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.
This is funny, I just want the status quo from 3.5, not elimination of anything. You are the ones clamoring to have the favored class mechanism extended further to include single class characters.
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.
I agree with you, I am however more concerned with the overall attitude that every problem in Paizo should be addressed by adding a little power to the characters. For example the problem of the experience point penalty of favored classes is 'fixed' by adding hit points or skill points.
Your message was too long to reply to properly. Suffice to say I am unconvinced.
In general I'm tired of debating this though. If any of the developers read this thread I imagine they will have made up their mind by this point and continuing to beat the same issues around over and over is pointless since clearly there is no convincing either side.
/me places favored class threads into the ignore bin... now if they will only stay there.
|
(threadjack)
Actually Arovyn, you're wrong. ;)
I've been, partially, convinced.
::snip:: Racial archetypes and mechanical support for them, however, should stay. They are part of the trope of D&D. That they don't exist in 4e is one of the things that annoy me. To me, at least, the traditional racial archetypes (and mechanical support for them) are as much part of D&D as Vancian Magic (note that I have an extreme dislike for Vancian magic and always replace it with spell points, recharge, Elements of Magic, or some other alternative magic system) and alignment (which I largely ignore for mortals). The removal of these three things (well, gutting in the case of alignment) are some of the primary reasons 4e no longer feels like D&D to me. Simply because I choose to not use a mechanic at my table does not change my belief that said mechanic should exist in the core rules.
I figured I'd point a couple of things out. The racial archetypes *are* in 4E and they are mechanically supported. Dwarves are still really good at being clerics and fighters. Elves are still good rangers or rogues (maybe not as much wizard, but they put in a different fey race for that). Halfling rogues are still around. The racial mechanics and boosts support the racial archetypes just fine. The old school stuff for races are hidden in their racial feats. The Vanician magic-system... I was never a fan to begin with, and even less so when I realized it was literally ripped-off. I've always felt fire and forget was a really bad idea. I think it's a good thing it's gone, really. And alignment. Well. Alignment doesn't mean as much as it used to in 4E. It's there, but it's more of a guide than the straightjacket 3.0/3.5/3.p make it.
(/threadjack)
However, you're right. Something has to be done about the cherry picking. I do, however, respectfully, disagree that "against type" concepts will eventually drag down the player into falling behind. The +1 the player didn't get from stats is not a big enough penalty by itself to drag them down.
I've already posted my suggestions.
I agree with those who say that this discussion has run its course, so these are my final thoughts on the matter:
Mechanical support for archetypes is a fixture of D&D and one which I definitely support. Favored class mechanics represent the cultural affinity of the given race for the selected classes (the hereditary potential is captured by ability scores and such) and does so pretty well, as well as having desirable auxiliary effects for example with respect to multiclassing, though the slight power creep is a downside. A race in D&D is a mixture of hereditary and learned traits (e.g. Hatred, Weapon Training, Favored Class etc.), so both are entirely legitimate and I would say desirable. Of course, some system of wholesale exchange of learned traits of one race for those of another could and perhaps should be implemented.
I sure hope that real-life racial politics, as some have suggested, don't make it into our fantasy game by working against mechanical support for archetypes. I can accept a power creep argument or another game-related argument against favored classes, but it would sure be a truly sad day for me if real life issues with race hampered the design of the game.
On a final note from me: Ultimately, this topic deals more with a philosophical approach to game design than a specific effect these mechanics will have in the game, as the in-game effect of having or removing favored class would not be particularly huge and could be houseruled relatively easily. Hence, I certainly agree with those who say that the developers have seen what we have to say on the topic and we ought to move on to something else. After all, there are multiple serious issues, such as high level play, that Pathfinder did not seem to address, but that are among the design goals (though the Ability Scores and Races forum might not be the most appropriate place to discuss them).
For those who haven't seen it, I'd like to dirrect you to: A thought experiment, Cafeteria Style Racial Traits. I think this is the best solution to a number of different issues people have raised in various threads and it fits the overall theme of Pathfinder, which to me is 'more choices.'
|
I'd prefer to see some sort of mechanic that reinforces racial archetypes. On the other hand, maybe there's a better way to to that than with favored classes.
