Director of Games
|
Welcome to the first Design Forum for the Beta Playtest phase of the Pathfinder RPG. In this forum, we are going to be taking a look at some of the first chapters in the book, primarily ability scores (Chapter 2) and races (Chapter 3). We will be discussing these chapters for the next few weeks, after which we will move on to the classes. Comments about other parts of the game system should wait for their appropriate Design Forum to open or be posted to the General Discussion forum. Please note that due to the volume of posts, the designers will be spending most of their time looking at the current Design Forums, so if you want to make sure your ideas are heard, make sure to post in one of these forums when your topic comes up.
To get things started, there are a number of rules topics to discuss in the Ability Scores chapter and the Races chapter. Here are some of the topics I would like to analyze.
- Ability Score Generation: Are there any methods we are leaving out? Do the existing methods work as intended?
- Races: Are the races balanced against one another? If not, which ones are too good or too weak? Are any of the races too complicated or too simplistic? Do the races have the appropriate flavor and mechanics to emphasize that flavor?
- Racial Ability Score Modifiers: Does this change go too far? If not, are the added bonuses appropriate for each race?
- Favored Class: There has been some controversy over how this mechanic works. Is it worth keeping? Is it too good? Is it not good enough?
That should be enough to get the discussion going. Feel free to post up new ideas about how we can do some of these things. I will be posting frequently as these topics develop.
As a small aside, we will not be adding any new races to Chapter 3 at this time. Feel free to discuss new races in the General Discussion forum, but leave them out of discussions here.
I look forward to reading your feedback.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
- Ability Score Generation: Are there any methods we are leaving out? Do the existing methods work as intended?
Seems very complete to me, the only method I've used that's not on the list is a communal set of stats. One set of stats is rolled, using either the 3d6, 4d6 and drop, or 2d6+6 method. This set is used by all players in the party, arranged as they like. Eliminates any problems with one player being massively over/under powered because of a lucky roll, but still keeps some of the randomness that can make rolling for stats enjoyable.
|
Ability score generation- Don't know if it could make the cut because it has a slightly different style, but what I use is a set of cards. Two each, from 4-9. Then you shuffle them up and deal out 6 pairs and those are your ability scores.
Means the bare minimum is 8, max is 18 with an average of about 13. it tends to do a very good job of giving all the players a similar range of stats(because there is a limited amount of each number, you aren't going to have the one guy with 4 18s and the one guy with 4 8s) but still allows for some randomness you don't have with the point buy.
For greater fun deal out the stats straight down the line old school style.
-Tarlane
|
|
- Favored Class: There has been some controversy over how this mechanic works. Is it worth keeping? Is it too good? Is it not good enough?
Originaly Favored Class took part of the fun if you tried to multi class in things your race was "not good"
I liked what you did in the Alpha, not having the favored class doesn't affect you at all... but if you have it... well you get a bonus (+1 hp)
I definitively loved the Beta Change "or +1 skill point"
i think its good as it is... or woudl anyone else prefer "+1 hp and +1 skill point" to make even more appealing the Favored Class?
- Ability Score Generation: Are there any methods we are leaving out? Do the existing methods work as intended?
We mostly use point buy, so we have no problem, but below "High Fantasy's" 15 points, it becames too little to give to the skills
but Epic Fantasy is almost equal to the 32 points of the SRD (it hurts trying to have a 15 or 16 now, but we are cool with that)
Ability score generation- Don't know if it could make the cut because it has a slightly different style, but what I use is a set of cards. Two each, from 4-9. Then you shuffle them up and deal out 6 pairs and those are your ability scores.We do something similar, but our card system mimics standard 4d6 drop lowest. Use a card set with four each aces through 6s. Deal into six stacks, drop lowest card. Again, gives good randomness while keeping total stats relatively equal between players.
Another method of stat generation that is not mentioned is a standard array, e.g., 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 or the like.
One I've seen:
Roll 3d6 36 times, note the numbers in a 6x6 grid. You can select any one row or column.(I love love love rolling dice, so this method pleased me greatly. I would guess it's designed mostly for high-powered games.)
|
|
- Racial Ability Score Modifiers: Does this change go too far? If not, are the added bonuses appropriate for each race?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I think the modifiers go to far. How about using the following:
Humans: +2 to any one ability
Elves: +2 to Dexterity or Intellect
Dwarves: +2 to Constitution or Wisdom
Halflings: +2 to Dexterity or Charisma
Gnomes: +2 to Constitution or Charisma
1/2 Orcs: +2 to Strength or Wisdom
1/2 Elves: +1 to any two ability scores (but not +2 to any single ability)
Each race gets one boost but no penalty. Or if you feel a penalty is required then just apply a -1 penalty to the stat that is listed in rules (except humans and half elves)
Ability Score Generation: For the purchase method, it be easier to simply say that each score starts at 8 and then adjust the point totals. Or is the base of 10 needed to get around OGL restrictions?
