|
Maybe I'm missing something but as far as I understand the skill points rules have been streamlined but not substantially changed. I mean that in 3.5 a 1st level rouge could spend all his (8+INT mod)x4 skill points to maximize 8+INT mod class skills (acquiring 4 ranks). With PF Beta he can still maximize 8+INT mod skills spending 1 point in each skill thus obtaining 4 ranks in each skill. The same holds for cross class skills.
you are right...
ok after eatin i think i see your point and you player tries to boost his skills while having first rogue then fighter, so h woudl have 3 + int mod, instead of 2+int mode
i will let him... if he intends to do something more akin to RPG, i am fine with it... fighters are allready quite pnaliced in the skills department... as are clerics, wizards and sorcerers
|
I like Favored Classes. I don't think there's anything wrong with encouraging familiar concepts, as long as there are no actual penalties for choosing to buck the trend.
As I read rule in beta, my interpretation is this. Each level you may choose either one bonus hit point or one bonus skill point. You may choose the opposite next level, but you cannot change your choices from previous levels.
A human or half elf may choose any class as a favored class. The choice must be made at chargen, and is a permanent choice, but does not need to be the PC's class at first level. It is up to the player and DM whether a multiclass concept is reasonable to allow this.
My preference would be to cook up a feat or two for each Favored Class of each race, something worth taking and flavorful. Other than that, though, I don't see any particular reason for encouraging players for playing tired stereotypes.
I am gratified that the bonus skill point per level of favored class suggestion made it to the Beta. Needless to say, I like it.
Uh, no.
The Human Favored class bonus is to represent that humans adapt to situations better than most other races. This means, among other things, that their favored class can be whatever destiny (read: player) decides it to be. There is no 'normal' human class.
That's all.
i like this rule,i can choose the hps in low levels and skills in high levels.
|
|
Feedback on Favored Class from my gaming group (6 players) is overwhelmingly positive. Throughout the Alpha phase, we applied the +1hp for favored class in the Rise of Runelords campaign I have been running. With the advent of Beta, I gave my players the option of keeping the hp or converting to a skill point. All elected to keep the hit points.
Asking why I got two reasons:
1. The extra hp's are much more valuable at lower levels (the group is 4th level).
2. The revised skill system doesn't require quite as many points as before due to skill consolidation and 1 for 1 cross class skills.
I suspect they will start picking skill points as they rise in level and are comfortable with their hp totals.
As far as NPC's, I've being adding hp's based on highest class for human/half-elf characters, and hp's for other races based on favored classes in the Alpha. Honestly, I'll probably keep doing it this way for Beta. Redoing skills for NPC's doesn't feel necessary - I can wing it based on the skills they have already. If they are a villain, they don't tend to last beyond a combat or two anyway.
Thanks for reading.
It's been mixed reception around the gaming table but a majority of the folks I play with prefer the favored class bonus. I personally find it quite enjoyable as both a player and DM. Skills are rarely abused, and less squishy is always good for both sides.
I like things that set PC's apart from the other denizens of their world. Makes me feel like it's more of a challenge to run them, encouraging me to ramp up my game to suit their shiny new toys and their renewed interest in the subtleties of the game. And ultimately more skills, if that's what they pick (and many of them do) makes for more flavor. Just like the enriched feat selection seems to.
As a player I like my shiny new toys, including the skill point for favored class. Yeah, I personally would select skill points for sure, but I am a quirky player. That's why I DM most of the time.
In time those shiny new toys will become velveteen rabbits, if you will pardon the turn of phrase, and hopefully cherished parts of our gaming chest. I think it's a minor improvement that adds major enjoyability.
After thinking about it a little more, I wanted to toss an idea out to see what the "anti favored class" group thinks :)
What if the favored class mechanic was used more to promote sticking with a single class? In other words....
Every character chooses a "favored class" when created without regard to their race. Anytime they advance a level in this class, they gain the benefits from it being their favored class (+1 hp or +1 skill point). If they take a level in any other class (including Prestige classes) they don't gain the benefit for that level.
Humans and Half-elves get the benefit of choosing two classes (including a Prestige class if desired).
This way a player wouldn't be taking the "suboptimal" choice by playing a Half-orc Cleric for example, while still giving the feel of focusing on a profession of their "calling". If you stick with your favored class you gain the benefits more often, while humans and half-elves have a natural tendency to multiclass more since they can still gain the benefits.
Just an idea....
Director of Games
|
Hey there all,
Great discussion. I just thought I would pop in and add a few thoughts and clarifications.
1. Humans can currently choose a class other than their starting class at first level and then pick up bonuses in that class later.
