|
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?
Until I started using rules that resembled the PF favored class rule (I give core races +3 points for ability score point buy), I was hard pressed to even get a PC from either a core class or race.
Just my own two cents, but the favored classes aren't actually written in stone. If you don't like how a races specific favored classes fit into your campaign, go ahead and change them. Make and Elf's classes rogue/bard, a Half-orc's paladin/cleric, a Dwarf's ranger/druid, etc...
No, I'm all for adjusting them to fit your own campaign. Stop making assumptions.
We're building the rules for a generic setting as a foundation. By making the base rules favor one type of character, you are declaring that that's the assumption all players of Pathfinder should use unless they specifically state otherwise.
We don't. I just think it's helpful for some players to give an extra nudge.
I'm still not clear on why the nudge is warranted, or even fair. The DM gets to control everything about the game setting. Shouldn't the players at least get control over their characters without getting "nudged" into the DM's idea of what they should play?
Because it's been my experience that without strong enough encouragement otherwise, this is all I get.
Why is that bad? Why should you be trying to get them to play one thing over another?
Just my own two cents, but the favored classes aren't actually written in stone. If you don't like how a races specific favored classes fit into your campaign, go ahead and change them. Make and Elf's classes rogue/bard, a Half-orc's paladin/cleric, a Dwarf's ranger/druid, etc...
I don't mind that elves make good wizards. I mind that the game tries to force players who want to play elves to play wizards.
It doesn't. It rewards those who play to type.
The purpose of giving an incentive is to encourage. Hence, the reward tries to encourages (or, "force") the characters to play certain stereotypes.
It acts as a statement of intent that exceptional individuals (those with PC classes) of that race follow certain paths.
What's wrong with just saying that elves make good wizards are rangers? They do. You're not lying.
If you wish to be a rebel and buck tradition, fine. There's a (very) small sacrifice involved though.
Why should there be? The purpose of the game is fun. If one player wants to play a dwarven wizard, that isn't necessarily going to be less fun, for him or for the party. Likewise, an elven wizard isn't necessarily going to be more fun. So, on what grounds do you propose we attempt to push people into playing old combinations?
Why should there be? The purpose of the game is fun. If one player wants to play a dwarven wizard, that isn't necessarily going to be less fun, for him or for the party. Likewise, an elven wizard isn't necessarily going to be more fun. So, on what grounds do you propose we attempt to push people into playing old combinations?
The last campaign I played in had a Dwarven wizard and it was a great time. Many of the cool things that happened to that character and the party wouldn't have happened if he was a Cleric or Fighter, or Elf.
The last campaign I played in had a Dwarven wizard and it was a great time. Many of the cool things that happened to that character and the party wouldn't have happened if he was a Cleric or Fighter, or Elf.
My point exactly.
Encourage and force are only the same verb when discussing illegal activity. There's no one holding a gun to you or your character's head telling you to play your favored class or else. There is no coercion here.
Sure there is. There's at least the attempt at coercion. If you don't take it, you're down a notch when compared with the other PCs as well as most NPCs with PC classes. But this is just semantics. The Favored Class mechanic, as written, pushes an agenda it has no business pushing.
What's wrong with giving mechanical support to the assertion?
It's something the game shouldn't do. The game should facilitate the players playing what they want to play. It should not try to convince them to play this balanced and nondisruptive combination but not that balanced and nondisruptive combination. If a player wants to play a dwarven wizard, there is no reason for the game to cause them to be down against any other race. Let them play their quirky character. It just might be even better.
The more and more I here the "the bonus to int is enough" argument the more and more I suspect it has less to do with anything other then the Beta favored class mechanic now effects single classed characters.
*Sigh*
So you're calling me a munchkin? Why would that be relevant? You're also calling me a liar, or at the very least implying that my stated agenda isn't my primary one.
My argument, pure and simple, is that the game should not tell you what to play any more than it has to. If something is unbalanced, it shouldn't let you play it. If something is otherwise disruptive (ie makes the game less fun for other people), the game shouldn't let you play it. If it is neither, the game shouldn't say a word other than "Ok!" Not "Well, I'm sure it'd be really fun playing a dwarven wizard, but wouldn't you really rather play an elven wizard? I really think you'd be better off playing an elven wizard. After all, elves and wizardry go together like punch and pie. They always have. Play the combination of your forefathers. Playing against type is so blase." That is wrong. It is bad game philosophy, it is insidiously tyrannical, and oversteps whatever right the game system has to define what's playable.
Primarily, this means that you should be able to play whatever race you want with whatever class you want. Some racial advantages are better suited to some classes than others, but at least you'll get other advantages which you might be able to swing in your advantage in interesting ways. You should not get more advantages in addition to your inborn ones just because you took the easy way out. Maybe that's a bit more realistic, maybe it's not, but it isn't more fun.
