I'm someone who is actually still a fan of the old 3.5 method of multiclassing to a degree, and while I find the newly-proposed system interesting, I have some issues with it.
To wit, the skill bonus makes sense, but the HP bonus does not. As a race who has a focus in one or another class, it generally makes sense that you would have greater exposure to that class' skills.
It does not make as much sense that you are a naturally tougher individual just because you (as, say, an Elf) choose wizard over sorcerer when deciding what you want to be when you grow up. To resurrect two terms that are horribly overused and cliched. While the skill point bonus seems simulationist, the HP bonus feels gamist. It feels like a rather blunt-force approach.
This was not the case with the old 3.5 system. In that system, if you wanted to make a gnome barbarian, more power to you (less strength, sure, but a nice con bump). I understand why it was done. I see, and agree with, moving away from XP penalties. Unfortunately, now, if you try to make a gnome barbarian, it is actually punative. I'm not too happy with that, and I'm curious if anyone has any solutions or counterarguments to my observations.
-Steve Bennett
I'd also like to comment further on the area of +1 bonus hp. Many of the classes, especially those most vulnerable, have already seen a bump of +1 average HP per HD, and healing abilities have been increased to a large degree with the expansion of the cleric's Channel Energy ability and the Paladin's Lay on Hands. The intent of these changes, as discussed before, was to increase the so-called "15 minute day" of PCs.
Personally speaking, I feel that the 15 minute day generally tends to rely more on spellcasters burning their most powerful spells in every combat, and compensations have been made here as well by including unlimited-use abilities relating to most spellcasting classes. However, I understand the argument in general that more healing, especially healing outside of combat, is good.
My question is, is that +1 hp really necessary with the inclusion of other healing abilities? Personally, I would be content with a +1 skill bonus, which I find to be a valid bonus, and at the same time not overly punative to lose out on.
Comments? Objections?
-Steve Bennett
Our group has never used the favored class rule, we let anyone multi class freely with no penalty.
It has never been an issue, but our group is older and can thus avoid munchkin issues.
Yeah, same here.
I don't really think it's necessary to encourage people to take the classes their race will be best with anyway. That said, Hit Points don't necessary represent "toughness." They could be just a general confidence in one's self, the ability to keep on fighting, and it might make sense for a character who has taken a culturally-supported role to feel more confident in general. I'm not saying it makes perfect sense, but it's a possible explanation.
|
it might make sense for a character who has taken a culturally-supported role to feel more confident in general. I'm not saying it makes perfect sense, but it's a possible explanation.
That's the angle I would use to justify it. Not bucking the system = slightly less stress, i.e. better health. That's lame, I know, but all I could come up with. :)
Eyah... well... I think the operating word there is, indeed, "lame."
You're saying that *every* elf sorcerer *in the whole world* suffers from an inferiority complex so bad that it costs them about 1/4th of their overall toughness? Mind you, this is a class that bases its whole point around being reeeeeeely confident and self-assured (charisma, anyone?).
Not meaning to sound snarky. Definately not intending that as a flame or personal attack. Just saying... :p
-Steve
|
not about inferiority issues, i would go more along that its easier to be confident or just to learn the ropes in whatyour nature dictates... like following your father's steps.
Its simply easier to be better at something if its upholded, valued and honored than soemthing entirelly different.
think in all soldiers, lawyers, medics, etc families.
Also conmsider that there are better places to prepare yourself in such cultures (the focus of fighing and religion for one in the dwarven mountain realms; or the mystical aptitude and ranger capabilities in elven forest for one)
also lets remember sorcery is NOT naturall, not exactly... and elves are more around the intellectual pursuit of the Nature of Magic, and while a wizard LEARNS, the sorcerer is BORN.
Its quite different altoguether.
|
Contributor
|
I don't know. I kind of took a "face value" read on the changes to favored class. The concept as a whole is pretty subjective...I always saw elves as more the "inherent magic/sorcerer" types, but they've been the "research oriented/wizard" types for years.
Regardless, the idea presented by the "core race concept" is that certain races are inherently better at certain things, right? The old XP penalty for multi-classing was too much an accounting issue and was frequently ignored by most people, I think. So instead, we try to represent the racial affinity by giving a character of that race something special if they stay close to their "preferred" profession.
Part of the Pathfinder initiative is about adding choices while preserving backward compatibility. As such, you now have a choice of getting either an extra skill point or an extra hit point. Either one makes a character "better," doesn't it? Just in different ways.
Sure, one wizard is going to want those extra skill points to boost spellcraft, knowledge, concentration,...whatever. However, I can easily conceive of a different wizard who wants those extra hit points because he likes to get into the fray and lay down some pain with his quarterstaff...or last longer in a duel by being able to take more hits.
To me, it's all about options. Having given up justifying why a certain race has a favored class at all, I don't feel the need to justify why favored classes can grant extra hit points instead of just an extra skill point. For what it's worth, I will say that I'm less likely to ignore favored classes, now, than I was before.
not about inferiority issues, i would go more along that its easier to be confident or just to learn the ropes in whatyour nature dictates... like following your father's steps.
Its simply easier to be better at something if its upholded, valued and honored than soemthing entirelly different.
think in all soldiers, lawyers, medics, etc families.
Also conmsider that there are better places to prepare yourself in such cultures (the focus of fighing and religion for one in the dwarven mountain realms; or the mystical aptitude and ranger capabilities in elven forest for one)
also lets remember sorcery is NOT naturall, not exactly... and elves are more around the intellectual pursuit of the Nature of Magic, and while a wizard LEARNS, the sorcerer is BORN.
Its quite different altoguether.
I still don't buy it. It sounds like you're almost talking about natural ability or morale in combat. This would be more likely to effect caster levels or BAB modifiers. Not the ability to take a sword hit.
