So... nuke the favored class mechanism entirely, replace them with more racial traits, and/ or feats.
Welcome brother. >:)
-Steve
I second Dennis' opinion on this.
I'm playing a Barbarian character with a connection to the Island of Hermea, so I considered taking levels in Draconic Sorceror as well. After thinking about it, I now plan on just taking ONE level in Sorceror, because it's too much lost opportunity (particularly the Sorceror, who doesn't even get 2nd level spells until 4th level).
I don't think there needs to be an EXTRA reason to stick with one class anymore, especially as the new classes are generally on par with the stronger PrCs out there (I'd say the Fighter is dependent on getting access to stronger Feats than those currently in the Beta, but on the whole...)
|
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?
Dwarven sorcerers...
Dwarven Sorcerers are the ones being penaliced, Dwarven Wizards are just fine, like any other wizard from any other race, except of course elf :P
Director of Brand Strategy
|
...
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.
I really like the rule because it does something for the classes that other types of bonuses don't.
Some have said that the Ability bonuses for the various races are enough to persuade someone to play a dwarven fighter, or halfling rogue, or what have you, but I disagree. While an effective +1 to your primary ability is nice, the fact that you're good at what you do stops being noticeable after a while, and your stats are just your stats. The original rolls are forgotten and how you arrived at a 16 Int instead of a 14 get lost among all the choices that come up every level. By adding a mechanic that makes you consider your race and its strengths each and every time you take a level, it strengthens this connection.
Others have said that class features should change to grant more skill points or hit points to those that need them, but this goes astray from the racial aspect of it. Sure, sorcerers, wizards, fighters and clerics could use an extra skill point, but why give it to everyone? An elven fighter is bound to be less effective than a dwarven fighter, and I think that having this difference expressed in the fact that a dwarf is a little more skilled (or tougher) as a result is a nice way to express the realism of what starts stereotypes in the first place. Conversely, and elven wizard is doing what he is essentially made to do and should have a small bonus for playing toward his talents, while a half-orc wizard shouldn't get the same bonus, because he's got to struggle to be a wizard.
In my own campaign of RotR, to use playtesting experience instead of just theorizing, the player of the dwarven cleric was upset that he didn't get the 4x skill points at first level because it prevented him from adding a point or two in some character background areas. While that alone is the topic best saved for later discussion, he was very glad to find that he can now add at least one of these skills in retroactively because he is playing his favored class. His natural bonus to Con and 2+Int skills per level makes the choice easy for him, and whiel a point in a craft or profession or cross-class skill isn't going to make his character better in combat, he feels that he is more the character he wanted to be. And that makes the mechanic worth it in my book.
yoda: I think that's really the issue, whether this is really the best mechanic for the game, or whether it's just a band-aid over the lack of skill points for certain classes. I think if that's what it's really achieving, it should be available for all characters to freely choose their Favored Class.
Otherwise everyone's happy, except... Dwarven Sorcerors and Half-Orc Mages (Halfling Fighters are happy all the time, no matter what!)
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?Dwarven sorcerers...
Dwarven Sorcerers are the ones being penaliced, Dwarven Wizards are just fine, like any other wizard from any other race, except of course elf :P
Ahh... well you see dwarven sorcerers are at a serious disadvantage to start with because they have the charisma ding. In any case dwarves are a studious lot and wizards fit more in line with their personality. Of course a dwarf with earth elemental blood is an interesting idea.
|
I'm very much in favor of keeping the rule. Preferred classes might have been invented for the purpose of controlling multiclassing, but they also had the effect of keeping the races distinct. The rule is strong enough to encourage some decisions, but not as costly as a feat. It also has an effect throughout a character's career, whereas a feat is a one time choice. Racial substitution levels would work, if well designed, but I'm not sure how backwards compatible they are.
I'm very much in favor of keeping the rule. Preferred classes might have been invented for the purpose of controlling multiclassing, but they also had the effect of keeping the races distinct. The rule is strong enough to encourage some decisions, but not as costly as a feat. It also has an effect throughout a character's career, whereas a feat is a one time choice. Racial substitution levels would work, if well designed, but I'm not sure how backwards compatible they are.
In regards to feats, it depends on how you price the cost. If it's one of the three feats added to the character progression, then there is no effective cost at all, comparative to 3.5. There is actually a net gain.