Does this have interplay with multiclassing and PrCs? Sure. If I want to play, say, an Assasin, I don't think it's fair for my character to be less powerful than the character that kept taking levels of rogue just because my character concept is a little different. They can be balanced, so they should be. But this isn't my primary concern. I oppose the Favored Class mechanic for my former reason alone. This is a mere corollary, an afterthought, an additional reason to take it out.
I really fail to see how the minescule bonus this mechnic provides will effect the fun of either player the way you seem to imply unless they are the sort of bonus hungry character optimizing power gamer that would sweat 20 HP or 20 extra skill points over 20 levels, and frankly I'm not that concerned with their opinion.
It's the principle of the thing. The game should not preference one valid choice over another.
Favored class stereotypes and them having mechanical effects are part of D&D. No matter that this is Pathfinder, it still needs to follow the tropes of D&D in general, but of 3.5 in particular. This means Elves favor wizard, Halflings favor rouge, etc. It's in the same category as Vancian magic or alignment. I happen to like this mechanic and it's much nicer then 3.5's or my current d20 game of choice's favored class mechanic. It encourages following the tropes of Pathfinder's implied setting without punishing those who play against those tropes, and it doesn't encourage class dipping or strange multi-classing to avoid the XP penalty.
PF's Favored Class mechanic is better than 3.5's in some ways and worse in others, mostly worse. 3.5's Favored Class mechanic was in there pretty much only to keep a lid on multiclassing. It turns out that multiclassing isn't really all that great most of the time, certainly not powerful enough to warrant such a ludicrously harsh penalty. But it had a huge advantage over PF's system: while PF's tries to make every character follow racial stereotypes, 3.5's only really came into play if you tried to do too much dipping. Most characters could avoid it without even trying, though admittedly those that needed to avoid it probably didn't deserve the headache. But a dwarf wizard wasn't at any special disadvantage against an elven wizard. In PF, he's not only back 2 points of Int and +2 on SR checks but he's gotten the additional kick-to-the-crotch of -20 HP or Skill ranks, assuming neither take a prestige class (which is fairly likely now). The dwarf's big advantage was a relative +4 Con against the elf, but for really no reason other than that a lot of his family is also into wizardry, he's dropped that to basically a 2-point difference. His big advantage, and it's been mitigated just because he's been turned into a red-headed stepchild by the very rules themselves.
This post came out rather more impassioned than I would have liked, and the point really isn't especially important in itself, but it has disturbing implications with respect to the game philosophy. One could extrapolate out a game which removed all character creation and simply came with a bunch of pregens. Obviously, this isn't going to happen, but that's only because the rule is out of place.
|
Favored class stereotypes and them having mechanical effects are part of D&D. No matter that this is Pathfinder, it still needs to follow the tropes of D&D in general, but of 3.5 in particular. This means Elves favor wizard, Halflings favor rouge, etc. It's in the same category as Vancian magic or alignment. I happen to like this mechanic and it's much nicer then 3.5's or my current d20 game of choice's favored class mechanic. It encourages following the tropes of Pathfinder's implied setting without punishing those who play against those...
Favored class is a mechanical part of 3.0 and 3.5. No other edition of D&D ever had them. The mechanics were sufficient to promote and encourage players to play certain archetypes. Tropes should only be followed if they make internal sense to follow them.
The argument that it's just a minor thing is obviously not so minor given that quite a few people really don't like them. I'm in the group that firmly stands opposed to favored class on a general level and I strongly and vehemently oppose anything that rewards players for playing to racial stereotypes and does nothing to reward clever players who want to play "against type." The bonus mechanics for each race already do more than enough to encourage a type of play. I see no reason to carry it any further.
My vote is to remove the mechanic completely. I already plan on never using the favored class rule. I hope this explains why I won't ever use it. I don't understand the need to continue using the same tropes over and over just because it's always been there. It doesn't stand against backwards compatibility to remove it. It doesn't stand to reason to keep it just because it showed up in the SRD. Show me why the mechanic is a neccessary one that is something other than, "It's in the SRD." I also don't like the argument that a DM needs a rule in the book to maintain control of his campaign. I still like the Warlords RPG version - each race had three abilities in each class. There were no racial stereotypes, and I don't believe a system needs them to work correctly.
Arovyn
|
|
My group likes the favoured class rule although I personally dont like the change for Half Orcs from cleric to druid - please change that back
I personally would like to change it to any class like humans do that way you dont have stereotypes based on race - A dwarf stat bonuses would lend him to a fighter but a player shouldnt be less well off by choosing a Dwarf Wizard. being able to choose the favoured class from any of the classes gives that player more versatility yet still being lead by stats to conform to Stereotypes.
the other advantage of choosing any class to be your favoured class allows you to choose non core classes like a dragon shaman or any classes that get released later
I would also like to encourage favoured class by making it +2 to hp or skills or +1 to each hp & skill
One other thing.