Ability Score Modifiers: I'm pretty pleased with the current implementation. At low-levels that extra +2 is really nice (and compliments the other low-level balance adjustments). As one advances in levels they don't really throw anything out of whack. In terms of legacy support/BWC, it's quite easy to add an additional +2 on-the-fly so that's not a concern IMO.
Favored Class: I was actually in favor of the current (beta) implementation since I first read the proposed change in the alphas. It just feels right that certain races would have better insight into their favored classes or would be extra tough when as compared to similar characters from other races. I especially, like that this method does not penalize one's creativity the way the XP penalty used to.
I also like the fact that in PfRPG, each race has two favored classes: one with a strong focus on casting, and one with a stronger focus on armed combat. The more magical races (elves & gnomes) both feature classes that have some measure of spell-casting, the dwarves are focused on heavy armor and defense, half-orcs are wild, and the simple halflings are good at skills with either choice even if they aren't the most magically-talented race. IMO, the favored class choices are pretty much perfect. The only way they could be improved upon is if there were enough core classes so that each race could have a favored caster, favored warrior, and a favored expert — however that's going well beyond the scope of PfRPG as I understand it.
This is just a general comment:
There does not seem to be much change between Alpha 3 and the Beta (though there is added content). Can we expect greater changes between the Beta and the final product?
First off, I think Classic needs to mention that it is markedly underpowered in comparison to the other methods and the way the rest of the game is designed.
I don't know if anyone cares, but I was in the mood for fiddling with excel, and did some analysis on the different rolling methods outlined in beta. AVG=average score for a stat, STDEV=standard deviation for that method, NINTYSIX= 96% of all stats rolled will be between these values. Numbers rounded to three decimals.
Classic
AVG(10.5), STDEV(2.965), NINTYSIX(4.570,16.430)
Modern
AVG(12.245), STDEV(1.708), NINTYSIX(8.828,15.662)
Heroic
AVG(13), STDEV(2.449), NINTYSIX(8.101,17.899)
I think it would be cool to add a sentence for each method.
Classic: The average score is 10 with most scores between 5 and 16.
Modern: The average score is 12 with most scores between 9 and 16.
Heroic: The average score is 13 with all scores between 8 and 18
|
|
A thought- add a line for Multi-classing that says something to the effect: "Multi-classing is possible as long as the number of favored classes taken is at least equal to the non-favored classes"
This gives Favored Classes another reason to exist, and also ties back into the old sacred cow from 2nd edition that only certain class combo's were taken. It also puts in a maximum class dip of 4, 2 being favored in this case.
As an alternative if you think this is too restrictive, then just say "a character can multi-class as long as 1 of the classes takn is a favored class"
my 2 cents.
Otherwise I think the rest is very well thought out.
and I brought it up now because it ties into favored classes. ;)
Concerning the ability score generation I think they are just fine. Just adjust to the campaign you want to play and apply it. The rulebook shouldn't necessarily list all the possible ways of generating ability scores. There would simply be too many.
Personally, in my group, we always either used the 2d6+6 or the 4d6 and take worst dice out, with the exception of converting the highest rolled stat into a 18. That is of course a matter of temperament :)
Regarding the racial ability bonuses I am a fan of not assigning penalties. Some races may have certain attributes that are very different from the other (for example an elf is dexterous while a dwarf is very resilient), but that doesn't necessarily make the elf frail. He/she just doesn't possess the sturdiness of the dwarf. The racebonuses are good though imo.
The "dual" favored classes are a good idea as it add a bit of flavour to your campaign. In my gaming group, we always focused on the roleplaying part so it doesn't bother me overly much that I am not boosting my main stat (str if I am fighter etc). In fact my main character for years now has been a dark elf fighter, so that doesn't necessarily give me stat bonuses that would improve my overall fighting capabilities.
Besides, the +2 int bonus that the elf, gains will be evened out. Especially at higher levels, while human wizards with their one extra feat is something to be considered, as wizards aren't known as a class that gain a tremendous amount of feats.
<snip>
I think it would be cool to add a sentence for each method.
Classic: The average score is 10 with most scores between 5 and 16.