-Steve
|
|
I still don't buy it. It sounds like you're almost talking about natural ability or morale in combat. This would be more likely to effect caster levels or BAB modifiers. Not the ability to take a sword hit.
-Steve
lol Steve, lets get real... you would not buy anything we told you in favor of Favored Class... feel free to dissalow it in your house rules, everyone of us has house rules in issues we don't like within the rules :)
lol Steve, lets get real... you would not buy anything we told you in favor of Favored Class... feel free to dissalow it in your house rules, everyone of us has house rules in issues we don't like within the rules :)
Heh, well, I'm not really staking a position and saying "talk me out of it," though I am interested in hearing counterpoints. Your points were interesting, but ultimately didn't move me. YMMV.
The point isn't to houserule it, either. The point is (for me at least) to change it for the final version of the game. Personally, I'm looking for other options if they're necessary. I'd say that just using the skill bonus is enough.
-Steve
Racial preferences are an error, they should be cultural preferences. An elven nation in one place may favor wizards and fighters, while the elves of another nation may favor rangers and rogues. To say all elves everywhere are disposed to be a wizard above all else is not believable.
A cultural Package of skill bonuses and feats, equipment and religions should be given to each starting character. Making choices outside these "normal" things should be allowed, and explained at inception. That way, a Dwarf can be a sorcerer, have some aptitude for it, and already have a story behind adventuring--small local support for sorcery, searching for the origin of his tainted blood, escaping persecution, and so on. I know that you can't have specific cultural packages as part of the core rules, but the framework and specifics of what a package consists of could be.
Everybody wants character creation to be quick and easy, but what you get with that is just what you paid for-- a cookie-cutter character. Put some work into it along with the DM to OK all unusual stuff--a fleshed-out character is easier and more fun to play.
Heh, well, I'm not really staking a position and saying "talk me out of it," though I am interested in hearing counterpoints. Your points were interesting, but ultimately didn't move me. YMMV.The point isn't to houserule it, either. The point is (for me at least) to change it for the final version of the game. Personally, I'm looking for other options if they're necessary. I'd say that just using the skill bonus is enough.
-Steve
I like the idea of a better version. XP penalty is a nasty way to encourage the racial preference, and I would still like to see that in mechanics. A bonus is much nicer, and a 'reward' rather than a 'penalty'.
a) if all it was was bonus HP, I can say that a few Wizards wouldn't gain ANY value out of it (the rest of the party covers them, to the point that they are rarely, if ever, hurt in combat).
b) Rogues can easily do with more Skill points. No brainer there. HP v. Skill points can be a bit of a tough choice between two good things. So the Favored class works _best_ with the Rogue / Ranger type classes.
c) Skill points for a Fighter? After Acrobatics, Climb, and Swim, does a dungeon/cavern delving fighter with a good group support need any more? Does 1 HP / level really mean that much?
My thoughts: limiting to HP and skills is shoe-horning. I would rather see this:
Choose one of the following:
1) +1 skill point
2) +1 HP
3) +1 to any save (perhaps limited by class, so Reflex for Rogues, etc.)
4) +1 times per day for certain class abilities, but this is a) getting too complicated to track, etc. and b) possibly unbalancing, and could possibly be done via granting extra feats (see #5)
5) Nothing, but add do this 2-3 times, and gain a feat (perhaps limited by class, so Item Creation / Metamagic for Wizards, Fighter feats for Fighters, etc.)
That starts giving rewards that are useful to _any_ character, and leaves more choice in the hands of the player (always a bonus, IMO).
-- Tir Gwaith
PCGen LST Chimp
Tir wrote:
Choose one of the following:
1) +1 skill point
2) +1 HP
3) +1 to any save (perhaps limited by class, so Reflex for Rogues, etc.)
4) +1 times per day for certain class abilities, but this is a) getting too complicated to track, etc. and b) possibly unbalancing, and could possibly be done via granting extra feats (see #5)
5) Nothing, but add do this 2-3 times, and gain a feat (perhaps limited by class, so Item Creation / Metamagic for Wizards, Fighter feats for Fighters, etc.)
I think you have a good idea there. Getting a bonus every level of favored class limits what rewards can be given, but changing to every 3 levels of favored classs choose a bonus from a list opens up more possibilities. Good job!
|
|
I know Steve I know :P
I just hope they don't change it, i like it as it is :)
a) if all it was was bonus HP, I can say that a few Wizards wouldn't gain ANY value out of it (the rest of the party covers them, to the point that they are rarely, if ever, hurt in combat).
never underestimate a crafty DM and his sneaky NPCs... easy way of taking the main extra firepower of a party is to bring down the wizard, invisible creatures, traps, rogues in the night (hey it doesn't need to be during combat), or just a charging enemy with a lucky strike would bring at least for a moment the Wizard down... whcih could be enough to spell doom to the whole party (or just the wizard alone)... so a few extra hp are never wrong.
also with the rogue it would be usually to have a bit more hps than than skills... he has allready a myriad of skills ane ven then he can only take one rank per level, and while i am of the people that i love to have 12 skills max ranked... lets get real... sometimes you need to live a little longer...
at least for me a +1 for a saving throw or an extra feats is way to much just for taking a choice...
but people is right in one thing, Favored Class is more cultural than racial... in here we just as a group suppose that all dwarves and all elves in golario are the same... no much chance, maybe cosmetical, but not much change from elves in Mienary Forest... and lets say... an elf in another world...
its right? its wrong? it is... at least from this view point, its like entering a movie o fantasy where magic works and we complain because magic is not real... there is a bit of "suspension disbelief"
but of course... we could go completley the other way around and detail every culture similar as how in forgotten realms where the "regions" detailed for 3.0... offering any character 1 "Reagional Feat" in the options... well we caould give it for free like the Traits mentioned in the new books of the Adventure Paths
but here it would BE really UNFAIR not to give the same option to the characters that doesn't follow a Favored Class... HERE you will REALLY be forcing the Stereotype on the players to be really equal and not in disadvantage with every one else...
while 1 hp or 1 skp feel like freebies or boons... mor than that feels like overkill
lol Steve, lets get real... you would not buy anything we told you in favor of Favored Class... feel free to disallow it in your house rules, everyone of us has house rules in issues we don't like within the rules :)Heh, well, I'm not really staking a position and saying "talk me out of it," though I am interested in hearing counterpoints. Your points were interesting, but ultimately didn't move me. YMMV.