The favoured classes in PFRPG are also introduced to discourage prestigeclass use.
Sure everybody knows Prestige classe rock.
It really isn't a prestige anymore to belong to a prestigeclass in most campaigns.
Almost all PC's in my gaming group have a prestigeclass. Some even more than one......
I am all in favour of the favoured class.
Even if they'll be removed in the final version I do keep em as in the Beta-playtest as a houserule.
Keep u the good work Jason.
|
|
One other thing.
The favoured classes in PFRPG are also introduced to discourage prestigeclass use.Sure everybody knows Prestige classe rock.
It really isn't a prestige anymore to belong to a prestigeclass in most campaigns.
Almost all PC's in my gaming group have a prestigeclass. Some even more than one......I am all in favour of the favoured class.
Even if they'll be removed in the final version I do keep em as in the Beta-playtest as a houserule.Keep u the good work Jason.
I'm not sure if it's an intention to actively prevent taking prestige classes. Right now, Pathfinder is taking the course of making the core classes too cool to multiclass out of. I don't think a small bonus, by itself, is a neccessarily a disincentive to taking one or more prestige classes.
I know I've said this across multiple threads, and I think this may be the third or fouth time I've mentioned it (though this is amended a bit). There are only two good ways I see for preventing players from cherry picking by constant multiclassing. You either have to make the classes too cool to want to change out of with extraordinary abilities, or you have to place an actual limit on how many times you can multiclass. Pathfinder is trying for the former. 4E is doing the latter. I don't know which is the better method - yet.
Arovyn
Favored class stereotypes and them having mechanical effects are part of D&D. No matter that this is Pathfinder, it still needs to follow the tropes of D&D in general, but of 3.5 in particular.
I'll buy that. So lets keep the favored class mechanism from 3.5, or any favored class mechanism that doesn't affect single class characters or add yet another bit of power creep into the game. You say it needs to follow 3.5 but this favored class mechanism that goes above and beyond what 3.5 did.
If it were a matter of following 3.5 or having it just penalize multi classed character then it wouldn't bother me as much.
My vote is to drop multiclassing XP penalties and drop favored class altogether. There's no reason for them.
Multiclass XP penalties restrict role-playing. Not being able to take class A because your favored class is class B is essentially telling the player that they can't play the PC they want. That's no fun.
Trying to use a different mechanic causes problems with backwards compatibility; you have to figure out what their favored classes are, then whether they would want the hit points or the skill points, and if you add skill points it gets far tougher.
Just leave it out completely.
|
As for an appropriate penalty, I'm not sure. The XP penalty reflects "distraction" fine, but it becomes problematic as a character falls further and further behind. A small bonus for a character who does not "break" the multi-classing rules might work. The favored class bonus may or may not be too much in this case since essentially every character will get it.
I actually like that idea very much. What would be appropriate, do you think? +10%, so long as you adhere to no more than 10 levels in no more than 2 PrCs?
I may actually implement this in my next game, I'd like to see how it works.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
It's something the game shouldn't do. The game should facilitate the players playing what they want to play. It should not try to convince them to play this balanced and nondisruptive combination but not that balanced and nondisruptive combination. If a player wants to play a dwarven wizard, there is no reason for the game to cause them to be down against any other race. Let them play their quirky character. It just might be even better.
My argument, pure and simple, is that the game should not tell you what to play any more than it has to. If something is unbalanced, it shouldn't let you play it. If something is otherwise disruptive (ie makes the game less fun for other people), the game shouldn't let you play it....
Not to single you out Blaine, but taking this to an extreme, aren't you arguing any difference in the baseline is an incentive?
"Who won't play Elven Wizards? That +2 to Int makes any other suboptimal and quirky."
"1/2 orcs are ideal barbarians! Why play anyother race? That + to strength makes my -2 str halfling barbarian suboptimal and quirky."
"Small size and Charisma bonus? Stupid halflings makes me dwarven sorcerer so suboptimal and quirky!"
I like the +1 SP/HP option. It's a bonus to play to type and not prestige class to no end.
It also works better at capturing that than the 3.x mechanic does, IMNSHO.
This largely depends on the design goal. I suggest that the 3.X design goal for the favored class mechanic was to make multi-classing in ways evocative of the AD&D2 class restrictions appealing. Really, what we're discussing here isn't the Favored Class mechanic, it's the multi-classing mechanic. Since the BETA doesn't discuss multi-classing, it's hard to say what is actually wrong.
Now see here is where I can agree with you... or at least don't care enough about it to dispute it. If the favored class rule only affected multi class characters it would bother me quite a bit less... though I would still grumble about it. The problem I see is the fact that it goes way beyond effecting just the multi class characters. The other issue is simple power creep.