As far as having an effect throughout the career of the character, that depends again on how the racial feats are designed, and whether they feed further feat choices along the progression of the character. Feats are also far far more flavorful then a flat HP or Skill Point bonus, and do a better job of showcasing the race's predilections.
Racial substitution levels would be extremely backwards compatible if they were made optional. Even if not, they would again effectively showcase the different races' abilities.
-Steve
|
|
In regards to feats, it depends on how you price the cost. If it's one of the three feats added to the character progression, then there is no effective cost at all, comparative to 3.5. There is actually a net gain.
As far as having an effect throughout the career of the character, that depends again on how the racial feats are designed, and whether they feed further feat choices along the progression of the character. Feats are also far far more flavorful then a flat HP or Skill Point bonus, and do a better job of showcasing the race's predilections.
I've never been a fan of substitution levels for races
That being said, I agree with Steve, that racial feats should be considered.
How about:
Bonus Feat
Prereq: Dwarf. Level 5 Fighter
Upon reaching 5 levels in the fighter class, a dwarf gains 5 extra hit points, or skill points, or any combination of the two totaling 5 points.
Bonus Feat
Prereq: Elf. Level 5 Wizard
Upon reaching 5 levels in the wizard class, an elf gains 5 extra hit points, or skill points, or any combination of the two totaling 5 points.
Bonus Feat
Prereq: Halfling. Level 5 Rogue
Upon reaching 5 levels in the Rogue class, a halfling gains 5 extra hit points, or skill points, or any combination of the two totaling 5 points.
etc.
Robert
I've never been a fan of substitution levels for races
That being said, I agree with Steve, that racial feats should be considered.
How about:
Bonus Feat
Prereq: Dwarf. Level 5 Fighter
Upon reaching 5 levels in the fighter class, a dwarf gains 5 extra hit points, or skill points, or any combination of the two totaling 5 points.Bonus Feat
Prereq: Elf. Level 5 Wizard
Upon reaching 5 levels in the wizard class, an elf gains 5 extra hit points, or skill points, or any combination of the two totaling 5 points.Bonus Feat
Prereq: Halfling. Level 5 Rogue
Upon reaching 5 levels in the Rogue class, a halfling gains 5 extra hit points, or skill points, or any combination of the two totaling 5 points.etc.
That looks familiar...
I have a few comments, personally.
First, I'm not sure if we should be actually making up feats (without an ok from James or Eric), since there might be issues surrounding copywrite if they end up being published.
Second, I respect that these are just sort of examples to springboard off of, but they don't really showcase any flavor of the different races shown.
Third, as individual feats, +5 skill points distributed any way you want feels pretty powerful comparative to most of the +2/+2 skill feats.
-Steve
That being said, I agree with Steve, that racial feats should be considered.
How about:
Bonus Feat
Prereq: Dwarf. Level 5 Fighter
Upon reaching 5 levels in the fighter class, a dwarf gains 5 extra hit points, or skill points, or any combination of the two totaling 5 points.<snip>
etc.
Opportunity Cost of Feat? What is better to select, this feat, or say, Improved Shield Bash, or Spring Attack, or Great Cleave, etc.
That looks familiar...
I have a few comments, personally.
First, I'm not sure if we should be actually making up feats (without an ok from James or Eric), since there might be issues surrounding copywrite if they end up being published.
Second, I respect that these are just sort of examples to springboard off of, but they don't really showcase any flavor of the different races shown.
Third, as individual feats, +5 skill points distributed any way you want feels pretty powerful comparative to most of the +2/+2 skill feats.
-Steve
I'm pretty sure there is something on the website that says that if we post anything on the website that they can use it without compensation or something similar.
|
|
Opportunity Cost of Feat? What is better to select, this feat, or say, Improved Shield Bash, or Spring Attack, or Great Cleave, etc.
Exactly. I can choose to be more like a dwarf, but that might make me less of a fighter. Furthermore, it is a one time choice. A favored class benefit stays with you character as you continue to level up.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not opposed to racial feats. If well designed, they might be very interesting. I just don't want to lose favored classes in favor of them. They do different things, and both can be valuable to the game.
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.
The reasons I see for keeping Favored Class around in some form or another are:
1. It provides a bit of the flavor of the 1st and 2nd editions, where each race had one or two things it was exceptionally good at. A good number of people, as a result, stayed with those classes when playing those races. Third Edition made a nod to this by instituting the favored class that helped negate some of the multiclassing penalties.I think that Beta did an even better job of reflecting this, since it provided multiple classes. A dwarf might be good at being a cleric or a fighter in the old editions, and this is adequately reflected in beta. There is something to be said for preserving things just to maintain some basic themes and consistency form one edition to another.