The point isn't to houserule it, either. The point is (for me at least) to change it for the final version of the game. Personally, I'm looking for other options if they're necessary. I'd say that just using the skill bonus is enough.
-Steve
You want our counterpoints, but I really don't get yours. What factor that hit-points represent is not covered by better, more rigorous training provided by the racial culture that values your class?
We're talking about centuries of developing better strategies here - perhaps Elven Wizards are taught *so* well that they grasp it almost instantly, leaving plenty more time to hone their physiques and instincts for dangerous circumstances.
Suffice to say that the Favored class bonus, as it stands, is popular, versatile, very simple to implement, not so powerful as to overwhelm the options, and can indeed be easily justified in-game. Good luck having it removed.
but here it would BE really UNFAIR not to give the same option to the characters that doesn't follow a Favored Class... HERE you will REALLY be forcing the Stereotype on the players to be really equal and not in disadvantage with every one else...
while 1 hp or 1 skp feel like freebies or boons... mor than that feels like overkill
Wow. The point of Favored Class is, um, to be unfair: Giving a bonus for making one choice over another. If you want to be fair to all characters choosing whatever, you toss out Favored Class altogether. And I've played games that do that, and will again (we are about to start Rise of the Runelords, and Favored Class won't be used.)
I see the argument both ways: +1 HP or +1 skill point aren't much, and give instant gratification. My point is this: why does it have to be _EVERY_ level? The point is to encourage players to take classes that fit racial cultural type (when the PLAYER isn't of that race/culture.) So, it is, pure and simple, a Game Mechanic to encourage roleplay.
However, it still doesn't _really_ provide an encouragement to all characters. Hence the change from +1 HP, to +1 HP or Skill point. And yet, to my group, that doesn't fit the bill, so we've gone with tossing Favored Class altogether for our next campaign.
Another possible bonus: increasing DC for a spell (choose a spell each level, no spell more than once would be easiest implementation.) That only works for Spellcasters, but the idea becomes endless, now that I'm brainstorming.
If PF does only the +1 HP/Skill point, I won't ever use it. Of course, like most, I'm not taking PF as my new source book, but as a source of possible alternate rules. When we start a campaign after Runelords, we'll look at Favored Class, and probably do something along my ideas. As it is, Favored Class can only really benefit a few character types for playing in-stereotype, and for it to be universally accepted by those who like the Favored Class mechanic, it has to be universally applicable to all characters.
|
|
If PF does only the +1 HP/Skill point, I won't ever use it. Of course, like most, I'm not taking PF as my new source book, but as a source of possible alternate rules. When we start a campaign after Runelords, we'll look at Favored Class, and probably do something along my ideas. As it is, Favored Class can only really benefit a few character types for playing in-stereotype, and for it to be universally accepted by those who like the Favored Class mechanic, it has to be...
well i see it as universally applicably, but to each its own, not all people get to like everything...
i myself have 2 characters in concept and i know i will receive no benefits of the favored class... and i don't mind because that is not part of my character concept (like a Elven Ship's Captain who is a Bard for the use of Oratory to make her words be hear and obeyed...) but at the same time i also have a few that would use it Half-Elf Cleric who used the +1hp... and that i will change at the next level to 1 skill point... because she urgently NEEDS skill points ( i stay with hp because i have her like that before Beta... and i need the HPs right now... her hps are 10... so any extra tiny bit of help keeps her going... specially since she and only other player and in the forefront of battle... all other charcaters are either rogues, bards, wizards or sorcerers... which leaves them not as well grounded as they would like... specially whn half of the other players use arrows or area spells against their foes (eyah been there, donde that... asked them to stop the friendly fire :P)
|
I won't go so far as to give a "justification" for the rule, but I will speculate of the reason for the rule. The reason is to encourage the choice of certain character types in the game setting, and to help define the differences between the races. Honestly, I do feel it's just and fair. I can make the optimal choices, or I can forego them for the opportunity to be unique.
Racial preferences are an error, they should be cultural preferences. An elven nation in one place may favor wizards and fighters, while the elves of another nation may favor rangers and rogues. To say all elves everywhere are disposed to be a wizard above all else is not believable.
A cultural Package of skill bonuses and feats, equipment and religions should be given to each starting character. Making choices outside these "normal" things should be allowed, and explained at inception. That way, a Dwarf can be a sorcerer, have some aptitude for it, and already have a story behind adventuring--small local support for sorcery, searching for the origin of his tainted blood, escaping persecution, and so on. I know that you can't have specific cultural packages as part of the core rules, but the framework and specifics of what a package consists of could be.
Everybody wants character creation to be quick and easy, but what you get with that is just what you paid for-- a cookie-cutter character. Put some work into it along with the DM to OK all unusual stuff--a fleshed-out character is easier and more fun to play.
I agree with you. It is cultural. It makes no sense for a dwarf, raised by elves, to know about battleaxes and fighting orcs.
Unfortunately, the game abstracts the various races into generic cultural attributes for the sake of simplicity, and to deliver to the widest general game audience. To break each race down into various ethnic factions would really be the job of a campaign setting book, or (of course) the DM and player, as you rightly state. I don't think it would work in the core book.
-Steve
I see the argument both ways: +1 HP or +1 skill point aren't much, and give instant gratification. My point is this: why does it have to be _EVERY_ level? The point is to encourage players to take classes that fit racial cultural type (when the PLAYER isn't of that race/culture.) So, it is, pure and simple, a Game Mechanic to encourage roleplay.
