|
Here's my take on the issue.
I don't necessarily agree with Steve's disdain for the rule. But I'm not sold completely on this mechanic, either.
Here's how I see the mechanic affecting the game:
In 3rd and 3.5, the xp penalty was in place to give a disincentive for people to multi-class and min/max completely in that it gave limitations on what classes could be discounted in the multi-classed career.
So while it did an adequate job of giving pause for outlandish multiclassed combos and min/maxing, it did NOT penalize those persons wanting to try a varying class/race combo (single-class) that was not normal; ergo there was no xp penalty for a dwarven wizard. (one of my all-time favorite character concepts I played in 3rd ed).
The newer system in PF is elegant as it does away with the pesky XP math and keeping the party together, and it still gives a disincentive for outlandish multi-classing - but it also has the side effect of giving a disincentive to those wanting to play a simple dwarven wizard (or other race/combo single-classed character that is out of the norm). Thus you'll wind up with less variance and diversity among characters as much will stick to the cliche stereotypes to receive their freebie bonus.
I like the idea of giving a disincentive to have min/maxed outlandish multi-classing - I think Paizo did a good job - a VERY good job of making character classes rewarding enough to advance in as many levels in a single class as one can - but I dont think giving a disincentive to single-classed characters that are not part of that stereo-type is a good move - it will stifle creative race/class combos I believe.
What I would suggest:
Each character Race have ONE class that is their Favored (an arbitrary choice - most likely based on 3rd edition precedences - such as fighter for dwarf and rogue for halfling) - so that any character taking levels in that class gets 1 extra skill point or hit point (or whatever) and the player chooses ANY One other class to be a favored class. That way if a dwarf wanted to play a Wizard he could benefit from the extra hit point. If he wanted to be a multi-class fighter/wizard - he would get the bonus in both classes. Theoretically - this is no different than NOT apply an XP penalty in 3rd edition for such a character since he could discount the fighter levels when applying multi-classing rules.
A half-elf - being historically the proverbial multi-classing race (dating back to all editions) should then be allowed to choose ANY TWO classes - and could therefore pretty much have any combo of two classes to get this bonus.
Or give this bonus to humans and allow half-elves to get such a bonus regardless of character class combos (meaning that all classes are favored to a half-elf) which would make that race a viable choice again - since in my experiences the half-elf has been the red-headed step-child of 3rd edition all along and the least loved race.,
Robert
|
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.
Please, don't! This is a great carrot to encourage D&D tropes, and it doesn't penalize anyone who wants to play against stereotypes.
I say keep it!
Please, don't! This is a great carrot to encourage D&D tropes, and it doesn't penalize anyone who wants to play against stereotypes.
I say keep it!
Why in the world would you want to add additional encouragement for people to play uncreative characters? The races' built-in abilities already do that pretty well.
|
To be honest, I am leaning toward the latter... but I want to hear what you guys have to say.
Please don't kill it. I've never played any class but rogue/thief. I've never multi-classed, I've never taken a prestige class, and I've never done the gestalt thing. The extra hp/skill point is a nice reward for boring people like me. :)
(I think of it as my thief building his pension with one company rather than switching jobs all the time.)
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.
Hey Jason,
I think I agree with you toward the latter. There are better methods to encourage racial preferences. Two that I liked were racial substitution levels and racially-based class feats. These can be optional, and they don't have to be substantially or mechanically "better" or more optomized. They just add flavor, a different focus, and provide a different feel for the different races.
As far as the racial preference bonuses, I don't think they're needed. I also think that the two options, when compared after twenty levels, are widely divergent in their benefits. What's more, the HP bonus doesn't make sense to me just as a game construct. How is an elf wizard physically hardier then a dwarf wizard just because the elf's upbringing offered more wizard familiarity?
I think there are other ways to encourage sticking with a class through 20 levels, and I think that you've made some good strides in that regard.
-Steve
Please don't kill it. I've never played any class but rogue/thief. I've never multi-classed, I've never taken a prestige class, and I've never done the gestalt thing. The extra hp/skill point is a nice reward for boring people like me. :)
(I think of it as my thief building his pension with one company rather than switching jobs all the time.)
Awww... this made me sad about my own position... :(
-Steve
Please don't kill it. I've never played any class but rogue/thief. I've never multi-classed, I've never taken a prestige class, and I've never done the gestalt thing. The extra hp/skill point is a nice reward for boring people like me. :)
(I think of it as my thief building his pension with one company rather than switching jobs all the time.)