2. It provides newbie players a boost. Yes, it provides everyone who wants to stick with their favored class a boost, but the boost is much more for the newbie player. Same stats...but more valuable to them. One extra hit point or one extra skill point is a nicety but not THAT important to a veteran player. But it is (or seems like) a huge deal to a newbie. This helps to steer them in a direction toward a more stereotypical class/race combination. It helps them make a decision between what might otherwise be a confusing and daunting array of choices...by narrowing it to a simple few "best" choices. And it gives some consistency to the game world. If you write up something like, "Elves tend to choose the path of wizardry and ranger" in the flavor text, but there is no incentive behind it in terms of stats, then you won't see as much of a mix of ranger and/or wizard elves as you will if people have an incentive to play those combinations.
I think it is a good thing to leave in. I don't think it needs to be expanded in any form, though. (Substitution levels, etc.) That seems like overkill and alot of work and development...with very little return on the investment of time.
|
|
And it gives some consistency to the game world. If you write up something like, "Elves tend to choose the path of wizardry and ranger" in the flavor text, but there is no incentive behind it in terms of stats, then you won't see as much of a mix of ranger and/or wizard elves as you will if people have an incentive to play those combinations.
Thank you. I have been thinking the same thing and couldn't find the words for it.
Also the +5 skill points feat already exists.Wow, didn't know! @_@
-Steve
It is in a out of the way place honestly, so it is an easy feat to not know about.
Edit: Also I think that this section on messageboard rules in the FAQ hits the other point.
Users posting messages to the site automatically grant Paizo Publishing the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, nonexclusive right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, sublicense, copy and distribute such messages throughout the world in any media.
The reasons I see for keeping Favored Class around in some form or another are:
1. It provides a bit of the flavor of the 1st and 2nd editions, where each race had one or two things it was exceptionally good at.
Each race will find itself gravitating to one or another class as a natural result of their built-in abilities. They do not need special incentive. They will be good at their classes anyway.
2. It provides newbie players a boost. Yes, it provides everyone who wants to stick with their favored class a boost, but the boost is much more for the newbie player. Same stats...but more valuable to them. One extra hit point or one extra skill point is a nicety but not THAT important to a veteran player. But it is (or seems like) a huge deal to a newbie. This helps to steer them in a direction toward a more stereotypical class/race combination. It helps them make a decision between what might otherwise be a confusing and daunting array of choices...by narrowing it to a simple few "best" choices.
I still don't think it's a good idea to convince newbies to play stereotypes, especially by mechanically incentizing them (and everyone else) into it.
And it gives some consistency to the game world. If you write up something like, "Elves tend to choose the path of wizardry and ranger" in the flavor text, but there is no incentive behind it in terms of stats, then you won't see as much of a mix of ranger and/or wizard elves as you will if people have an incentive to play those combinations.
The Elf already makes a good Wizard because of his +2 to Int and his +2 against SR (really, this makes him arguably the best wizard race in the beta). He also makes a good Ranger because of his +2 to Dex, his bonuses to Sight and Hearing Perception checks (the ones that matter), and his 4 hour sleep time (means he has more time to keep watch and/or track in a day; granted, this isn't stated, and it should be). This is true even before the Favored Class rule.
I think it is a good thing to leave in. I don't think it needs to be expanded in any form, though. (Substitution levels, etc.) That seems like overkill and alot of work and development...with very little return on the investment of time.
I agree that substitution levels seeks like way too much work, at least for the core.
I agree that substitution levels seeks like way too much work, at least for the core.
I don't know if that's true, but I've never designed an RPG... :p
-Steve
I don't know if that's true, but I've never designed an RPG... :p
Then you've never really lived. :P
Really, it's more a matter of suitability than difficulty. Core rules don't include substitution levels. It's not a core "thing." A "Races" book might, a book of variants certainly, but not generally a core system book.
But difficulty is a factor. Everything is built around the core 11 classes. Changing them is possible like this , but you have to take the rest of the game into account when you do.
|
|
indeed
and unless you already were designing it with this idea in focus (which is not, since it is brought directly from 3.5) they would have tod o a lot oof job just to bring those options.