However, it still doesn't _really_ provide an encouragement to all characters. Hence the change from +1 HP, to +1 HP or Skill point. And yet, to my group, that doesn't fit the bill, so we've gone with tossing Favored Class altogether for our next campaign.
Another possible bonus: increasing DC for a spell (choose a spell each level, no spell more than once would be easiest implementation.) That only works for Spellcasters, but the idea becomes endless, now that I'm brainstorming.
If PF does only the +1 HP/Skill point, I won't ever use it. Of course, like most, I'm not taking PF as my new source book, but as a source of possible alternate rules. When we start a campaign after Runelords, we'll look at Favored Class, and probably do something along my ideas. As it is, Favored Class can only really benefit a few character types for playing in-stereotype, and for it to be universally accepted by those who like the Favored Class mechanic, it has to be universally applicable to all characters.
The best solution that I've seen so far is having a set of feats keyed to race/class combinations. Thus, you've got a set of wizard feats that only elves have access to, or a set of rogue feats that only halflings have access to. It's flavorful. It's appropriate. It encourages a lot of different variations on a class
Of course, this puts a big onus on how to address humans. As the baseline jack-of-all-trades race, how do you set up feats focused on their flavor?
-Steve
Director of Brand Strategy
|
My solution is to allow any Race to chose any Class as their Favoured. Nice, neat, and equally tweaked. This allows everyone to be a little better at one Class.
But the ability to choose this is one of the perks of playing a human or half-elf. Despite what some people might want, dwarves are not cut out to be monks, halflings probably shouldn't be barbarians, and half-orcs don't make great wizards. Even if a character wanted one of these combinations to be their preferred class, it just doesn't make logical sense. If everyone gets to pick any combination for their character, then why even make it a bonus? Just say that everyone, automatically, no matter what, gets either 1 free hp or skill point. It should be a decision that someone makes, or doesn't make. Not a freebie.
But the ability to choose this is one of the perks of playing a human or half-elf.
Penalizing everyone else is not a good bonus.
Racial preferences are an error, they should be cultural preferences. An elven nation in one place may favor wizards and fighters, while the elves of another nation may favor rangers and rogues. To say all elves everywhere are disposed to be a wizard above all else is not believable.
A cultural Package of skill bonuses and feats, equipment and religions should be given to each starting character. Making choices outside these "normal" things should be allowed, and explained at inception. That way, a Dwarf can be a sorcerer, have some aptitude for it, and already have a story behind adventuring--small local support for sorcery, searching for the origin of his tainted blood, escaping persecution, and so on. I know that you can't have specific cultural packages as part of the core rules, but the framework and specifics of what a package consists of could be.
Everybody wants character creation to be quick and easy, but what you get with that is just what you paid for-- a cookie-cutter character. Put some work into it along with the DM to OK all unusual stuff--a fleshed-out character is easier and more fun to play.
I concur. In fact, for my own campaign world, I have done exactly that; divided up the racial traits to into species and cultural traits and enforced all sentient creatures must have a culture (even if that culture is 'Wild' such as most monsters of fey (e.g. Dryads have). Most of these culture 'feats' have a few skill bonuses (mosty to Craft, Knowledge or Profession) and/or weapon proficiencies. (As frankly a +2 to a craft skill here or there hardly breaks the game...)
It wouldn't be hard to have a couple of cultural packages for each race (humans you could argueably just have one flexible one). (E.g. humans get to pick any two or three craft, knowledge and/or profession with which they get a +2 bonus or proficieny in one martial weapon or something as a 'generic' culture.)
Heck, you could just have a small package of generic cultures (Archer, Rider, Miner etc) not tied to any race.
Certainly this is better way of 'enforcing' race/class steriotypes than any favoured class mechanics. We also ditched that long ago, as well as multiclass XP restrictions and alignment restrictions for everyone except Paladins, more or less. (Class is considered by us to be soley a metagame construct.)
|
Penalizing everyone else is not a good bonus.
But the ability to choose this is one of the perks of playing a human or half-elf.
To be fair one could then argue that elves getting keen sences, dwarfs getting stone cunning or halflings getting lucky could be seen as penalising the other races since they dont get them.
Hey, why don't we all call ourselves generics and we can all have the same hair, clothes and attitudes? That'd be fair, right? Cool!
Of course, we're all assuming the rule is to benefit players.
It can just as easily be used to represent the game world as a whole, and the creatures who inhabit it.
Dwarven fighters/clerics are either tougher or more studious than other races.
Humans are tougher or more studious than anyone. (something the game routinely points out through all the editions is the prolific and progressiveness of the humans in their short lives, compared to the much MUCH longer lived races.)
I could go through for each race and say the same- but you get the idea.
The point isn't so much that You get (or don't get) 1hp or 1 skill point- its that the race as a hole has some serious strong points. And they have created a mechanical benefit to back that up. Before all we had was a penalty. 'Elves are better wizards because if they aren't, they suck at doing multiple things'. Now its "Elven wizards tend to be better wizards than anyone else". And the rules support that.
It doesn't mean there are no elven (insert non-favored classhere) it just means that elven Wizards are more powerful, on average, than non-elven wizards.
The 1hp, the 1 skill, isn't That big a deal. Its actually a small deal. It's not even the equivalent of a feat (toughness gives more hp, and is constant despite your class).
It does encourage the stereotypes- but thats the point. It isn't a negative thing, it is why the mechanical advantage, though small, exists. It's to show you WHY they are stereotypical.
It doesn't limit creativity. It doesn't limit choices or options. It merely gives a small bonus to someone who chooses a particular race and class combination. Not unlike choosing a Str based race for warriors or an Int based race for Wizards. You don't have to- and you aren't penalized if you don't- but if you Do choose it, you can gain the bonus.