2. You can switch back and forth between gaining skill points and gaining hit points, but once the choice is made for a level, it is permanent.
The thought behind these bonuses is to encourage traditional roles for a given race and to give a bonus to those who stick closely to one class. I had thought for a time about two other options that I would like to share.
1. Make all the races like humans. You can pick a class at first level and gain a bonus for as long as you stick with it. In this case, it would have to be the class that you start out with. Although this idea has some merits, it also has some problems that I dislike. Mainly that it removes the "racial encouragement" component.
2. Kill the idea all together. The original idea for this was based off the 3.5 multiclassing XP penalty. Since we added a number of options to the classes to make constant multiclassing less desirable (or more balanced with "sticking with one class"), this concept is sort of redundant.
Those things said, this particular rule is still wide open.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
I like keeping at least the idea of specific classes being favored for particular races. It's closer to 3.5 this way, though not strictly necessary for backward compatibility.
I say there's nothing wrong with encouraging (or at least acknowledging) the the fantasy stereotypes, and if that means more people who choose to play an Elf will be either a Ranger or Wizard, then it just makes Elven Rogues or Clerics more "exotic" in the game world.
Favored class is easily ignored if someone decides it doesn't suit their particular campaign. I'd much rather see it included, even if only mentioned as some sort of Optional Rule, as a nod to the 3.5 version of D&D that Pathfinder RPG is intended to support and be compatible with.
|
Just throwing in my 2 cents that my group so far liked the rules as presented for Favored Class in the BETA and would like to see it in the final as well.
-DM Jeff
Me too! My players like it as well (or maybe they just tell me so, because they know I like it? Hmmm...). I see it being a nice addition to the game that *encourages* single-classing (along with the "cap" abilities), but without completely invalidating multiclassing. I hope it stays!
(Jason, if you haven't yet heard, those Racial Feats would add a lot more racial/cultural flavour and options to the game... *wink* *wink* ;))
My vote would be for option 1. Focus more on keeping characters in a single class :)
I know, I know I am a lone voice here.
No you are not. I too would abolish the whole favored class thing altogether. Other than being a wink at previous editions, it doesn't bring much to the game.
I would leave the racial stereotype as, well, a stereotype. Players are not necessarily the quintessential member of their race. One can expect a Dwarven society to have more fighters than any other classes, but an adventuring band is such a microcosm that I don't feel that racial identity has to be confirmed in every player.
A Dwarven Fighter will probably receive more support from its community than if he was a wizard for example. As Werecorpse said before, races are already "equipped" to perform their favored classes better than anybody else. I don't feel the need to complicate things further.
My vote would be for option 1. Focus more on keeping characters in a single class :)
Why should you care whether someone else stays in a single class? What if they pick up a PrC because they like the PrC? What if the PrC is what they've been shooting for from level 1? Who are you to tell them that they should lose out for that?
This desire to force people to play certain things borders on tyrannical.
|
|
The thought behind these bonuses is to encourage traditional roles for a given race and to give a bonus to those who stick closely to one class. I had thought for a time about two other options that I would like to share.
1. Make all the races like humans. You can pick a class at first level and gain a bonus for as long as you stick with it. In this case, it would have to be the class that you start out with. Although this idea has some merits, it also has some problems that I dislike. Mainly that it removes the "racial encouragement" component.
2. Kill the idea all together. The original idea for this was based off the 3.5 multiclassing XP penalty. Since we added a number of options to the classes to make constant multiclassing less desirable (or more balanced with "sticking with one class"), this concept is sort of redundant.
Hmm, a very interesting incite into your design methodology, Jason. I always saw the favored class mechanic (and previous editions' version of mutliclass limitation) as part of racial balancing. In previous editions, limitations of class selection, maximum level, and XP penalties were used to balance non-human races against humans. Non-humans got special powers and bonuses, but were in some way restricted in class selection/multiclassing. Humans, lacking special powers and bonuses, got ultimate versatility to select classes as their one special item.
With the changes wrought by 3rd edition and Pathfinder RPG, we have to ask if humans are a viable racial choice with or without a multiclass balancing mechanic, or in this case, the versatility of selecting any favored class.
If humans are sufficiently balanced and a viable choice, then either option 1 or 2 can work, barring other considerations.
If humans are slightly subpar to other racial selections, then the current system works fine.
Personally, I think keeping the current system in Beta is the best option.
Wow, that rambled.
Thanks for reading!
Thing is, if you follow option (1) and make all races like humans, that has a real knock on for human characters. The versatility that has typically been associated with human characters is diluted across the pool of racial characters. Something would need to be in its place that reflected a versatility that other races did not have.