Wouldn't you rather get unique, cool, powerful class abilities above 5th level, and really unique, cool, and powerful ones above 10th?
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.
I'm sure you didn't mean it in such a light, but saying that Multiclassing is akin to cheating makes me pretty mad.
I love to multiclass because it gives my characters that much more versatility. If I wanted straight through classes I'd play 4e.
Add me to the group of keeping the favored class bonuses. At the end of the day if a group dosent want to use it they dont have to (Not like Jason is going to sprint to your house and beat you up for not using his rules)
True, but he could also add a class with full spontaneous casting with all spells known, quadruple full BaB, and three feats and 16 skill ranks per level, as well as any one class feature from any other class every other level... and the same argument would apply.
To be honest, I am leaning toward the latter... but I want to hear what you guys have to say.
Given those options, I would remove it entirely.
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
stacking huge save bonuses can be solved by calculating the save bonus differently for multiclass. there are a number of ways. My preferred method is to add up the number of levels that are 'good save' and the number of levels that are 'poor save' and add together what a x level good save plus a y level poor save would be.(ie 5/4 ranger cleric has 9 levels good fort, 5 good ref + 4 poor ref, 4 good will+ 5 poor will)
I would prefer the bonus to apply to your highest class (ie in the version above the character would get +5 hp or skill points) if you decide to keep it, but...
I say kill it.
I reckon racial feats are a great idea. Racial class replacement feats equally excellent and have the bonus of being able to be cool not just a mechanical advantage.
Favored class has caused my players to choose only those race/class combos that provides favored class bonus :( So I'm in favor of removing it unless we can think of some better solution. Maybe all races can take whatever class to get favored class bonus but they loose the bonus if they multiclass to any other class than race's favored class. I'm sorry if this has already been mentioned.
|
If you decide to keep the 2+Int Skill points for classes like fighter I'm all for keeping the racial bonus, it's what balances out their need for more skill points.
But the fact that I have that position says more about the need to reconsider skill points for certain classes than the whole racial bonus feature. I believe that if you were to readdress some of the classes and their skill totals (just like hit points were readdressed), there wouldn't be a need for this little carrot anymore.
You're right, you've already put in enough new incentives to stick with a certain class in the rebuild of those class features, this isn't really needed anymore.
Wouldn't you rather get unique, cool, powerful class abilities above 5th level, and really unique, cool, and powerful ones above 10th?Not if it means being something other than a thief.
I think Blaine's referring to the racial feats or substitution levels. You'd absolutely still be a thief, you'd just be a thief with neat halfling-related abilities, etc.
-Steve
Oh, that's fine then. I'm just concerned that Jason is going to pull the plug on any sort of bonus at all. Beggars can't be choosers, so if an extra skill or hit point is all that's being offered, I'll happily take it.
Heh.
You're thinking like a player. I'm thinking like a DM.
-Steve
No, that's how I DM too. When I play, I try to max my character out. When I DM, I expect players to do likewise and I have no problem with that.
Everyone's game is different. I'm more hesitant about allowing my players to min-max. It takes me out of my fun-zone.
Ironically, I totally min-max myself when I character-design. I just don't game as a player very often, so I'm probably not bored with it yet.
-Steve
|
|
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.I'm sure you didn't mean it in such a light, but saying that Multiclassing is akin to cheating makes me pretty mad.
I love to multiclass because it gives my characters that much more versatility. If I wanted straight through classes I'd play 4e.
You're right, it wasn't meant in that light. Lots of people multiclass. I don't have a character just one class unless he's a monk usually. My duelist is a swashbuckler/scout/duelist or depending on whats allowed, rogue/fighter/duelist.
If I play a straight up rogue, I always go down some shadowdancer or some assassin because Hide In Plain Sight is a must have ... which reminds me to go bug a different forum section about giving that as a rogue option as they level. Seriously.
My main take for the example was simply that people who multiclass and don't take a prestige class or something is kind of doing great for awhile, I know, but in the end they will have a lot of good well rounded abilities, but nothing that says "WOW, went to level 20 and look at all the cool stuff I got for it"
Not if it means being something other than a thief.
That wasn't at all what I meant. I was trying to say wouldn't you rather the rogue get nice shinyes built-in? Not racial-substitution levels either, which frankly don't interest me much. Just, the class should be awesome out of the box, which should be encouragement enough for you to take it.