As a metal exercise, let's start with the 3.5 multi-classing penalty mechanic. From what I see, it fails in two primary ways. The first is that the penalty can be very disruptive to party coherence as the penalized character slips further and further behind. The second is that, since prestige classes don't count, it only acts as a brake on base class multi-classing wackiness.
There are quite a few problems with the 3.5 rule... the biggest being the sheer PITA factor. I think most people just discarded the rule out of hand because it was such a pain to implement.
That being the case, I submit that a better and more palatable solution to all would be to fix those two things. The first I'm unsure of. The second might be best solved by limiting a character to one full (10 level) prestige class or two half (5 level) prestige classes, perhaps with a note that if you limit yourself to only five levels in a full class you can take a second half class. Under this scheme, PrC's still do not count, but it will prevent dipping.
I'm not sure I agree that fixing a multi classing fix should be handled by a set of hard and fast "you cannot take fewer than X levels of this class". Personally I'm not even entirely convinced that multi classing is that big of a problem. The easiest way to 'fix' multi classing Jason has already started pursuing. Make it more desirable to have higher levels in a given class. One of the bigger issues I've seen with multi classing is the front loading of class abilities.
So maybe spread out class abilities over more levels. Alternately, delay the onset of some class abilities if a character doesn't take the class at first level. So perhaps a barbarian wouldn't get fast movement until 5th level unless he takes barbarian at level 1.
Not to single you out Blaine, but taking this to an extreme, aren't you arguing any difference in the baseline is an incentive?
I have an issue with bonuses to mental abilities because they do make one race far superior to another for related casting classes. Physical abilities bonuses aren't such a big deal for fightery classes (+1 to attack and damage is good, of course, but it isn't nearly the big deal that +1 to DC and + to spells per day is, plus it's an additional buffer against poisons which could potentially rob them of their ability to cast higher-level spells).
But, that's incidental. Differences in races are perfectly acceptable. Elves happen to be one way, and that way happens to suit one class better than another. That's fine. Differences is part of the game (otherwise, we'd be playing 4e *rimshot*). My issue isn't that a dwarven wizard and an elven wizard aren't exactly the same. It's that the game itself is trying to get players to preference one over the other for the sole purpose of making them play stereotypes which, consequently, to discourages creativity, as if it were a fox in the henhouse. I would prefer the mental bonuses to be dropped, as I would prefer the ability score modifiers to be a net +0 instead of a net +2.
|
It's that the game itself is trying to get players to preference one over the other for the sole purpose of making them play stereotypes which, consequently, to discourages creativity, as if it were a fox in the henhouse.
I happen to disagree. The Beta’s favored class mechanic does encourage racial archetypes (which is good because it helps to highlight traditional D&D tropes), however it does this without penalizing deviance from said archetypes (and thus not stifling creativity). Now, 1st & 2nd edition AD&D are real examples of enforcing racial archetypes at the expense of creativity (you couldn’t play certain race/class combinations, and non-humans were limited in level advancement in the classes there were allowed in). And let’s not even mention “basic” D&D’s race-as-class method where only humans could be clerics and thieves (dwarves and halflings were essentially fighters with level limits, while elves were fighter/magic-users with a level limit).
I happen to disagree. The Beta’s favored class mechanic does encourage racial archetypes (which is good because it helps to highlight traditional D&D tropes), however it does this without penalizing deviance from said archetypes (and thus not stifling creativity). Now, 1st & 2nd edition AD&D are real examples of enforcing racial archetypes at the expense of creativity (you couldn’t play certain race/class combinations, and non-humans were limited in level advancement in the classes there were allowed in). And let’s not even mention “basic” D&D’s race-as-class method where only humans could be clerics and thieves (dwarves and halflings were essentially fighters with level limits, while elves were fighter/magic-users with a level limit).
"Better than horrible" doesn't mean "good," and we still shouldn't be taking special care to make stereotypes mechanically advantageous.
my group uses bonus skill points (since many classes are 2+ skill points per level) bonus hitpoints makes less sense.
I vote that favored classes should definitely stay. Some call it stereotyping, but one of the things I am very keen on in my RPGs is having mechanics support the flavor and favored classes help to do exactly that with regard to races. At the moment, they are unobtrusive enough not to preclude unusual characters, but if some prefer that, it is extremely easy for them to simply say favored classes don't apply in their game - it is easier to subtract than to add in this case.
I vote that favored classes should definitely stay. Some call it stereotyping, but one of the things I am very keen on in my RPGs is having mechanics support the flavor and favored classes help to do exactly that with regard to races. At the moment, they are unobtrusive enough not to preclude unusual characters, but if some prefer that, it is extremely easy for them to simply say favored classes don't apply in their game - it is easier to subtract than to add in this case.
#1 It's a power up
#2 It has little benefit on the game system#3 It does a poor job of fixing the problem...
But that's ok, if you don't like it just leave it out.
Telling people that they should accept this change because they don't have to use it is total BS.