Idea (2), just killing the idea is a possibility, but would be a shame I think. I had a chat to my some of my playgroup about the new favoured class rules, as well as another player outside. The rules for this went down quite well, especially the flexibility of being able to switch between gaining an additional hit point or skill point at every level up.
And, no one is being forced to play anything. It merely offers an advantage for some classes over others. It would be more work for a GM who wanted favoured class rules like this to put them in than it would be for a GM who didn't want them to take them out. So why not leave them in?
Racial feats have been discussed as a possible replacement for this. For me, feat slots are a precious enough commodity as it is (unless you're a fighter). If you make racial feats that need to take up a feat slot, regardless of how much flavour the feat slot adds, it is still affecting the potential of the character. You could then say that the racial feat could be gained free, but then is there any point in doing it as a racial feat?
Chobbly
...This is the most interesting idea I have heard yet. To be honest, we went back and forth on the half-orc bonuses for a while before settling on the current mix. I am not sure any other mental stat bump for half-orcs works at all (Int and Cha) as both are decidedly "un-orcish" in many regards.
These things said, of course, I am open to discussion. Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I'd like to see half-orcs just get a +2 to strength and no negative modifiers. As far as favored classes go, I'm all for removing them completely.
Thing is, if you follow option (1) and make all races like humans, that has a real knock on for human characters. The versatility that has typically been associated with human characters is diluted across the pool of racial characters. Something would need to be in its place that reflected a versatility that other races did not have.
Humans can still pick any class and be good in it, and all their other class features are all about versatility as well. The other races are less capable of playing anything. That's versatility enough. As for the slight reduction in power, I'm not sure it's big enough to warrant action. If necessary, you could give the human and half-elf a slight boost to compensate. All in all, this is not a big problem.
And, no one is being forced to play anything. It merely offers an advantage for some classes over others.
Indeed. But why? Why should we bribe players to pick one class over another, or one race for their class over another?
It would be more work for a GM who wanted favoured class rules like this to put them in than it would be for a GM who didn't want them to take them out. So why not leave them in?
Because this game isn't built to be a toolkit even though many people who play it will scavange it for useful bits. It's built to be a ready-to-go product, to be as good as it can be. If this makes the game worse overall (and there's a good argument to be made for that), then it should be ousted, regardless of the relative difficulty of removing to adding.
Racial feats have been discussed as a possible replacement for this. For me, feat slots are a precious enough commodity as it is (unless you're a fighter). If you make racial feats that need to take up a feat slot, regardless of how much flavour the feat slot adds, it is still affecting the potential of the character. You could then say that the racial feat could be gained free, but then is there any point in doing it as a racial feat?
First, Pathfinder boosted the number of feats up to one every other level, so they are less difficult to get nowadays. Second, these racial feats would exist primarily in the interests of flavor, but there's no reason they can't be darn good feats as well. Not overpowered, but very worth taking.
Ok, my 2 copper.
I, and the group I play in & dm for [multiple dms], like the BETA favored class mechanic and would prefer to see it stay.
As for option 1...hm...perhaps the races that get 2 options for favored classes would have one standard [the stereotype] or one they could select [payer preference].
|
|
Keep the rule as it is. It is a good rule because it encourages core concepts. It's no longer about control of multiclassing, and more about defining race roles. It keeps the races distinct in a small way that is more that just fluff. Changing favored class to be more like humans would damage both the rule and humans as a racial choice. Diversity is a defining trait of humans in the game. Giving one of their traits to all races would dilute the flavor of all the races.
Leaving the favored class rule as is does nothing to restrict choices. It certainly doesn't force a course of action upon a player. Actually, the rule creates more decisions for the player. A player creating a character can choose a race that has his preferred class as a favored class. A player chooses a favored class for his race. A player who plays a PC within a favored class chooses which benefit to take at each level. Every race still has at least two options for favored classes, and two races have open access to choose from. Finally, a player can choose to forego the benefits of a favored class at any character level in favor of diverse abilities or to try a unique concept.
Favored classes do discourage frivolous race/class combos, and I consider that a good thing. Yes, favored classes encourage archetypes. Encouraging archetypes does not discourage imagination. It challenges it. The unimaginative will often just try to make obtuse choices and in order to look creative. The truly creative can take an archetype and make it their own.
It is a good rule because it encourages core concepts.
Why is this a good thing?
|
|
It is a good rule because it encourages core concepts.Why is this a good thing?
It establishes a certain tone for campaigns and allows DMs to make assumptions about the world and the campaign. The Pathfinder favored class rule is a gentle and forgiving way to encourage PCs that will fit in with the campaign.