One of the strengths of pen-and-paper roleplaying games is that you can play what you want. As such, I don't think it's good to "encourage" players to play anything in particular. All options should be good in themselves, preferably equally so. If I want to play a half-orc cleric or rogue, the rules should allow for that as much as possible. A "Favored Class" mechanic tries to dissuade me from playing that character, though, and I don't see any good reason for that. Even if you give everyone the ability to choose their favored class, you're still trying to convince the half-orc rogue to not take levels of Assassin, and why? For some vague aesthetic of playing just one class? The issue with 3.5 base classes wasn't that no one was playing them all the way to 20, but that the game implicitly discouraged that by giving them more and more empty levels as they got higher and adding more and more juicy prestige classes to choose from. If someone wants to play a rogue/cleric/wizard/assasin, they shouldn't feel pressured not to, nor should a rogue feel pressured to take a prestige class.
So I guess my point is, let people play what they want.
|
|
Not if it means being something other than a thief.That wasn't at all what I meant. I was trying to say wouldn't you rather the rogue get nice shinyes built-in?
I like the idea of racial sub levels or racial 'favored class feats,' particularly since it rewards the Rogue (or whatever) *after* he's committed to being a Rogue for X number of levels, rather than an up-front skill or hit point bonus that will apply at Rogue 1, even if he immediately jumps ship to Fighter 1 for his second character level.
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
Though I agree that rampant multiclassing purely for the sake of min-maxing is a terrible thing, I also feel that multiclassing in order to fit a particular theme or concept should be encouraged. I'm lucky in that I currently have no munchkins near me and so I don't really need a fix to this particular problem. Anywho, as for racially preferred classes, I think they run a serious danger of encouraging stereotyping while also encouraging theme. A double edged sword.
Now, the quote above suggests just removing the somewhat artificial mechanic since so much else has been done to avert min-maxing multiclassing. I think that's a pretty decent idea, really, but then what do you do with humans and half-elves to make up for the loss of more free multiclassing? And does Pathfinder want to encourage dwarves to be fighters and elves to be wizards? Perhaps the solution is to ALMOST do away with favored classes.
Perhaps what might work best (and this is just off the top of my head) is to give a small bonus, at first level only, to those who choose their race's favored class. Maybe something like a few extra skill points or a special feat like "Traditional Training" or somesuch. Or perhaps giving specific bonuses like "Dwarven fighters gain X hit points", "elven wizards gain an extra 1st level spell slot" or somesuch. Of course, this still leaves the question of what to do with humans and half-elves, but one thing at a time.... Anywho, just my thoughts. Hrm...maybe I'll use that in my games.
Anyway, if there is no desire to encourage certain race/class combinations, then I'd say to just remove favored classes altogether. However, just remember to shore up the loss for the humans and half-elves. And then there may be some issues with backwards compatibility, but I can't imagine there'd be any huge ones.
Thanks for reading my babble,
Kayn
|
|
Not if it means being something other than a thief.That wasn't at all what I meant. I was trying to say wouldn't you rather the rogue get nice shinyes built-in? Not racial-substitution levels either, which frankly don't interest me much. Just, the class should be awesome out of the box, which should be encouragement enough for you to take it.
One of the strengths of pen-and-paper roleplaying games is that you can play what you want. As such, I don't think it's good to "encourage" players to play anything in particular. All options should be good in themselves, preferably equally so. If I want to play a half-orc cleric or rogue, the rules should allow for that as much as possible. A "Favored Class" mechanic tries to dissuade me from playing that character, though, and I don't see any good reason for that. Even if you give everyone the ability to choose their favored class, you're still trying to convince the half-orc rogue to not take levels of Assassin, and why? For some vague aesthetic of playing just one class? The issue with 3.5 base classes wasn't that no one was playing them all the way to 20, but that the game implicitly discouraged that by giving them more and more empty levels as they got higher and adding more and more juicy prestige classes to choose from. If someone wants to play a rogue/cleric/wizard/assasin, they shouldn't feel pressured not to, nor should a rogue feel pressured to take a prestige class.
So I guess my point is, let people play what they want.