-S
Of course, we're all assuming the rule is to benefit players.
It can just as easily be used to represent the game world as a whole, and the creatures who inhabit it.
Dwarven fighters/clerics are either tougher or more studious than other races.
Humans are tougher or more studious than anyone. (something the game routinely points out through all the editions is the prolific and progressiveness of the humans in their short lives, compared to the much MUCH longer lived races.)
I could go through for each race and say the same- but you get the idea.
The point isn't so much that You get (or don't get) 1hp or 1 skill point- its that the race as a hole has some serious strong points. And they have created a mechanical benefit to back that up. Before all we had was a penalty. 'Elves are better wizards because if they aren't, they suck at doing multiple things'. Now its "Elven wizards tend to be better wizards than anyone else". And the rules support that.It doesn't mean there are no elven (insert non-favored classhere) it just means that elven Wizards are more powerful, on average, than non-elven wizards.
The 1hp, the 1 skill, isn't That big a deal. Its actually a small deal. It's not even the equivalent of a feat (toughness gives more hp, and is constant despite your class).
It does encourage the stereotypes- but thats the point. It isn't a negative thing, it is why the mechanical advantage, though small, exists. It's to show you WHY they are stereotypical.
It doesn't limit creativity. It doesn't limit choices or options. It merely gives a small bonus to someone who chooses a particular race and class combination. Not unlike choosing a Str based race for warriors or an Int based race for Wizards. You don't have to- and you aren't penalized if you don't- but if you Do choose it, you can gain the bonus.
-S
Agree totally. It doesn't take anything away, but just says that certain races are more naturally blessed in certain areas. Humans and half elves is their versatility, and in the case of humans, they don't get much else.
An elf can be any class they want to, but naturally are predisposed towards working alongside nature (Ranger) or studies involving magic (Wizard). Likewise with halflings, they are naturally gifted in the paths of the bard and the rogue. They can always take different classes if they want to, bucking the trend and thus standing our from their fellow halflings by very nature of being different.
In any case, it can be ruled out if a GM doesn't want it with little game effect, so why not leave it in for those players who do?
Chobbly
|
There’s a distinction to be made between the real-world divisions of race and culture and those in D&D. In the real world, all races are human and theoretically possessed of the same potential but limited and shaped by circumstance. In D&D the races are fundamentally different: distinguished in some magical, primordial way. It’s predestination as much as it is culture.
A man in the real world is ‘fated’ to be warrior only so much as his circumstance and culture demand, but in froo-froo fanstasy world the roots of a race’s (big F) ‘Fate’ go much deeper. That’s what the hit point bonus means to me anyway. Just a little push to let the elves know they’re the children of acorns and stardust – or whatever.
Agree totally. It doesn't take anything away, but just says that certain races are more naturally blessed in certain areas. Humans and half elves is their versatility, and in the case of humans, they don't get much else
Personally? I think humans do just fine. With a bonus skill point every level and a free feat at lvl 1, they have a big step up over a lot of other races, especially when it comes to meeting prestige class requirements. Their class versatility is great as well, but there should be another way to express it. I don't think this works, and I don't understand why humans and half-elves should be naturally tougher or smarter at *every* class. If the argument is that elves, dwarves, etc, receive *such* good training in classes like rangers or clerics that they are physically tougher, then does that mean that humans are physically tougher, or smarter, at every class they start out with? That logic breaks down quickly. Humans and half-elves are supposed to be versatile and adaptable then other races, not stronger or smarter then they are.
An elf can be any class they want to, but naturally are predisposed towards working alongside nature (Ranger) or studies involving magic (Wizard). Likewise with halflings, they are naturally gifted in the paths of the bard and the rogue. They can always take different classes if they want to, bucking the trend and thus standing our from their fellow halflings by very nature of being different.
I agree with everything you're saying here. My problem is the method used to show the familiarity of certain classes with certain races mechanically. I think there needs to be another method used.
So far, I have liked the suggestion of using class-related racial feats. I have a idea that further expounds on this. The game has upped the number of character advancement feats from 7 to 10. Why not reserve three of those feats for race/class feats that relate to the different races' preferred classes? They would pick from a list at specific levels of advancement. Humans and half-elves could pick any feat at those levels. This would set up distinctions between the races, and establish interesting differences between classes that different races preferred.
The idea would need two things to work. It would need feats relating to preferred classes, and general racial feats. Characters not focusing levels in their preferred class would have general racial feats available to choose from. It would also require some time and effort to develop the racial feats.
-Steve
It doesn't mean there are no elven (insert non-favored classhere) it just means that elven Wizards are more powerful, on average, than non-elven wizards.
This is true without Favored Class, because Elves get +2 Int. That +2 Int alone is huge incentive for an elf to go Wizard.
[quo="Selgard"]The 1hp, the 1 skill, isn't That big a deal. Its actually a small deal. It's not even the equivalent of a feat (toughness gives more hp, and is constant despite your class).
The +2 HP is just under a feat, but the +1 skill rank is far over. Compare it with Skill Focus: +20 skill ranks (and the extra +3 if it's a class skill) over +6? Granted, the +6 stacks, but it's still 30% the benefit.
It does encourage the stereotypes- but thats the point. It isn't a negative thing, it is why the mechanical advantage, though small, exists. It's to show you WHY they are stereotypical.
They are stereotypical because the races are naturally better at the given class. You'd see tons of Elven Wizards even without the Favored Class mechanic.
|
|
So far, I have liked the suggestion of using class-related racial feats.
Me too.
I have a idea that further expounds on this. The game has upped the number of character advancement feats from 7 to 10. Why not reserve three of those feats for race/class feats that relate to the different races' preferred classes?
Because I've already slotted those feats!
I like Tir's suggestion.