The thought behind these bonuses is to encourage traditional roles for a given race and to give a bonus to those who stick closely to one class. I had thought for a time about two other options that I would like to share.
I think traditional roles are good and should be supported by racial ability modifiers and racial traits but should not be enforced by a more or less arbitrary mechanism. As written in the beta favored class discourages what were very viable and fun race class combos such as elf rogues, halfling wizards, gnome clerics, etc... You are essentially punishing people who have unique ideas outside the stereotype.
1. Make all the races like humans. You can pick a class at first level and gain a bonus for as long as you stick with it. In this case, it would have to be the class that you start out with. Although this idea has some merits, it also has some problems that I dislike. Mainly that it removes the "racial encouragement" component.
While I like this idea much more than the favored class mechanism in the beta I'm not a big fan of it. In general this is just a subtle form of power creep. The things you have done with the wizard and the fighter are the best ways to discourage rampant multi-classing. One of the big problems I see here is that there are legitimate reasons for characters to multi-class and this penalizes those characters.
2. Kill the idea all together. The original idea for this was based off the 3.5 multiclassing XP penalty. Since we added a number of options to the classes to make constant multiclassing less desirable (or more balanced with "sticking with one class"), this concept is sort of redundant.
I said it in the other thread, I'll repeat it here... favored class really adds nothing to the game and penalizes players with creative ideas. You've found some excellent ways to limit multi-classing within the classes and I encourage you to continue in that direction. Nuke them
|
|
Favored classes keep a campaign setting on track and reward those who would keep it on track. Real creativity can be found just as often within an archetype as without it. I've always found interpretations of the classics more interesting than a random mulligan stew of character options. Please, keep this useful tool for DMs to guide their campaigns.
Favored classes keep a campaign setting on track and reward those who would keep it on track.
Huh? This makes no sense at all. How is an elf rogue going to derail your campaign?
Real creativity can be found just as often within an archetype as without it.
This is absolutely true... but irrelevant. What is the value in forcing someone into that archetype? What does it add to the table? What is so wrong with an elf rogue or a halfling ranger that you should penalize a player for choosing these paths?
There is no good reason to strike the Favored Class rule, but there is good reason (or at least some desire) to amend it.
So dwarves get a bonus for being a fighter or cleric, great! What about the dwarves that aren't those classes? (Firstly, the overwhelming majority of dwarves encountered will be NPCs, and thus never have a favored class bonus. Second, how many characters do you actually get to play so that you can talk about being forced into stereotypes?)
PC class characters that are not the favored classes have advantages that can be codified. "Did you hear the Greybeards' son is studying sorcery?! Outrageous!" Reputation. Characters out of the ordinary stand out more than the rest. So I think reputation should be added to the rules. A charisma bonus after a number of levels might work if reputation rules are not in the mix.
Thoughtful roleplaying turns their oddness into an advantage too. Enemies could underestimate them, or even dismiss them altogether.
1. Make all the races like humans. You can pick a class at first level and gain a bonus for as long as you stick with it. In this case, it would have to be the class that you start out with. Although this idea has some merits, it also has some problems that I dislike. Mainly that it removes the "racial encouragement" component.While I like this idea much more than the favored class mechanism in the beta I'm not a big fan of it. In general this is just a subtle form of power creep. The things you have done with the wizard and the fighter are the best ways to discourage rampant multi-classing. One of the big problems I see here is that there are legitimate reasons for characters to multi-class and this penalizes those characters.
2. Kill the idea all together. The original idea for this was based off the 3.5 multiclassing XP penalty. Since we added a number of options to the classes to make constant multiclassing less desirable (or more balanced with "sticking with one class"), this concept is sort of redundant.I said it in the other thread, I'll repeat it here... favored class really adds nothing to the game and penalizes players with creative ideas. You've found some excellent ways to limit multi-classing within the classes and I encourage you to continue in that direction. Nuke...
I totally agree 100%. Power creep is a HUGE issue for any long running game, and this is one point where I think it simply doesn't need to be added. The new skill system and whatever 1st level HP bonus we end up with is enough to make Favored Classes unwarrented IMHO. This would be even more true if we end up with bonus HP based on race.
<snip> PC class characters that are not the favored classes have advantages that can be codified. "Did you hear the Greybeards' son is studying sorcery?! Outrageous!" Reputation. Characters out of the ordinary stand out more than the rest. So I think reputation should be added to the rules. A charisma bonus after a number of levels might work if reputation rules are not in the mix.
Thoughtful roleplaying turns their oddness into an advantage too. Enemies could underestimate them, or even dismiss them altogether.
