the moment.
and to KaeYoss' excuse I want to say, that, as a not native speaker like him, I thought that approved has the same meaning like agree.
I like the racial feats idea: the best of both worlds; take 'em if you want your race to matter more as you level up; don't, if you don't. In that regard they work a lot like racial paragon levels from the SRD (another way of addressing this issue).
|
|
I've read 'bout changes of 4th Ed., most on german boards - cause i am a german guy, and i want to say an excuse to all, that will be insulted by my poor english - and all i could see IS a diablo like version of DnD. Until now all they talked about is fighting. I heared nothing 'bout real roleplaying. WoTC prefers style at the moment. And in my opinion they don't care about wishes of the players. So many found elves too strong or too important in DnD and now: elves and eladrin as standard races. Why?
I think the reason all we talk about fighting right now, is because we are still looking at a rough draft of the rules, which are essencially tools for RPG's. Roleplaying is something that individual playing groups just kind of work out. Some players like hack and slash dungeon crawls with little NPC interaction, some like getting dressed up for their games and using props. But both these styles are going to need some structure for figuring out stuff like combat and skill checks, and that's what we're looking at right now. Once the rules are done, then people can work on the settings books, which is all about the background and roleplaying.
I had seen - and played by myself - arrogant elves,
I can confirm that. ;-P
and to KaeYoss' excuse I want to say, that, as a not native speaker like him, I thought that approved has the same meaning like agree.
I looked it up on dictionary.com, and on dict.leo.org, and it seems that approve can also mean "agree to", "confirm", "recommend".
Beyond that, "My name is X and I approve of this Y" is something of a running gag.
When I see someone berating someone about semantics, it usually seems to me like a veiled insult, or an attempt to discredit someone. Glasshouse, weapon focus (stone), precise shot.
Roleplaying is something that individual playing groups just kind of work out.
It might be in some games, because the game doesn't have decent roleplaying rules.
There are RPGs out there that have rules for more than just "kick in door, kill, take stuff - rinse and repeat". In some RPGs, combat is just something you can't avoid all the time, where something like the bard could be a pretty powerful character.