Racial preferences are an error, they should be cultural preferences. An elven nation in one place may favor wizards and fighters, while the elves of another nation may favor rangers and rogues. To say all elves everywhere are disposed to be a wizard above all else is not believable.
I agree. As part of a campaign setting book/module you could always list the regions or nations and their generally more pervasive classes and/or abilities. Say, for example a certain Gnomish nation in Eberron which is renown for it's massive libraries and how its people are very educated (as a general rule or practice), that nation would be likely to have something like a Wizard (a trained and studied class) favored class (or any of the "skills-based" classes) whereas a nation like that certain break-away from one of the original core nations that is more or less a giant druid's paradise forest would likely have Rangers and Druids as their preferred classes. This way would allow for variance without pigeon-holing races into specific categories based on their genetic make-up. That is one of the biggest reasons I got into the Eberron world, it did less of that - and it's the single biggest reason (other than not-so-friendly mechanics) that I didn't get into D&D in the pre-3.0 days. Let's not perpetuate that kind of problem.
In general I can understand some races (Elves, for example tend to be more long-term thinking than say Halflings who are more apt to be doing things that require finesse and training, but who are also a lot less reserved and "rigid" than the elves - in general) to have one class as a preferred as a racial caveat; So instead of leaving the choice open between two racial or arbitrary choices, why not one of those be a racial choice (something to keep with the traditions of the fantasy game(s), sure) but make the other a regional/national/cultural choice. Or make it an "optional" (in the event that a player's campaign world doesn't have such a list, or the GM chooses to not make up one).
That would satisfy both camps on this; the cultural choice would allow for the favored class to not be a predetermined genetic thing, and those that like that have that choice too.
|
|
There's too much modern anthropological theory applied to this discussion of fantasy races
Are we assuming that races are different because of genetics? I submit that, in a fantasy setting, inherited traits are likely the result of something else, and genes - as we know them - do not exist.
We have a rather enlightened take on the division between cultural roles and individual potential. It's probably not so separate in Golarion. It wouldn't be far-fetched to assume that a city born elf might still hear the call of the forests, or an orc raised by monks might feel his blood rise to see his barbarian kin in action.
The +2 HP is just under a feat, but the +1 skill rank is far over. Compare it with Skill Focus: +20 skill ranks (and the extra +3 if it's a class skill) over +6? Granted, the +6 stacks, but it's still 30% the benefit.
That makes me like it even less. The two halves of the bonus are so out of wack.
It does encourage the stereotypes- but thats the point. It isn't a negative thing, it is why the mechanical advantage, though small, exists. It's to show you WHY they are stereotypical.
They are stereotypical because the races are naturally better at the given class. You'd see tons of Elven Wizards even without the Favored Class mechanic.
Again, this means the preferred-class bonuses have even less of a point, mechanically speaking. If the races are already good at what they do, why buff them up even more?
-Steve
|
|
The only artefact of the Favored Class notion I would retain is through the notion of racial class substitution levels.
*Some* Elven wizards might be better than most because of a sub level that gives them a specific bonus. *Some* Dwarven Fighters might gain a specific bonus from racial training that isn't easily available (if at all) to other races (and if it is, might require a feat and / or some in-story rationale, such as being raised by Dwarves or having done them a great service and been rewarded with some of their fighting secrets), rather than function as a substitution level).
Making it a substitution level feature means that it is a direct benefit for a member of that class and that race, and isn't something that penalizes an Elven Druid / Sorcerer or Ranger / Rogue the way the Favored Class XP penalties do, or that rewards *every* Elven wizard, which may not fit the flavor of the Elves of Region X, who are more prone to being Bards or Barbarians or whatever.
The Elven Wizard racial sub level in Races of the Wild is an example of a very strong racial sub level, and might be a suitable example of what a 'favored class' sub level could look like. Other racial sub levels might be less potent, or represent more of a sacrifice, to help differentiate that elven secrets of wizardry are somewhat better than dwarven or gnomish or halfling secrets of wizardry, due to their ancestral focus on arcane matters.
I have a idea that further expounds on this. The game has upped the number of character advancement feats from 7 to 10. Why not reserve three of those feats for race/class feats that relate to the different races' preferred classes?Because I've already slotted those feats!
I like Tir's suggestion.
Well poo on you! Betas are subject to change! :p
Tir's suggestion seems very limited, and unbalanced across the classes to me. I agree with him in general about the current racial bonuses though.
-Steve
The only artefact of the Favored Class notion I would retain is through the notion of racial class substitution levels.
*Some* Elven wizards might be better than most because of a sub level that gives them a specific bonus. *Some* Dwarven Fighters might gain a specific bonus from racial training that isn't easily available (if at all) to other races (and if it is, might require a feat and / or some in-story rationale, such as being raised by Dwarves or having done them a great service and been rewarded with some of their fighting secrets), rather than function as a substitution level).
Making it a substitution level feature means that it is a direct benefit for a member of that class and that race, and isn't something that penalizes an Elven Druid / Sorcerer or Ranger / Rogue the way the Favored Class XP penalties do, or that rewards *every* Elven wizard, which may not fit the flavor of the Elves of Region X, who are more prone to being Bards or Barbarians or whatever.
This is also an interesting idea. I have a player who uses a substitution level from the PH2 for his ranger. It works very well for him, even though he doesn't gain an animal companion. It dovetails nicely with the feats idea, as well.
The only thing that bears mentioning at this point, is how to now discourage the crazy level dipping that you get in some games. Like it or not, the XP penalty was a decent deterrent.
-Steve
|
|
The only thing that bears mentioning at this point, is how to now discourage the crazy level dipping that you get in some games. Like it or not, the XP penalty was a decent deterrent.