I agree with you. I'm in favor of the extra hit/skill point because the race I play has rogue as its favored class. If I loved a race that didn't have rogue as its favored class I would either oppose the extra hit/skill point or (more likely) create an identical homebrew race that is exactly the same in every way except that it's favored class is rogue. :)
|
|
As far as the racial preference bonuses, I don't think they're needed. I also think that the two options, when compared after twenty levels, are widely divergent in their benefits. What's more, the HP bonus doesn't make sense to me just as a game construct. How is an elf wizard physically hardier then a dwarf wizard just because the elf's upbringing offered more wizard familiarity?
just to be pesky
but in that specific example... they would be equal, the elf won't be hardier than the dwar if bothare wizards :Pelf wizard gets his + hp from the favored class bonus, the dwarf wizard from his +2 constitution bonus fro well... just being a dwarf
ok the elf is smarter, but that is different matter altoguether
|
|
My main take for the example was simply that people who multiclass and don't take a prestige class or something is kind of doing great for awhile, I know, but in the end they will have a lot of good well rounded abilities, but nothing that says "WOW, went to level 20 and look at all the cool stuff I got for it"
years ago i built a cleric to become a Templar (Defenders of the Faith sourcebook)... when i arrived to the needed level my needs as player and the ones of my character have grown differently... so i just keep growing as cleric
if you want to egt a prestigue class, do multi class or just go singfle classed you should NOT be peneliced for that... i liked that character so much that now that pathfinder is out i did his daughter, similar concept different approach... still all into Cleric, but that is how i pretend to play.
and subversive... giving racial feats for chosing your "favored class"at 5th, 10th, and extra sounds like min maxing
also if you min-max as player and don't like your players do the same as DM, i hope not to offend you, but that is an hypocrytal position.
(but hey one of my fellow players critizise me because i am all sparce going more for strance character concpets than actuallymin-max, making my character "weaker" than they should :P, but hey i left themin maxing rules for de dexterity whore i was in Storytelling and similar systems)
The only argument I can see that's a good reason to keep the Favored Class mechanic is that people like it. However, it's a power boost, pure and simple. Why wouldn't people like a pure power boost? We could give them an extra feat per level and they'd probably like that even more. I feel as if no one would have missed it if it weren't already in the beta, and anyone who comes to the final version fresh and sees Favored Classes simply removed will probably just say, "Wow, what a refreshing change!"
\just to be pesky
but in that specific example... they would be equal, the elf won't be hardier than the dwar if bothare wizards :Pelf wizard gets his + hp from the favored class bonus, the dwarf wizard from his +2 constitution bonus fro well... just being a dwarf
ok the elf is smarter, but that is different matter altoguether
So nit-picky!
Fine, a gnome sorcerer and a dwarf sorcerer!
-Steve
|
|
The only argument I can see that's a good reason to keep the Favored Class mechanic is that people like it. However, it's a power boost, pure and simple. Why wouldn't people like a pure power boost? We could give them an extra feat per level and they'd probably like that even more. I feel as if no one would have missed it if it weren't already in the beta, and anyone who comes to the final version fresh and sees Favored Classes simply removed will probably just say, "Wow, what a refreshing change!"
actually it appeared in the Alpha 3... with which we did characters for our game, we just changed them (very little) whenebta arrived
and one thing si giving an small bonus (said 1 hp or 1 skill point) and another entirely a feat... that would be unbalancing and overkill
while with an small boost you may not have the stereotype in your campaign suing feats would make it absolutely standard to use stereotypes... if that is what you want to play THAT is ok...
as someone mentioned in this or other thread... i could more easily see the bonus to skill points went its way if the rules for skill points for fighters, sorcerers, wizard and clerics get revised (obviously this would move everyone else), its not only unfair but absurd to say... the msot knowledgeables of charcaters classes (clerics and wirzards) to have 2 skill points + int modifier... just because they learn magic!
similar witht hewother 2, just because one practice a lot with weapons or the other is natural with magic doesn'tmake them klame to learn skills ... commandos now are weapon specialist but also they have a myriad of skills (and not onlyebcause they multi class with rogue)
and subversive... giving racial feats for chosing your "favored class"at 5th, 10th, and extra sounds like min maxing
How? I didn't say that the feats would be *better* then normal feats applicable at those levels. I'm simply suggesting feats that are more flavorful and synergistic with the races that prefer those classes.
also if you min-max as player and don't like your players do the same as DM, i hope not to offend you, but that is an hypocrytal position.
You don't offend me. But you're wrong.
When I'm playing someone else's game, I'm playing according to how the DM rules the game. If he's allowing min-maxing, I'm going to take advantage of it. The point is, I'm respectful of his or her game. When I play my game, I set down how I want the general gameplay to be. I'm generally permissive, but I'm careful when I see something that seems too abusive.