All PC's should develope a reputation, they are extra-ordinary by definition. "Did you hear the Greybeards' son is studying sorcery?! Outrageous!" should be just as common as "Did you see Greybeards' son swinging that axe?! He looked like he could split an orc in two in one swipe." It sounded to me like you were saying that non-stereotyped roles in the current favored class rules make up for lost HP and/or Skill Points by having an increased reputation. I don't think that's right.
It establishes a certain tone for campaigns and allows DMs to make assumptions about the world and the campaign. The Pathfinder favored class rule is a gentle and forgiving way to encourage PCs that will fit in with the campaign.
So an elf wizard fits in the campaign (by which you must mean everyone's campaign), but a halfling wizard is disruptive? Dwarven rogues gum up the works? It's bad for the world for anyone to play any prestige class?
And why do we need a "Favored Class" mechanic to encourage elven wizards? They get +2 Int. That's huge for wizards. You'd already have to be insane to play a halfling wizard over an elven wizard. I'm against mental bonuses to LA+0 races for that reason. But it's in there, and it's a massive motivating factor for those very racial stereotypes. Why an additional reason why going halfling wizard would be rather stupid (from a mechanical point of view)? Why make it even more befuddling for why anyone would play against type?
And are you actually suggesting the game is better when people play old sorts of characters rather than playing something new and interesting? (Mind you, we're talking about core races and classes, not half-dragon/half-celestial/half-demonic werepidgeon puce elves with a nutterbutter template).
Well you can look at this in two ways...
1, You gain a little boon each time you continue in your Favoued class.
or,
2, You get penalised if you don't [pigeon-hole] want to be either a Cleric or Fighter as a Dwarf, for example.
I think the racial Stat bonuses are usually going to the real reason for picking a class so the "bonuses" do kinda look more like penalties for being creative with your race/class combo, imo.
Please keep the racial bonus as they are in Beta.
I love em. They are a liitle incentive to stay close to your roots.
If you like to be creative and think out of the box, as in a half-orc Paladin You only miss a small bonus. No big deal.
Missing a bonus is not the same as being punished.......
Missing a bonus is not the same as being punished.......
While I partially agree with that, it still remains potentially unfair.
A bonus should be justified by skill or aptitude, and I am on the side of those who think that purely belonging to a race/culture is to arbitrary to justify a bonus due to a particular aptitude. I find it, for a lack of better words, discriminatory.
I think however that certain races/cultures should be better equipped to perform in certain fields and professions. Racial bonuses already go a long way toward this IMO.
To sum up, I don't have a problem with a socially encouraged class (or classes), but I do have a problem with yet another bonus, however small, that is not necessary to make the game experience more enjoyable.
sexy racial skills
Although I think that favored class isn't needed and I dislike it how it is now, I would have little issue with racial skills. This is FAR less narrow than current RAW but still adds that race-A-is-good-at-doing-job-B feel that so many people are attached to.
Missing a bonus is not the same as being punished.......
Whether you call it a bonus or a penalty is irrelevant. The point remains that you have a mechanism in place to 'reward' playing to a norm. What is the point of this reward? What do archetypes add to the game?
Under 3.5 with the favored class mechanism that never effected single classed characters how many dwarf wizards did you see? Personally, I didn't see many, I saw dwarf fighters, and dwarf clerics and the rare dwarf rogue. How many elf paladins? I haven't seen a lot of those.
Archtypes are already encouraged in the rules and encouraged by existing mechanisms. Why do we need another one that adds yet more 'bonuses' to archtypical combinations when these combinations are already common enough?
How many mechanisms do we really need to pigeon hole races? In particular since every one of these mechanisms introduces just a little bit more power creep into the game.
|
|
by which you must mean everyone's campaign
No, I'm all for adjusting them to fit your own campaign. Stop making assumptions.
And why do we need a "Favored Class" mechanic to encourage elven wizards?
We don't. I just think it's helpful for some players to give an extra nudge.
Why make it even more befuddling for why anyone would play against type?
...
Mind you, we're talking about core races and classes, not half-dragon/ half-celestial/ half-demonic werepidgeon puce elves with a nutterbutter template.
Because it's been my experience that without strong enough encouragement otherwise, this is all I get.
It's really all right. I've had my say in this matter. I'm not as attached to keeping the rule as others are to modifying or removing it. These forums are the place to say so, so I did.
Food for thought.
Under D&D 3.5 was there a shortage of player characters who fit the classic archetypes? Thinking back to the groups you have DMed or played in was it more common for players to play classic race/ class combinations or for them to play oddball combinations?