As someone pointed... its a lot easierto made it optional ina sourcebook, that way the player and the DM can decide if leaving it out orusing it.
indeed
and unless you already were designing it with this idea in focus (which is not, since it is brought directly from 3.5) they would have tod o a lot oof job just to bring those options.
As someone pointed... its a lot easierto made it optional ina sourcebook, that way the player and the DM can decide if leaving it out orusing it.
Be that as it may, Racial Feats or Traits are still feasable in this area as an alternative to preferred class bonuses. I just have deep-seated problems with this idea.
-Steve
Well, we've pretty much decided that unless something obviously better comes to replace Favored Class we are keeping it as in beta.
Thanks.
Well, we've pretty much decided that unless something obviously better comes to replace Favored Class we are keeping it as in beta.
Thanks.
That's... not at all true.
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.
-Steve
|
|
Well, we've pretty much decided that unless something obviously better comes to replace Favored Class we are keeping it as in beta.
Thanks.
That's... not at all true.
I think he means for his immediate gaming group/table (for now.)
I dont think 'we' meant the Paizo gaming community as a whole.
Robert
Well, we've pretty much decided that unless something obviously better comes to replace Favored Class we are keeping it as in beta.
Thanks.
That's... not at all true.
I think he means for his immediate gaming group/table (for now.)
I dont think 'we' meant the Paizo gaming community as a whole.
Robert
Ahhhhh! That's much more sensible sounding.
-Steve
|
|
That looks familiar...
I have a few comments, personally.
First, I'm not sure if we should be actually making up feats (without an ok from James or Eric), since there might be issues surrounding copywrite if they end up being published.
Second, I respect that these are just sort of examples to springboard off of, but they don't really showcase any flavor of the different races shown.
Third, as individual feats, +5 skill points distributed any way you want feels pretty powerful comparative to most of the +2/+2 skill feats.
-Steve
Steve, my suggestion was just me being clever. It was addressing your vehement contention that favored class get replaced by racial feats - but adding feats that merley mirrored the favored class benefits.
Thereby bridging the gap between the two - but passive-agressively still sticking with the original design. ;-)
Like I've said - I think the favored class should have ONE class per race (the historically cliche class/race combo), and allow for a player to choose a second class - so that you can still multi-class freely among the cliche' class and the new one without missing out on the benefit of the favored class, OR choose a single-class option that is outside the standard cliche and still have the benefit.
As it stands, the multi-classing xp penalty of 3.5 was to quell the min/max multi-classing - but it didn't penalize those who stuck to a single-class that wasn't the favored class.
As it stands with PF, the favored class is still benefitting those who dont wish to min/max multi-class, but gives a disincentive to those who want to play a single-classed character class/race combo that was not part of the cliche favored class - which IMO is the wrong approach.
My suggestion bridges that - and allows for the diversity and allows for the historic race/class combo cliche's and stereotypes to transcend into this edition of D&D, too.
Robert
The Elf already makes a good Wizard because of his +2 to Int and his +2 against SR (really, this makes him arguably the best wizard race in the beta). He also makes a good Ranger because of his +2 to Dex, his bonuses to Sight and Hearing Perception checks (the ones that matter), and his 4 hour sleep time (means he has more time to keep watch and/or track in a day; granted, this isn't stated, and it should be).
I agree 100%, races should be good at their preferred classes because their racial make-up makes them suitable for those classes. Adding an additional artificial constraint just disadvantages players who want to play against the norm. Phrases like "Elves tend to chose the path of wizardry and ranger" are great for helping DMs make elf NPCs but shouldn't be straight jackets for players. PC elves can and should be able to be good rogues, barbarians, sorcerers, etc. Adding an artificial constraint (excuse me "bonus") here is arbitrary and adds nothing to the game.
|
|
I agree 100%, races should be good at their preferred classes because their racial make-up makes them suitable for those classes. Adding an additional artificial constraint just disadvantages players who want to play against the norm. Phrases like "Elves tend to chose the path of wizardry and ranger" are great for helping DMs make elf NPCs but shouldn't be straight jackets for players. PC elves can and should be able to be good rogues, barbarians, sorcerers, etc. Adding an artificial constraint (excuse me "bonus") here is arbitrary and adds nothing to the game.
i disagree in the last statement
also because someone receives a bonus that doesn'tmean that that is a disadvantage for to other players
aside... those who chose a class over a multiclass, would chose it anyway... that is just a bonust to follow "family tradition"
which even if its only good for making NPCs... there is the fact thatif they prefer it for something, that is because they are better a t it
and not playing as the favored class of your race doesn't meant you are not a great rogue or fighter, just that tohers have it a bit easier...
also because someone receives a bonus that doesn'tmean that that is a disadvantage for to other players
What is the difference between a bonus and a penalty? A bonus is something above and beyond the average. A penalty is something below the average. If the 'average' player gets a bonus, then the bonus is the average and those who don't conform are penalized.