It is only natural that certain cultures (and races are currently an amalgation of inherent/genetic and learned/cultural traits) gravitate to certain professions or to specific approaches of doing things and teach their members to be more proficient at those than at others. This is what favored class represents. If a character of a given race grew up in another culture... well then we can do something like split up hereditary and environmental traits: http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/design/ability/racesInherentAndLearnedFeatures
From what I can see from this thread, there seem to be a difference between:
whether or not archetypes/stereotypes should be encourage.
and
is yet another bonus necessary to the game
and
what's the intention behind the favored class rule, which seem to have slid between 3.5 and PF.
While I do not see the need to encourage archetypes, they've been in the game from the very beginning and for the better or for the worst, they are iconic to the D&D series. Whether playing Pathfinder RPG should feel like D&D is another question however...
That being said, I see the bonus as unnecessary and arbitrary. If low HP and skill points is an issue (which I am not saying it is or isn't), then it should be addressed as such, but IMO, it should not be dealt in parallel to racial/social preferences.
at least, that's my opinion.
I vote that favored classes should definitely stay. Some call it stereotyping, but one of the things I am very keen on in my RPGs is having mechanics support the flavor and favored classes help to do exactly that with regard to races. At the moment, they are unobtrusive enough not to preclude unusual characters, but if some prefer that, it is extremely easy for them to simply say favored classes don't apply in their game - it is easier to subtract than to add in this case.#1 It's a power up
#2 It has little benefit on the game system
#3 It does a poor job of fixing the problem...But that's ok, if you don't like it just leave it out.
Telling people that they should accept this change because they don't have to use it is total BS.
1) It is an 'option up' more than a power up
2) No mechanic supporting flavor has direct benefit on the game system - ability score bonuses/penalties don't, racial abilities don't... they exist to support flavor within the framework of the rules3) I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one
There was favored class in 3.5E so that's not a change in that regard. Only the mechanics of how it works changed and I think for the better. I am not telling people to accept the new rules because they can ignore them (though that is true) - I think the rules can stand on their own merit, but I am defusing some of the apparent tension over this by suggesting how easy it is ignore the favored class concept if it offends your sensibilities. Apparantly, my 'defusing' has been less than successful though.
|
|
The thing I'm seeing here is that people are wanting to keep the mechanic for the sake of keeping of the mechanic. A little bonus the favored class system just makes it a bit more shiny. The argument here is starting loop into the same circle, however. We're getting the same arguments over and over. To summarize.
Some people are vehement about keeping some form of a favored class mechanic whether it has the bonus or not because favored class is an important trope that just must be carried over. The supporting reasons vary between races *must* conform to the archetypes, because it's just how it is since that's how D&D has always been, and I've even seen a reason that it makes the DMs life easier because the favored class mechanic means they don't have to worry about players basically stepping out of line and/or it maintains the campaign world's population of racial stereotypes. If the rule is removed, they will immediately house rule it back into the game, but hope they won't have to do that.
Some people want to keep the favored class mechanic as a deterrent to power creep, cherry picking, and/or rampant multiclassing, but a lot simply aren't offering much in the way of alternatives. They see this as simply the best means of doing so. A lesser evil, as it were to other penalties they'd rather not see. If it goes, this group still wants to see some form of restrictions that they feel favored class was created for.
Some people simply like the mechanic. They aren't saying what about it is the most appealing aspect. It's more of an overall feel-good thing for them. They aren't trying to justify its inclusion or removal, but also aren't going to be hurt if the rule is removed.
On the opposite end of the argument (or perhaps lively debate depending on your point of view) we have the following.
There are those who vehemently believe that the mechanic needs to be banished for all eternity and that it should never have raised its head to the world. The reasons vary slightly, but mainly center on the idea that it stifles creativity and reinforces racial archetypes that don't need to be in the game. A mechanic that rewards playing to type, by default, penalizes not doing so. If the rule remains in the game, they will immediately house rule it out of their games, but hope they don't have to.
There is another group of people wouldn't mind seeing the bonus created by this form of the favored class rule be removed from the game simply because even though the bonus is a small one it has its own set of complications when it comes to backwards compatibility and conversion. There is a somewhat of a split between keeping a favored class mechanic without the bonus and just removing the rule altogether.
Overall, what I'm reading is that more people favor keeping the favored class rules in one fashion or another than there are people who are in favor of removing it. The real problem here is that the two opposing sides who feel the most strongly about this issue are not going to give up their position on it. It seems that even an agreement to disagree seems like it's going be impossible.
I'm surprised to see that this mechanic is, or has become, so very controversial. I'm leaving this post at this rather than restate where I stand. I just thought it might be interesting for people to see where we've come since the thread started.