For example:
Replace dwarves' favored classes with, "Dwarves gain 1 additional skill rank per level. Each of these ranks must be placed in Appraise, Craft, Knowledge (dungeoneering), Knowledge (engineering), or Knowledge (history)." Note that these are all cleric and/or fighter class skills.
Replace elves' favored classes with, "Elves gain 1 additional skill rank per level. Each of these ranks must be placed in Knowledge (arcana), Knowledge (nature), Perception, Spellcraft, or Survival." Note that these are all ranger and/or wizard class skills.
Replace gnomes' favored classes with, "Gnomes gain 1 additional skill rank per level. Each of these ranks must be placed in Craft, Knowledge (arcana), Perform, Profession, or Spellcraft." Note that these are all bard and/or sorcerer class skills. (Most are also illusionist wizard class skills.)
Replace halfings' favored classes with, "Halflings gain 1 additional skill rank per level. Each of these ranks must be placed in Acrobatics, Escape Artist, Perform, Sleight of Hand, or Stealth." Note that these are all bard and rogue class skills.
Replace half-elves favored class and bonus Skill Focus feat with, "Adaptability: Half-elves gain 1 additional skill rank per level."
Replace half-orcs favored classes with, "Half-orcs gain 1 additional skill rank per level. Each of these skill ranks must be placed in Climb, Intimidate, Knowledge (nature), Survival, or Swim." Note that these are all barbarian and/or druid class skills. (Some are also rogue class skills, which fits with AD&D half-orcs, who excelled as...
Hmmm... not bad, EM, not bad! In fact, if the Favoured Class -mechanics will be changed, your suggestion would be my favorite "replacement" mechanic! =)
|
Thanks for the kind words.
Regarding Krensky's questions:** spoiler omitted **Hopefully, that lengthy spoiler goes to show that my suggestions aren't as arbitrary as they might seem at first glance.
ok.. you take a Feat that gives +3 to one skill... for one 1 skill point that they might have anyway if they followed their favored skill?
already wevery race accoridngto your rules gains this skill point and you take a feature of the race? i don't think youi are balancing correctly this... actually you are pushing down the half elf...
and while the human earns the +1 skill +1 hit points you take the posibility of ALL non warrior clases to know one single martial, i just miss something, theyalso lose "skilled"?
i don't think htye are arbitrary... bit i myself think they are not balanced... the other races havesopecial capabilties and one of the few humans and half-elf had were demoted or taken away
|
|
you take a Feat that gives +3 to one skill... for one 1 skill point that they might have anyway if they followed their favored skill?Not exactly. I trade a feat that gives +3 to one skill for the ability to have all classes count as favored classes (instead of only one class counting as a favored class). Adding all classes as favored classes sounds like it's more than worth a feat.
if this all works for you its ok, i just hope the rule stay as it is... its clearer and as you rpesent human and half-elfs would be able to multiclass indiscriminately and still earn a bonus...
i myself don't like that rule in spirit, but that is me...
Hmmm... not bad, EM, not bad! In fact, if the Favoured Class -mechanics will be changed, your suggestion would be my favorite "replacement" mechanic! =)
I was thinking "If we were to have any sort of Favored Class mechanism this would be ideal...". Nice compromise solution Epic M.
I'm glad I kicked out of ignore mode for this thread for a moment I missed this first time through also.
You've been thinkering very nice and creative again Epic Meepo.
But this time I am not in favour of your solution.
First of all it is just a flat bonus.
Second the skill choices you offer are to restrictive.
For example in the dwavrvencase with cleric as favoured the class (in Beta) they can't even choose knowledge religion or heal in your idea.
don't feel flamed btw, just more creative ;D
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.
Your still going to pay for it. The low Int is going to hinder any knowledge checks and languages. The low Con is going to affect your fort saves , unless backed up by another feat. But if the dice were cruel you dont have to jump off the first cliff you stroll by and reroll. And it's not near overboard a bonus. 20 hp or one topped off skill? But I'll recoup my losses a bit with the favored class mechanic when the dice bite me on the stat rolls.
Edit:Oops, quoted the wrong message. I meant to reply to the message replying to my first message , heh =/
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.