It would be hypocritical if I disallowed my players a combo or feat, and then used it with the NPCs I set against them.
-Steve
|
|
My main take for the example was simply that people who multiclass and don't take a prestige class or something is kind of doing great for awhile, I know, but in the end they will have a lot of good well rounded abilities, but nothing that says "WOW, went to level 20 and look at all the cool stuff I got for it"years ago i built a cleric to become a Templar (Defenders of the Faith sourcebook)... when i arrived to the needed level my needs as player and the ones of my character have grown differently... so i just keep growing as cleric
if you want to egt a prestigue class, do multi class or just go singfle classed you should NOT be peneliced for that... i liked that character so much that now that pathfinder is out i did his daughter, similar concept different approach... still all into Cleric, but that is how i pretend to play.
and subversive... giving racial feats for chosing your "favored class"at 5th, 10th, and extra sounds like min maxing
also if you min-max as player and don't like your players do the same as DM, i hope not to offend you, but that is an hypocrytal position.
(but hey one of my fellow players critizise me because i am all sparce going more for strance character concpets than actuallymin-max, making my character "weaker" than they should :P, but hey i left themin maxing rules for de dexterity whore i was in Storytelling and similar systems)
I agree. I guess that was kind of my point. I think that since favored classes have been around forever, its been one of those pesky things that shouldn't have stuck around so long. Dump it entirely, let people play what they want without rewarding or punishing them. Of course I know that THIS time, you're not punished for playing what you want, but your not rewarded if you go out of the lines.
I'm still a big fan of just dumping it.
|
|
\just to be pesky
but in that specific example... they would be equal, the elf won't be hardier than the dwar if bothare wizards :Pelf wizard gets his + hp from the favored class bonus, the dwarf wizard from his +2 constitution bonus fro well... just being a dwarf
ok the elf is smarter, but that is different matter altoguether
So nit-picky!
Fine, a gnome sorcerer and a dwarf sorcerer!
-Steve
this is being abusive with poor dwarf :P
they already lose 2 points in charisma... even if his rival was not a gnome (who wins +2 in charisma) whe would eb in a disadvantage, now he ALSO has a difference of 4 charisma points of difference... so where does it come into play the +1 hp or +1 skill point for the gnome sorcerer?hps would be the same... but the gnome would do better going for the skill points
but i insist already gnome sorcerer vs dwarven sorcerer is just overkill even without favored class
|
|
and subversive... giving racial feats for chosing your "favored class"at 5th, 10th, and extra sounds like min maxingHow? I didn't say that the feats would be *better* then normal feats applicable at those levels. I'm simply suggesting feats that are more flavorful and synergistic with the races that prefer those classes.
mmm ok we agree in this, having more of this would be nice
also if you min-max as player and don't like your players do the same as DM, i hope not to offend you, but that is an hypocrytal position.
You don't offend me. But you're wrong.
When I'm playing someone else's game, I'm playing according to how the DM rules the game. If he's allowing min-maxing, I'm going to take advantage of it. The point is, I'm respectful of his or her game. When I play my game, I set down how I want the general gameplay to be. I'm generally permissive, but I'm careful when I see something that seems too abusive.
It would be hypocritical if I disallowed my players a combo or feat, and then used it with the NPCs I set against them.
-Steve
then imake my appologies for the missinterpretation, and you are righjt, that is rule number one i take... if my npcscan do something players can do... and viceversa.
this is being abusive with poor dwarf :P
they already lose 2 points in charisma... even if his rival was not a gnome (who wins +2 in charisma) whe would eb in a disadvantage, now he ALSO has a difference of 4 charisma points of difference... so where does it come into play the +1 hp or +1 skill point for the gnome sorcerer?hps would be the same... but the gnome would do better going for the skill points
but i insist already gnome sorcerer vs dwarven sorcerer is just overkill even without favored class
Well now we're just dancing around straw men. :p If you insist, I can use on of the other races. I just hope that you'll answer my point.
-Steve
mmm ok we agree in this, having more of this would be nice
Well I'm glad we can agree here. Personally, I find this to be a better solution then an abstract hit point or skill point. It has more meaning.
then imake my appologies for the missinterpretation, and you are righjt, that is rule number one i take... if my npcscan do something players can do... and viceversa.
Not to be confused with rule zero.