-Steve
why deterre it? why to punish who decide not to take a tactical advantage but something more akin to rlpeplay (ok i know the world is full of munchkin... but so is the thread ... so not withstanding)
why?
you say Favored Class punish races for not following their "call", but even then you talk about deterr... so as to punish PLAYERS for their decision, or force them NOT to play in one way
you talk about taking away a "minuscle bonus" because is "unbalancing" changing it with things like feats... (about regional feats or traits you can always give 1 FREE Feat to ALL CLASSES, race not withstanding), and once you found a way that you agree... not you look forward to punish players that decide to multiclass
we all hated the XP Deterrent (which is even more absurd than giving 1 hp or 1 skill point... hey you are working hard on something why would you learn less than the guy besides you, just because you ar american and he is european?)
why to limit a players creativity... just for the sake of metagaming? a reative player would NOT care about the bonuses of the favored class and would do whatever character he/she decided to play... be it gnome barbarian, elven monk, half-orc wizard, dwarven rogue or halfling paladin
as races everyone of this has enough advantages to be equal with humans and half-elves getting almost always 1 extra hp or skill point
why?
you say Favored Class punish races for not following their "call", but even then you talk about deterr... so as to punish PLAYERS for their decision, or force them NOT to play in one way
you talk about taking away a "minuscle bonus" because is "unbalancing" changing it with things like feats... (about regional feats or traits you can always give 1 FREE Feat to ALL CLASSES, race not withstanding), and once you found a way that you agree... not you look forward to punish players that decide to multiclass
we all hated the XP Deterrent (which is even more absurd than giving 1 hp or 1 skill point... hey you are working hard on something why would you learn less than the guy besides you, just because you ar american and he is european?)
why to limit a players creativity... just for the sake of metagaming? a reative player would NOT care about the bonuses of the favored class and would do whatever character he/she decided to play... be it gnome barbarian, elven monk, half-orc wizard, dwarven rogue or halfling paladin
as races everyone of this has enough advantages to be equal with humans and half-elves getting almost always 1 extra hp or skill point
I never said that the bonus was miniscule. Kir said that. Nor did I say it was unbalancing. Please don't put words in my mouth. I did say that the two halves of the preferrence bonus - the skill bonus and the HP bonus - seemed unbalanced comparatively. They're not very internally consistant.
Furthermore, to make blanket statements like "we all hated the XP Deterrent" isn't constructive, since it's presumptuous by default.
My argument from the very start is that the current bonuses don't make a lot of sense to me. They don't highlight well how a race is "better" at certain classes, they're internally unbalanced, and they don't seem to make a lot of sense from a simulationist/RP perspective (that last statement has been debated, but I'm still not really won over). You even said above that people will ignore the skill/hp bonuses to play the kind of PC they want to play, so what's their point?
Do I want to keep the XP deterrent from 3.5? Not necessarily. I felt that it made sense from a certain perspective - it makes sense that it's tougher to cross-train in a lot of different disciplines - and it was actually pretty inconspicuous most of the time unless you dipped into a lot of classes. You could even dip into several classes as long as you kept them within a level of each other, so it wasn't very restrictive in many cases.
However, I'm also interested in other options. Two that I've liked so far were racial substitution levels and racially-based class feats.
So why don't you bring something constructive to the table?
-Steve
|
|
Furthermore, to make blanket statements like "we all hated the XP Deterrent" isn't constructive, since it's presumptuous by default.
true, my apologies, i tend to generlise
i mean as for Favored Class as having an small boon is ok (and i aslo believe it to be a minuscule benefit that doesn't push the balance over the class decisión)
giving Feats, no... why
giving feats will indeed push players toward stereothypes, because otherwise they don't get a benefit that as character you won't get for 2 or 3 more levels (usually)
that we can give races Flavor by adding Regional and Racial feats, that is not only reasonable, but encouraged, that makes people to feel as part of something greater than themselves, more than just another wandered without land (who should get his own jkind of set of feats)
I think this will be taken into account in the Campaign Setting... NO i don't think this is for the core book... because the core book has no region (ok it has races... but then you give nothing to humans... half elves already have elven blood so they can take theirs from their elven parent) Each Region in the Adventure Paths has its own Regional (or local) Feats for such flavor
Aside of regonal feats, there is a concept i liked both in Iron Heroes and that was mentioned in Paizo's Blog that recently appeared what they called "Traits"w which are small benefits... or as they though to call them first... half feats that are used exactly to bring people to feel like part of the setting (city, region, race)... but such should be gained just for taking the favored class... i think it would be unfair
that in truth will cut the player's creativity, when you can only get bonuses or benefits by taking your favored class... while lets admit... 1 hp or 1 skill point... you recieve usually more than this per level...
for favored class, that sounds fair for me 1 hp or 1 skill point... and i said you were free to ignore it if you don't liked it...
for traits or regional feats... i would give players an extra feat at 1st level, everyone... then they could chose whatever they wanted IN the context of traits or regional feats, and nothing more
but having this in the core? maybe the traits, they could be general for character or race... but regional feats are more in place for a campaign book and sourcebook... ok i would prefer it nifty and nciely in the same place... but i can't get an 800 pages book for a decent price
also i must acept, my main problem was the XP deterrent... anything that will cut my creativity to do what i decide to be, whatever it is in game... causes me great discomfort, and a bit of aggression, so sorry of the later post sounded like that.
also lets remember what Jason said... they WANT to give players OPTIONS, not take from them... both giving feats for the use of favored class DOES take options... because it really makes other options lots less desirable, use XP penalties as deterrent (i do understand you said you were NOT thinking in keeping this, but for the sake of example) is worse, you are punishing a character for taking options, while not prizing those who follow your intended type of game style... it like horse's training "apple and stick"... just without apples
|
Director of Games
|
Hey there everybody,
Great discussion going on here... and I thought I would pop in with a few thoughts and comments.
Racial Preferred Classes in 3.5 were a way of discouraging rampant multiclassing, just for the sake of stacking huge save bonuses and cherry picking abilities. We decided to go with a bonus for playing "in class" for your race instead. While that has its benefits, I am not sure it is the perfect solution.