Not 4 ranks. 1 rank, and a +3 bonus on class skills. Those aren't ranks. Can select 8 ranks of any skill (non class skills cost the same as class skills).
Jumping in late here...
Favored class really should go away, for several reasons:
-Unnecessary workload in character creation. It's already daunting enough to create a 1st-level PC; adding more forced decisions (like which favored class will I have?) just makes it worse.
-The natural conclusion to what Pathfinder is already trying to do. The general thought seems to be to open up more race/class choices, as evidenced by granting demihumans the ability to choose between two favored classes instead of being handed one, why not just complete the thought and give everyone the ability to be everything?
-Power creep. Suddenly every PC has more skill points and more hit points. What about the monsters? Do demons get extra hit points for having a favored class of Outsider? ...exactly.
-Lessens the impact of having a large (or small) hit die. And to a lesser extent, a large (or small) skill point pool. When someone with favored class Wizard takes a Wizard level, and chooses +1 hit point, his hit die effectively goes from d6 to d8. He's now a mere one hit die increment away from the Fighter who chose a skill point. Essentially, the difference between Wizard and Fighter goes from 3hp (3.5) to 1hp (the wizard bump to d6 plus the +1 hp/lvl). Suddenly, that wizard's hit die isn't so small anymore, and conversely, the fighter's hit die isn't so large.
-Penalizes being anything but Human or Half-Elf in a campaign that uses non-PHB base classes. Because no race except Human or Half-Elf can have Swashbuckler, for example, as a favored class.
-Makes prestige classes less prestigious. Since no race can have a prestige class as their favored class, taking a level of a prestige class cannot yield the +1 hit point or the +1 skill point.
-Exacerbates differences in power level between the races. For example, under Pathfinder Beta, you'd have to be a fool to play an Elven Rogue over a Human Rogue. Here's why:
First, we'll look at stat differentials:
Elf: +2 Dex, +2 Int, -2 Con.
Human: +2 Anystat (we'll choose Dex), +1 skill point/lvl (essentially +2 Int), no penalty.
So, our Human Rogue has +2 Con over the Elf out of the gate. Now, let's exacerbate the problem by tacking on Favored Class:
Elf: No favored class Rogue.
Human: Picks favored class Rogue, either gains +1 hp/lvl (most of the benefit of +2 Con) or 1 skill point/lvl (again, essentially +2 Int)
So now our Human Rogue has either +4 Con or +2 Con, +2 Int over our Elven Rogue. Oh, and then the human gets a bonus feat on top of that. An Elven Rogue is a foolish thing to be.
-Humans were the strongest race in 3.5, and are still the strongest race in Pathfinder Beta. Simply due to the bonus feat and bonus skill point; we don't need to penalize demihumans even more by limiting their class choices. The fixed stat modifications already do enough to enforce racial stereotypes; there's no reason to punish demihumans even more.
-Matt
heartly disagree with humans being the strongest class in 3.5. (or Pathfinder)
* a +1 skill point per level is not the same as +2 to INT, you get much more from the INT (increased INT skill bonuses, access to better feats)
* humans are the jack of all trades they take ten on all classes, every race has a class (or a couple) that they do better than humans. halfling rogues are hands down better rogues than human rogues (-2 str, dont need it you have sneak attack for damage. +2 dex, nuff said. +2 cha, better at bluffing for feints, disguises, intimidation, and diplomacy. small size is almost nothing but boon for rogues and arcanist (totally worth the human feat all on its own) +2 to perception(sound), Acrobatics and climb are fantastic for rogues, +1 saving throws is great for any class. +2 save vs fear is the only oddball (but bonuses to save are always good)
only weakness if there 20ft move. (dont need to out run them, just find someplace small to hid)
Orcs and Dwarves are better clerics and Druids, Elves are better Mages.
now if you have a particular love for the humans versatility, then that is fine. your love of customization does not make it "better" just preferred
heartly disagree with humans being the strongest class in 3.5. (or Pathfinder)
They really were, though. You could always tailor all their bonuses to juicing your character, whereas the other races pretty much always had at least some extraneous abilities. It isn't a substantially different situation in Pathfinder.