-Steve
as someone mentioned in this or other thread... i could more easily see the bonus to skill points went its way if the rules for skill points for fighters, sorcerers, wizard and clerics get revised (obviously this would move everyone else), its not only unfair but absurd to say... the msot knowledgeables of charcaters classes (clerics and wirzards) to have 2 skill points + int modifier... just because they learn magic!
similar witht hewother 2, just because one practice a lot with weapons or the other is natural with magic doesn'tmake them klame to learn skills ... commandos now are weapon specialist but also they have a myriad of skills (and not onlyebcause they multi class with rogue)
I would somewhat dispute what you're saying about skills here. However, we should probably save that discussion until we get to Classes.
-Steve
if you want to egt a prestigue class, do multi class or just go singfle classed you should NOT be peneliced for that... i liked that character so much that now that pathfinder is out i did his daughter, similar concept different approach... still all into Cleric, but that is how i pretend to play.
One more thing that I want to mention here:
Another reason I like the idea of feats so much is because they they can work not only with single-class PCs, but also prestige class and multi-class concept PCs. If you're a ranger that took Order of Bow Initiate, it's pretty likely that a racial feat beneficial to rangers will still be very beneficial to you. It allows you to explore inside, outside, and around the character stereotype box.
-Steve
actually it appeared in the Alpha 3... with which we did characters for our game, we just changed them (very little) whenebta arrived
I know. I read the Alpha 3 too. I was drawing a distinction between what we have now and the final release.
and one thing si giving an small bonus (said 1 hp or 1 skill point) and another entirely a feat... that would be unbalancing and overkill
while with an small boost you may not have the stereotype in your campaign suing feats would make it absolutely standard to use stereotypes... if that is what you want to play THAT is ok...
I was being hyperbolic. My point was that by and large, players will like a boost, any boost, as long as they can take advantage of it.
as someone mentioned in this or other thread... i could more easily see the bonus to skill points went its way if the rules for skill points for fighters, sorcerers, wizard and clerics get revised (obviously this would move everyone else), its not only unfair but absurd to say... the msot knowledgeables of charcaters classes (clerics and wirzards) to have 2 skill points + int modifier... just because they learn magic!
EDIT: Withholding rant about class skill points until later.
Classes get 2, 4, 6, or 8 skill points based on whether or not they need them. The classes with two per level sometimes don't even need that.
Agreed. Skills are powered by intelligence, but they don't really derive from them. Skills are use-driven. Some classes use more skills than others.
-Steve
|
|
After thinking about it a little more, I wanted to toss an idea out to see what the "anti favored class" group thinks :)
What if the favored class mechanic was used more to promote sticking with a single class? In other words....
Every character chooses a "favored class" when created without regard to their race. Anytime they advance a level in this class, they gain the benefits from it being their favored class (+1 hp or +1 skill point). If they take a level in any other class (including Prestige classes) they don't gain the benefit for that level.
Humans and Half-elves get the benefit of choosing two classes (including a Prestige class if desired).
Brett: don't know if you saw this or not - but I posted this yesterday in this thread.
It follows Jason's thought for number 1 option pretty closely; regardless for the the most part, you're not alone in your opinion.
I copied and pasted here what I suggested there.....
Here's my take on the issue.I don't necessarily agree with Steve's disdain for the rule. But I'm not sold completely on this mechanic, either.
Here's how I see the mechanic affecting the game:
In 3rd and 3.5, the xp penalty was in place to give a disincentive for people to multi-class and min/max completely in that it gave limitations on what classes could be discounted in the multi-classed career.
So while it did an adequate job of giving pause for outlandish multiclassed combos and min/maxing, it did NOT penalize those persons wanting to try a varying class/race combo (single-class) that was not normal; ergo there was no xp penalty for a dwarven wizard. (one of my all-time favorite character concepts I played in 3rd ed).
The newer system in PF is elegant as it does away with the pesky XP math and keeping the party together, and it still gives a disincentive for outlandish multi-classing - but it also has the side effect of giving a disincentive to those wanting to play a simple dwarven wizard (or other race/combo single-classed character that is out of the norm). Thus you'll wind up with less variance and diversity among characters as much will stick to the cliche stereotypes to receive their freebie bonus.
I like the idea of giving a disincentive to have min/maxed outlandish multi-classing - I think Paizo did a good job - a VERY good job of making character classes rewarding enough to advance in as many levels in a single class as one can - but I dont think giving a disincentive to single-classed characters that are not part of that stereo-type is a good move - it will stifle creative race/class combos I believe.