Arovyn
1) It is an 'option up' more than a power up
It increases the net power level of Player Characters. What percentage of players it impacts is debatable but the effect undeniably increases the power of PCs on average. It seems every other thread on this board people are looking for "minuscule" power ups or trivial power increases to this class or that race... how many of these tiny power ups does it take to equal a significant power up?
Not only is it a power up but it's a power up to fix a problem which does not exist.
2) No mechanic supporting flavor has direct benefit on the game system - ability score bonuses/penalties don't, racial abilities don't... they exist to support flavor within the framework of the rules
3) I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this oneThere was favored class in 3.5E so that's not a change in that regard. Only the mechanics of how it works changed and I think for the better. I am not telling people to accept the new rules because they can ignore them (though that is true) - I think the rules can stand on their own merit, but I am defusing some of the apparent tension over this by suggesting how easy it is ignore the favored class concept if it offends your sensibilities. Apparantly, my 'defusing' has been less than successful though.
The mechanism in 3.5 only affected multi class characters that strayed too far from the fold. This mechanism affects single class characters.
If you like it so much then you can just add it in right?
|
|
Sounds like the argument is more about racial archtypes in d&d instead of a particular mechanic for how the game reenforces those archtypes.
I can't imagine a core rules set for d&d without some type of enforcement of racial archtypes, but maybe there are good arguments in favor of ditching them.
Personally, I see it as something of a more modern political correctness sort of thing. In general, we hate racial profiling irl. The more you stand opposed to that concept, the more you don't want to see it in other places.
Over time, role-playing and D&D have become more and more egalitarian. At one point in D&D's lifetime, female characters were never going to be mechanically equal to male characters. (flamebait) For a majority of the lifetime of the game, there was even something of a racist, or perhaps, humanocentric, view of the game in that other races were never going to be the equal of humans (/flamebait). Let's face it, until the default setting of 4th Edition's The World, humans have *always* been the dominant race and the dominant force of all of the campaign settings in D&D. There was some racial diversity, yes, but at the end of the day, humans were always at the forefront of everything and they were always going to have greater numbers and greater diversity. Nearly all of the cultures of the various game worlds were geared towards humans and humans had the greatest selection of options to represent their diversity while other races had a handful of sub-types. There was no mechanical or cultural difference between say dwarves of one fast and another or of elves being from one forest or another. There were exceptions (Qualinesti/Silvanesti from DragonLance for example), but for the most part, the other races were all basically the same.
I see this as another step in a sort of social evolution or even social darwinism. A lot of people really feel very strongly that racial archetypes need to go. They acknowledge it has always been there, but maybe it's time for the game to grow up, evolve, or whatever, and be a bit more equal opportunity. This particular mechanic has simply brought this issue to the fore. It's stopped being an argument for a mechanic or a rule and changed it into an argument for or against the reinforcement of stereotypes.
The implied default setting of PF is Golarian. We already know it has humans the dominant race and force and humans have the largest selection of cultures and options. It is another reflection, another variation of the same theme we've seen for last 30 years.
Before this comes across as a major threadjack, I will say this again. The favored class mechanic and all of it's associated rules, is meant to reinforce something that perhaps really needs to go. I do have to add, though, that we still need a mechanic to deal with power creep, cherry picking, and rampant multiclassing to replace it.
Arovyn
Here's a thought, instead of just saying "favored classes" also have "unfavored classes".
It could work like this, at first level a character picks their favored class and gets the +1 hp/sp bonus. But every race has two "unfavored classes" representing classes that are not easily found amongst the race in question (for Elves Monk/Paladin, for Dwarves Sorcerer/Wizard, etc) that can't be picked as favored classes.
This could give players a better choice when it comes to picking a favored class, while still preserving some of the old feel of D&D.
|
|
Here's a thought, instead of just saying "favored classes" also have "unfavored classes".
It could work like this, at first level a character picks their favored class and gets the +1 hp/sp bonus. But every race has two "unfavored classes" representing classes that are not easily found amongst the race in question (for Elves Monk/Paladin, for Dwarves Sorcerer/Wizard, etc) that can't be picked as favored classes.
This could give players a better choice when it comes to picking a favored class, while still preserving some of the old feel of D&D.
No, no, no, no, no! I will never support something that takes away options from players.
I'm not suggesting designating classes that couldn't be picked at all, just having two classes that can't be favored classes rather than the other way round.
I haven't had a lot of time to dig into Pathfinder (and particularly, Beta)... school can be annoying some times. However, I'll toss out a 3.5 house rule that my group has been discussing.
We've been working (in recent months) on a Reputation system to include in the game. During the discussion of a Reputation system, an alternate 'favored class' system was proposed:
Basically, every race comes with two favored classes (say, Fighters and Clerics for Dwarves). If a character advances to a sufficient level in either favored class, they receive a small reputation bonus when dealing w/ their race (and their race only). In other words, by following the expectations of their society, they receive extra approval in their own lands (but fail to stand out in the eyes of other races... I mean, seriously, it's just another Dwarven Fighter).