What if we look at this as an opportunity to enhance those playing a single class only. Giving some sort of bonus so long as you stick with one class. This, might then remove it from the realm of a "racial" bonus and make it a generic feature of taking levels.
Another option, of course, is just to kill it entirely. A number of changes made to the classes (which we will discuss later) were designed to encourage folks to stick with one class, which might make this entire subrule obsolete.
To be honest, I am leaning toward the latter... but I want to hear what you guys have to say.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
|
Another option, of course, is just to kill it entirely. A number of changes made to the classes (which we will discuss later) were designed to encourage folks to stick with one class, which might make this entire subrule obsolete.
To be honest, I am leaning toward the latter... but I want to hear what you guys have to say.
That option seems fine to me. The whole idea of favored class felt like it was a holdout from 1st edition anyway, when certain races were limited to certain classes / roles.
As for the stacking of saves, I'd be fine with a rule stating that the 'good save' of +1 at 1st level only applies at 1st level, and that if you take a second class later, you get only a +1 in the 'good save(s)' of that class. Taking the same idea from another direction, all 'good saves' could start with +1's and at your 1st level in your first class, you get a bonus +1 to each of that first classes 'good saves.' Doing it the second way would save the issue of the 'charts being wrong' for multi-classers, as they would just add +1 to the numbers given for their first classes 'good saves,' rather than having to remember to subtract one from the chart values for each class after the first, which might be a pain in the butt.
Either way accomplishes the same thing, making sure that the 1st level Monk / 1st level Cleric / 1st level Ranger doesn't have a base Fort Save of +6 and base Ref and Will Saves of +4. (Instead, assuming he started as a Monk, he'd have base Fort +4, Ref +3 and Will +3.)
If the character doesn't get 4x skill points for the first level of every class taken (just for the first level, period), then it makes sense to have saving throws work the same way, to discourage 'dipping for the bonuses,' while still allowing dipping for the character who *wants* to be a jack-of-all-trades with a level of Bard, a level of Barbarian and a level of Ranger.
|
|
If the character doesn't get 4x skill points for the first level of every class taken (just for the first level, period), then it makes sense to have saving throws work the same way, to discourage 'dipping for the bonuses,' while still allowing dipping for the character who *wants* to be a jack-of-all-trades with a level of Bard, a level of Barbarian and a level of Ranger.
there is not x4 skills at 1st level anymore
i sincerely hope this rule doesn't get discontinued, it gives a little bonus for those who decide to avide to their parent race tradition, its a bit of a boon for those classes with little hps (ok not a whole issue anymore since sorcerers and wizards received a bit of a boost), and definitively for such classes with absurdly low skill points (sorcerers, wizards, fighter and clerics)
if it was a benefit for those who keep within 1 class, would they lose it once they multi class? from there forward or retoratively (meaning they lose all the benefits they had for keeping their original class when they choose to multiclass?)
What if we look at this as an opportunity to enhance those playing a single class only. Giving some sort of bonus so long as you stick with one class. This, might then remove it from the realm of a "racial" bonus and make it a generic feature of taking levels.
I like the idea of having the benefit of either +1 hp or +1 skill rank per level as long as a character sticks with one class (but I'm not totally sold on it at this point as the best solution) So, there are a few things to keep in mind:
1. Level 1--would all characters simply get the choice of +1 hp or +1 skill point (since, obviously, a 1st level character as only one class)? The benefit could start after level 1, but this might be annoying to remember when trying to write up an NPC.
2. The easiest way to do this is that once a character adds a new class they no longer gain this benefit (they don't loose any hps or skill points they got before). This could be interesting (in a negative way) when stating multi-class NPCs...I guess we would assume that a rogue 2/sorcerer 4 took 2 levels of rogue then switched to sorcerer, rather than 1 level of rogue, and then sorcerer, and rogue again at some point...I guess this is not a problem if we simply assume the optimum. Would a sorcerer 4/rogue 2 mean the 4 levels of sorcerer came first and then the 2 levels of rogue...of course it could have been three levels of sorcerer than 2 levels of rogue and then sorcerer again ... this would require the DM to think exactly about how the NPC took his or her levels and when. What do you think... or is this just be too nickpicky?
3. Is this a worthwhile incentive for sticking with one class? I think it would be at low levels (like the fighter would wants some skills or the wizard who needs more hp), but how about at higher levels?
|
|
Another option, of course, is just to kill it entirely. A number of changes made to the classes (which we will discuss later) were designed to encourage folks to stick with one class, which might make this entire subrule obsolete.
I'm actually all for just killing it period. I think someone might have mentioned this but it seems like for SOME reason, there has been this shroud of desire to SEMI control what people tried to do with their characters from the beginning unless they were human. Favored Classes always seemed like a thin thread back to 1st edition when you got to chose your class ... but it didn't mean you SHOULD choose that class.
Not sure if it was a secret pact sworn in to all game developers to keep favored classes alive (... if you sacrificed a goat, thats just sick. The baby ones are so CUTE!!) but I would take this opportunity to ask it to get in the car, take it for the ride, and leave it out in the desert to die.
... it'll be better off.
EDIT: OH!! And as a side note, forgot to add this above (got carried away with the desert scenario) but the best way to encourage people to play a character all the way through is make the later levels the tastiest. Thats always been the way to work it. If someone wants to dabble here and there at all the short term bonuses, good for them. Maybe for awhile they might be cooking hot. But when the levels start coming, the difference in potential is going to be seen.
Its kind of like your teacher back in the day telling you that cheating will hurt you in the future. Sure, some nice pay offs now, but in the future you'll regret it.
... not that anyone who actually cheated in school is probably regretting it, but the point actually holds up this time around. Plus I remembered the story so who says the education system sucks?
I'm in favor of killing it. The core classes should be able to stand on their own without bribing players into sticking with them.