What I would suggest:
Each character Race have ONE class that is their Favored (an arbitrary choice - most likely based on 3rd edition precedences - such as fighter for dwarf and rogue for halfling) - so that any character taking levels in that class gets 1 extra skill point or hit point (or whatever) and the player chooses ANY One other class to be a favored class. That way if a dwarf wanted to play a Wizard he could benefit from the extra hit point. If he wanted to be a multi-class fighter/wizard - he would get the bonus in both classes. Theoretically - this is no different than NOT apply an XP penalty in 3rd edition for such a character since he could discount the fighter levels when applying multi-classing rules.
A half-elf - being historically the proverbial multi-classing race (dating back to all editions) should then be allowed to choose ANY TWO classes - and could therefore pretty much have any combo of two classes to get this bonus.
Or give this bonus to humans and allow half-elves to get such a bonus regardless of character class combos (meaning that all classes are favored to a half-elf) which would make that race a viable choice again - since in my experiences the half-elf has been the red-headed step-child of 3rd edition all along and the least loved race.,
Robert
|
|
Classes get 2, 4, 6, or 8 skill points based on whether or not they need them. The classes with two per level sometimes don't even need that.Agreed. Skills are powered by intelligence, but they don't really derive from them. Skills are use-driven. Some classes use more skills than others.
-Steve
cof cof i thought we were going to withold this conversation till we arrived to classes...
i use 2 classes usually... rogue or cleric
i am the kind of player that likes to use HIS skills (and the kind of DM that actually likes his players using them).
i have been using this 2 clases for quite along time... and while i believe the rogue has a good quantity of skills (there is nothing as to many skills!) the cleric is lacking
wizards for example receive every knowledge, they can learn a lot of topics, and his mysticals studies should show this... but instead of the sage... we get "ray-caster, fireball caster i need no skills if i can blow thing away! wiiii!!!"
where is the logic on that?
the cleric at least needs healing, spellcraft, knowledge: religion, thats is the basic to know... but what about the personal concept?
a cleric whose good is from nature an needsto know about nature, or a cleric of Iomedae that requiere militrary knowledge or tactics?
they still need the 3 earlier skills but are elf with almost nothing for personal concept, or racial concept.
wizard and clerics are not 2D classes, nor are the Fighter or the Sorcerer... obviosly they don't use more skills... how could they? they don't have them at all!
clerics are entrusted to meet people that is why they have diplomacy and sense motive (thanks Paizo, someone heard me), but how they would be abletot ake any of this to deal with people if they don'thave the skills to do it? or literacy toknow the language of the people to want to profese tour religion
yeah you are going to tell me "you have comprehend languages spells, or charm ora myriad of spellsto do these"
ok... but why the cleric should depend for every interaction for something as cheap as magic? also its not as if they had dozens of spells, they need to heal by hand, understand the poeple around them, arrange disputes and understand the poeple to the point to know their intentions... that SI IN the concept of the class... why dilute it into a just "spellcasting class"?
ok sorry for the rant, :P but you are the only ones to blame :P
PS: when i am the DM ALL classes receive a boost of 2 skill point, ok the rogue hasalot... but it would be unfair to upgrade everyone but him
|
|
about the topic around racial prefered class
yes it would be nice something as a feat, but its abusive, players would love it... it doesn't mean its right
and while hyperboling, you can't 1 hp or skill point with a feat (you just can't compare apples with rubies, even if both are red)
if the idea is that the races win benefits for being themseles as they go up in level, i would ask you to check how Monte Cook does it already in Arcana Evolved, and how its used in the World of Warcraft RPG
i agree with the existance of racial feats (you have the right to chose them they are not free)
I do think that as in Arcana Evolved, each character should begin with at least 2 Feats, one of which should be racial
or use the trait system that Paizo is using in some Adventure Paths (2 traits that account as asingle feat, but they are extras)
PS: i hate hate this keyboard...
about the topic around racial prefered class
yes it would be nice something as a feat, but its abusive, players would love it... it doesn't mean its right
That's my point with this: just because a lot of being like having it doesn't mean it's good for the game as a whole.
and while hyperboling, you can't 1 hp or skill point with a feat (you just can't compare apples with rubies, even if both are red)
It's a hyperbole, so it's only a matter of degree, which makes mine valid. I can compare apples with rubies if we're only talking about color.
if the idea is that the races win benefits for being themseles as they go up in level, i would ask you to check how Monte Cook does it already in Arcana Evolved, and how its used in the World of Warcraft RPG
That someone else does it also doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Oh, that's fine then. I'm just concerned that Jason is going to pull the plug on any sort of bonus at all. Beggars can't be choosers, so if an extra skill or hit point is all that's being offered, I'll happily take it.Heh.