Modern: The average score is 12 with most scores between 9 and 16.
Heroic: The average score is 13 with all scores between 8 and 18
I think that this is a suggestion worth keeping as it gives both the DM and the players what to expect from these methods.
On the subject of favored class, I personnaly like the flexibility that the two favored class provide to the races. I also like the way they work. <cut a long exposé on how druids were left out before realizing that half-orcs now have it as a favored class, hurrah!>
Finally, about multiclassing, up until the beta, I took the absence of mention of multiclassing mechanics to mean that it worked the same way as written in the SRD 3.5. Now, as the beta is supposed to be mostly stand alone, the absence of a section on multiclassing is confusing. Although Pathfinder has a strong vibe of sticking to one class from level 1 through 20, I am convinced that many players enjoy and want the variety in concept and possiblity provided by multiclassing. This question need to be adressed since, as I understand it from various threads here and on ENWorld, there are problems concerning its mechanics, especially for spellcasters.
An interesting way to assign ability scores is to have them assigned by the GM according to how he envisions the story to unfold. This is a rare method, however, that requires considerable trust between the GM and the players and a specific type of game. When those requirements are fulfilled, however, it works well – I speak from experience.
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.
- Ability Score Generation: Are there any methods we are leaving out? Do the existing methods work as intended?
Me: I think you hit the main methods, though mentioning the 'communal set' idea would also be good. I also like JBSchroeds' idea of listing the ranges on the rolled methods.
- Races: Are the races balanced against one another? If not, which ones are too good or too weak? Are any of the races too complicated or too simplistic? Do the races have the appropriate flavor and mechanics to emphasize that flavor?
Me: We haven't tried all of them, so it's hard to say, mechanics-wise. Still no love for the gnome or halfling in my group. I like the flavor, though.
- Racial Ability Score Modifiers: Does this change go too far? If not, are the added bonuses appropriate for each race?
Me: I don't think they go too far, in fact the extra bonus helps when facing MAD syndrome. I think the changes so far add to the flavor of each race.
- Favored Class: There has been some controversy over how this mechanic works. Is it worth keeping? Is it too good? Is it not good enough?
Me: I like the new mechanic, as do my players. While I understand some of the complaints, I feel that it keeps the orginal flavor of the D&D version of the races without going back to 'your race is your class' or 'you may be perfect for that class but you still can't advance past level x'
- Racial Ability Score Modifiers: Does this change go too far? If not, are the added bonuses appropriate for each race?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo PublishingI think the modifiers go to far. How about using the following:
Humans: +2 to any one ability
Elves: +2 to Dexterity or Intellect
Dwarves: +2 to Constitution or Wisdom
Halflings: +2 to Dexterity or Charisma
Gnomes: +2 to Constitution or Charisma
1/2 Orcs: +2 to Strength or Wisdom
1/2 Elves: +1 to any two ability scores (but not +2 to any single ability)
Each race gets one boost but no penalty. Or if you feel a penalty is required then just apply a -1 penalty to the stat that is listed in rules (except humans and half elves)
I like the idea for 1/2 Elves, except I'd apply it to Humans. It kind of bothered me that humans, with a +2 bonus anywhere, were capable of the same extreme in any ability as any other race. This detracts from the flavor of the non-human races, which should have an edge over humans in specific abilities, at the cost of a penalty elsewhere. I like the penalty, which also enhances the flavor of the non-human races, and feels well balanced against one physical bonus and one non-physical bonus.
Note that +1 in two different abilities is actually better than +2 in a single ability, since it allows a 1st level character to increase two ability modifiers by +1, instead of only a single ability modifier (chances are, you have several odd-numbered ability scores). This, along with the lack of a penalty, makes the human versatile without diminishing the super-human abilities of the non-human races.
I also like the idea of differentiating the modifiers of half elves and humans. Failing to differentiate the modifiers makes the choice between the two less interesting. How about +2 in either Dexterity or Intelligence, -1 Constitution, and +1 Charisma? That's just one idea; anything different is good.
I like the other racial modifiers, especially +2 Wisdom for half orcs. I don't think they go too far. In fact, I'd like to see a Primordial option for each non-human race that doubles both the bonuses and the penalties.
Finally, modifiers to differentiate Female and Male could add flavor to the gender choice. I like -2 Strength for females in exchange for +1 to any ability (including Strength) and +1 to any skill. Since the bonuses would stack with racial modifiers, this gives females the chance to excel over males. In particular, human females can achieve the extreme high score of a non-human race.