* a +1 skill point per level is not the same as +2 to INT, you get much more from the INT (increased INT skill bonuses, access to better feats)
He was referring to rogues specifically, who don't get spells and don't have all that many Int-based skills. To a rogue, then, +2 skill rank per level and +2 Intelligence is pretty much the same thing.
* humans are the jack of all trades they take ten on all classes,
No, they take 15 on all classes. Everyone can use the extra feat, and the + skill points is very very nice for nearly everyone.
every race has a class (or a couple) that they do better than humans. halfling rogues are hands down better rogues than human rogues (-2 str, dont need it you have sneak attack for damage. +2 dex, nuff said. +2 cha, better at bluffing for feints, disguises, intimidation, and diplomacy. small size is almost nothing but boon for rogues and arcanist (totally worth the human feat all on its own) +2 to perception(sound), Acrobatics and climb are fantastic for rogues, +1 saving throws is great for any class. +2 save vs fear is the only oddball (but bonuses to save are always good)
only weakness if there 20ft move. (dont need to out run them, just find someplace small to hid)
The human rogue can get +2 Dex just as easily as the Halfling. Don't knock the -2 str: sneak attack or no, that's still -1 damage on every attack, plus they use smaller weapons (and the human has a free martial weapon proficiency, which could translate into a Longbow, making the difference between human and halfling bow attacks a potential -3 per attack, which is just under a full die of sneak attack). And the speed 20 is a lot more of a drag for a class that has a hard time front-lining and needs to stay mobile than you're trying to spin it. Rogues, even pathfinder rogues, are going to want a good number of feats, so the human's bonus feat makes it a good choice for that reason. Also, the rogue's primary shtick is as skill-user, and the human is doing much better than the rogue on that count (much much better if he puts his attribute bonus into Int, which is, frankly, probably the better route, even taking the skill consolidations into consideration).
Don't get me wrong, halflings make fantastic rogues. Point is, though, you can play a human rogue anyway and it may ultimately be a little inferior in certain ways, it's mostly a very similar power level with its own strengths, whereas you really just shouldn't play an elven rogue (which is wrong, since elves should make fine rogues).
Orcs and Dwarves are better clerics and Druids, Elves are better Mages.
Dwarves? No, not especially. The penalty to charisma is bad for Channeling, and none of their other abilities really help their cleric-ness or druidity. They help with defense, but if anyone can deal with having a low defense, it's a cleric or druid. Half-orcs you may more of a point with: Int isn't especially useful for a cleric and Orc Ferocity is best in the hands of someone with serious healing ability (since it gives them a chance to remedy their situation instead of provoking). Thing is, I can't help but think of how much better Die Hard is than Orc Ferocity. Also, Dwarves don't have Druid as favored and Half-Orcs don't have Cleric as favored. Overall, Human is still a very solid choice than can stand up well to these races for these classes. However, many races don't stand up well against humans for classes they they really should.
Elves make better mages by leaps and bounds than everyone but humans, and perhaps half-elves. The +2 Dex is basically useless to a wizard: since his AC will be hella low anyway, +1 is probably not going to help him anyway, whereas the human has a +1 hit point per level lead on the elf, something he does miss a little (and ranged touch attacks hit anyway). Elven Magic is nice, but it's basically a feat that he can't swap out for something better. He's also down +1 maxed skill (which isn't *that* big a deal, but it's additional discrepancy). Half-elves, as I alluded to above, can also compete with elves. That free Skill Focus is pretty nice (almost always more useful than +2 spell penetration, unless you fight a lot of drow), and they still get the +2 Int and Favored Class bonus.
now if you have a particular love for the humans versatility, then that is fine. your love of customization does not make it "better" just preferred
Customization and versatility are objectively powerful. They allow you to focus your character creation juice into a laser that doesn't waste bits on extraneous abilities that don't really help you do what you do.
The point, in any case, isn't that it isn't fair for some races to be better at some classes than others, but that some races are so much better at some classes than others that should at least be ok with them as to be a problem. It's ok for halfings to make good rogues, but you shouldn't feel like you're stabbing yourself in the kidneys by playing a dwarven rogue.