You're thinking like a player. I'm thinking like a DM.
-Steve
No kidding. I'm with you Steve. We are definitely thinking DM / long view. I wonder if that is 'tainting' our PoV?
---
Tir Gwaith
PCGen LST Chimp
The more I think about this whole thing, the more it feels like if this is a "core rule", that it is stepping on the place of the "campaign setting". Should ALL Elves in ALL Campaigns get the same bonuses for taking Wizard? Change the Favored class to Ranger in the separate campaign. Ok, so ALL Campaigns should treat Favored enemies the same? Stereotype characters for any given campaign are either better skilled (as in Skills, not combat or anything else) or more hardy? *shudder*
I definitely think the Racial Feat stuff is a way to go, the more I hear about them. But they need to be valuable feats, feats worth taking at whatever level they become available, or there is no point to them. Flip side of things: can't be too powerful, or one starts punishing those not playing stereotype. Using a character resource (in this case the "Feat Pool" as we call it in PCGen) instead of granting another layer of benefits (as is done now w/ +1 HP or +1 skillpoint) would require it. The other route would be to re-work when characters get what feats available, and put restrictions on them. Easy enough to implement in my favorite program, but some SERIOUS redesign issues to change at this point, I would think.
The racial substitution level stuff in published works changes flavor of characters, and doesn't really push 'stereotype playing'. It also takes a LOT of room to describe on a page. I don't to lose lots of pages of other content just so a racial substitution can be presented along with the new race. However, it does have the advantage of being able to check power exchange easily in the design stage (feats are much harder to judge, because of all the ways feats interact with each other.) Racial Substitution Levels, esp. in WotC supplements, have been more 'flavor' of a race putting more of a stamp on a character throughout their career, than "these guys are really good at Class A, see, they can do thing B which is a bit more powerful, but themed to the race". That's the past presentation, what we turn them into can be totally different.
I guess to explain myself: Players like to play what they want, which is good, and should be encouraged, not punished. However, for a while in my experience during 2nd ed, EVERY Drow PC pretty much was a Drizzt in alignment, temperament, etc. Kinda killed the whole "theme" of what the Drow were supposed to be. Drizzt wasn't unique. Basically, players weren't "buying in" to the cultural world of the setting: Players are creatures of the Real World, and have a similar cultures (or they wouldn't be sitting around a table playing together). I see a need for Game Mechanics based carrots that help the players "buy in" to the world's rules, so the campaign and it's different cultures / races are more real, have more depth, etc. come into play. That is what I have seen Favored Class mechanics in the past, and what I'd like to see them be in the future, albeit a bit more robust than "this class doesn't give you an XP penalty".
The flip side of the coin is one of the downer points in 3.5: Race doesn't mean a whole lot once a character has, say, 5 PC levels, and even less the more levels a character has. The bonuses just aren't that much (and would be un-balancing at low levels if they were.) Adding racial feats to keep bumping stuff (while taking a character resource) is a way for races to still be relevant at higher levels, and providing more choice. It can be a way to help Player's buy into the world of their Characters, or it can be just another bit of background flavor of the world. Either way, I think I really like the idea of racial feats (linked to favored classes or not), and I'd like to start designing / using such. I definitely think it would add more flavor to a setting.
Sorry for the long post. I went a bit afield on that.
---
Tir Gwaith
PCGen LST Chimp
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.
Though previously I argued for favored class I have changed my mind. Multi-Class characters in general are weaker than their single class counter parts. I much prefer your idea of giving better higher level abilities to single class characters which were previously weak to encourage sticking with a class.
As for reinforcing racial tendencies, racial ability bonuses and racial traits such as Elven Magic, Orc Ferocity, Slow and Steady, Sure Foot... lend themselves much more to the spirit of favored class than a generic skill bonus or HP bonus. Players who play dwarven wizards are already being penalized by the racial traits, why penalize them more?
So... nuke the favored class mechanism entirely, replace them with more racial traits, and/ or feats.