For Humans, we raise the prerequisite level to gain the reputation bonus. In other words, humans can gain fame in any role, but have to work harder to gain notoriety.
Even if we don't adopt a Reputation system, a similar system could be instituted in the form of a small bonus to Cha-based skill checks relating to their own race.
I think this is a sufficient reward for "playing the stereotype," w/o creating an inferiority complex for those poor Halfling wizards out there.
While we haven't completely ironed out the rule, it is popular for several reasons:
1) It keeps a "Favored Class" mechanic, which is popular in my group.
-Am I the only one who's sick of those darn Chaotic Good Drow Rangers who keep popping up all over the place?
2) The "Favored Class" mechanic does not provide any (significant) combat bonuses.
-There's a bonus for adhering to common racial roles, but it's not a bonus that affects actual combat, helping maintain balance.
Note: If my group's variant is used w/ Cha-based skills, rather than Reputation, then it would apply to Intimidate (which would, in turn, affect combat). Still, in this case, the bonus is small, and only applies against members of the same race. Thus, it still maintains most of it's balance.
3) By requiring that PC's achieve a certain level to achieve the bonus, it helps discourage excessive multi-classing.
-B/c, in the end, I'm sick of the rampant multi-classing and meaningless "prestige" classes.
Once we become more familiar w/ Beta, we may alter this rule, but so far, the suggestion is proving very popular in our group. (At the moment, we're still trying to decide what qualifies as the 'sufficient level,' but otherwise, we've got the rule working rather well.)
|
|
The thing about racial sterotyping and favored class is that I have to ask the question: do races even have other classes? I mean people go on and on about following the racial unity, following the racial stereotypes, but it's like no one wants to acknowledge that other classes are represented. Elves have to have priests, otherwise, why would they worship gods? Do they get looked down on because they're not wizards? I highly doubt it. So why do we need a system where the PCs are losing out for not following the favored classes for their race?
The thing about racial sterotyping and favored class is that I have to ask the question: do races even have other classes? I mean people go on and on about following the racial unity, following the racial stereotypes, but it's like no one wants to acknowledge that other classes are represented. Elves have to have priests, otherwise, why would they worship gods? Do they get looked down on because they're not wizards? I highly doubt it. So why do we need a system where the PCs are losing out for not following the favored classes for their race?
Aside from the game mechanic I'd like to point out the following.
When you are an elf it is easier for you to become a wizard.
Just because you grew up in a community where there are a lot of elf wizards. You've saw them practising their jobs a lot. Also it would be easier to find a mentor.
If you grew up in a orc town, where wizards are scarce (I do not say do not excist), you are less tempted to become a wizard.
But if you really like to become one.... Who will stop you. It is just easier to become a fighter type (hence the numbers of fighting orcs) than it is to become a wizard (that needs a lot more focus and hard work)
1) It is an 'option up' more than a power upIt increases the net power level of Player Characters. What percentage of players it impacts is debatable but the effect undeniably increases the power of PCs on average. It seems every other thread on this board people are looking for "minuscule" power ups or trivial power increases to this class or that race... how many of these tiny power ups does it take to equal a significant power up?
Not only is it a power up but it's a power up to fix a problem which does not exist.
Increasing options is not exactly the same as a power up, so long as those new options are not superior to the old ones. It is true, however, that adding options is almost invariably a slight power up, since there are usually at least some situations in which the new option is a superior choice.
As such, yes, I will grant you that it is a slight power up. That said, I am much more concerned about other power ups in Pathfinder, ranging from an additional +2 to ability scores of all races to larger hit dice for some classes.
2) No mechanic supporting flavor has direct benefit on the game system - ability score bonuses/penalties don't, racial abilities don't... they exist to support flavor within the framework of the rules
3) I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this oneThere was favored class in 3.5E so that's not a change in that regard. Only the mechanics of how it works changed and I think for the better. I am not telling people to accept the new rules because they can ignore them (though that is true) - I think the rules can stand on their own merit, but I am defusing some of the apparent tension over this by suggesting how easy it is ignore the favored class concept if it offends your sensibilities. Apparantly, my 'defusing' has been less than successful though.
The mechanism in 3.5 only affected multi class characters that strayed too far from the fold. This mechanism affects single class characters.
If you like it so much then you can just add it in right?
The mechanism in 3.5E was extremely clunky, particularly for those of us who did not use XP. The new mechanics are much cleaner.
Also, why the snark? Let's keep this debate less emotional.
Sounds like the argument is more about racial archtypes in d&d instead of a particular mechanic for how the game reenforces those archtypes.
I can't imagine a core rules set for d&d without some type of enforcement of racial archtypes
I have to agree. If the current trend of anti-archetype philosophy is extended further, we will soon see the removal of ability score differences and so on just so that all fantasy races are all equal at everything and stereotypes are not re-enforced. This is something I wold be loth to see.
So, on what grounds do you propose we attempt to push people into playing old combinations?
Because there are some teams that still roll stats and those extra points are a nice "safety net" for poor rolled stats. If I have a -1 Con and no clear picture of what charatcer I am making (often the case) then I know I can take a favored class and boost it back to normal. At least as far as HP. And if I'm playing a character with low Int and want to be a rogue then I can get that lost skill point back due to low int.
Just because there are no variables in character creation during beta doesnt mean there wont be in open play. And I'm more comfortable knowing I can gain partial advantage back from a low rolled score.That's my reason for liking the favored class bonus.
|
|
I'm not advocating for the removal of attribute bonuses for races. I just believe that those alone are sufficient at encouraging playing certain classes that use those attributes as keys. What I'm saying is that nothing more is needed to reinforce it. Giving a bonus, however small, to encourage them to stick to a stereotype is bad, because it discourages trying other things or seemingly odd combinations. I won't give a bonus to a player for playing the obvious choice. If anything, I'd give a bonus for not.
The favored class mechanic is really just an artificial construct intended to reduce rampant multiclassing and cherry picking classes for benefits the designers never intended by combining class features. 3.0 was the first D&D game to offer the opportunity to literally mix any number of all the classes in the game. It was seen, rather quickly I might add, that certain combinations were potentially game-breaking ones. The mechanic of xp penalties was not really the best way to fix it IMHO.
I'm not the only one in my area who casually house ruled it out. The problem, though, is that the increasing numbers of core and prestige classes meant the potential number of game-breaking combinations grew exponentially. The favored class rule, which really was nothing more than a way to make players a bit happier by being able ignore a class to avoid the xp penalty, by itself, wasn't really enough to prevent players from finding and using combinations with clever go-arounds. The rules were firmly on the side of the players who basically abused the favored class mechanic to create combinations of effects and abilities that destroyed game balance.
Smart DM's would cut them off at the source and ban them. The munchkins and power gamers and rules lawyers would cry foul, but good DMs would lay down the law and stick by their guns.
Favored class is flawed mechanic and an artificial means of reinforcing very old school stereotypes with absolutely no campaign background to support it. It's just a carry-over of old school typecasting. Giving a bonus for taking the no-brainer class that the attributes already support is just encouraging min-maxing. That's taking advantage of the rules in a way that says to me that balance is not a concern and that each race should only have two classes running around. Seems silly to me. I thik it actively penalizes anyone who wants to play "against type" because they won't get a bonus for doing so. Just a sad look by DMs who think that players are stupid for doing that or DMs who give them an incredulous look and tell them they can't play that because it's not what's intended by the rules.
An xp penalty is also a flawed mechanic because there will always be a way to get around it as long as the favored class mechanic is still around. Neither of these will fix the problem in a free multiclassing system.
Reverse compatibility will only take the problems of larger and larger numbers of classes being added to the game creating more and more potentially game-breaking combinations. Making the classes cool enough to where you don't want to leave it is a great idea, as long as those abilities remain balanced against what has come before them. Your only other option is a strict limit on multiclassing, and that's going to lead a lot of people complaining. But unless someone can come up with something better, that's all I see as our options.
Arovyn
Because there are some teams that still roll stats and those extra points are a nice "safety net" for poor rolled stats. If I have a -1 Con and no clear picture of what charatcer I am making (often the case) then I know I can take a favored class and boost it back to normal. At least as far as HP. And if I'm playing a character with low Int and want to be a rogue then I can get that lost skill point back due to low int.
Just because there are no variables in character creation during beta doesnt mean there wont be in open play. And I'm more comfortable knowing I can gain partial advantage back from a low rolled score.
That's my reason for liking the favored class bonus.
So what you're saying is you want to be able to dump Con or Int without having to pay for it (as opposed to taking Toughness, or Open Mind, or just accepting that if you have a low ability score, there are certain penalties you have to accept, because that's why having a low ability score means). This argument also doesn't explain why Favored Class would be tied to racial stereotypes.
I have to agree. If the current trend of anti-archetype philosophy is extended further, we will soon see the removal of ability score differences and so on just so that all fantasy races are all equal at everything and stereotypes are not re-enforced. This is something I wold be lothe to see.
This is the slippery slope fallacy. It's also an incorrect statement: it's one thing to differentiate the races such that they model a certain conception which may or may not favor one class over another, but another entirely to introduce an additional mechanic which specifically rewards PCs for playing stereotypes. The races have to be different. D&D functions by placing mechanics onto flavor as much as possible, and it would be counter to that design philosophy to make elves just humans with pointy ears as far as the rules are concerned. My point is that that's a good design philosophy, whereas trying to get players to play tired combinations is a bad one that the rules do not have the right to do.