Bonus? Penalty? Half Empty or Half Full? Potato, Potato?
All humans and half elves will get the 'bonus', so will 90% of other characters non-conformists will be penalized. The mechanism is arbitrary and really doesn't make a lot of sense.
|
|
No doubt about it. I'm a half-full kind of guy. Yes, the favored class rule does encourage a certain amount of conformity. Most players IME will go for the bonus eagerly. A certain number will say "no thank you," and try their unusual concept anyway. Only those who insist on always being a nonconformist will actually view a bonus as a penalty. The Pathfinder core offers plenty of choices for PC concepts that would allow you to retain your favored class bonus.
Like I've said - I think the favored class should have ONE class per race (the historically cliche class/race combo), and allow for a player to choose a second class - so that you can still multi-class freely among the cliche' class and the new one without missing out on the benefit of the favored class, OR choose a single-class option that is outside the standard cliche and still have the benefit.
Robert, thinking about this, it's not a bad idea. All things being equal, I wouldn't be too upset if this became the default rule.
That being said, I still question the need for a HP or skill bump. The classes and races have already been decently up-powered, and 20 extra hp or skill points isn't nothing. I wonder if there are more flavorful means to convey advantages that the races have with certain classes?
-Steve
No doubt about it. I'm a half-full kind of guy. Yes, the favored class rule does encourage a certain amount of conformity. Most players IME will go for the bonus eagerly. A certain number will say "no thank you," and try their unusual concept anyway. Only those who insist on always being a nonconformist will actually view a bonus as a penalty. The Pathfinder core offers plenty of choices for PC concepts that would allow you to retain your favored class bonus.
Indeed most players will. More stereo-typed characters "Gee another dwarf fighter... how exciting!", overall just a little bit more powercreep distancing the game even more from the core SRD. Calling it a penalty or a bonus is irrelevant, the effect is that it discourages non-favored class/ race combos. This goes way beyond the effect of the favored class rule in the core SRD which only affected multi class characters. What is the benefit of having generic, stereotyped characters? If a player wants to play to a arch-type then let them, the game system already rewards them for doing so with racial traits. This mechanism is just an arbitrary crutch.
Calling it a penalty or a bonus is irrelevant, the effect is that it discourages non-favored class/ race combos. This goes way beyond the effect of the favored class rule in the core SRD which only effected multi class characters.
Indeed, power creep is my primary concern with the skill/hp bonus as well.
-Steve
|
|
No doubt about it. I'm a half-full kind of guy. Yes, the favored class rule does encourage a certain amount of conformity. Most players IME will go for the bonus eagerly. A certain number will say "no thank you," and try their unusual concept anyway. Only those who insist on always being a nonconformist will actually view a bonus as a penalty. The Pathfinder core offers plenty of choices for PC concepts that would allow you to retain your favored class bonus.Indeed most players will. More stereo-typed characters "Gee another dwarf fighter... how exciting!", overall just a little bit more powercreep distancing the game even more from the core SRD. Calling it a penalty or a bonus is irrelevant, the effect is that it discourages non-favored class/ race combos. This goes way beyond the effect of the favored class rule in the core SRD which only affected multi class characters. What is the benefit of having generic, stereotyped characters? If a player wants to play to a arch-type then let them, the game system already rewards them for doing so with racial traits. This mechanism is just an arbitrary crutch.
See, I challenge you to make your dwarf fighter exciting. I've seen more interesting dwarf fighters and elf wizards than those who played odd combinations. That's where I've seen players fall to the stereotypes as a crutch.
I am more for the extra skill point. The bonus HP just is too much, and pushes for stereotypes too much, when this is supposed to be about individuality.
|
|
I am more for the extra skill point. The bonus HP just is too much, and pushes for stereotypes too much, when this is supposed to be about individuality.
I would be fine with that. I'd prefer a choice, but I do have to admit hit points are about more raw power, where extra skill points just makes a character more versatile.
This compromise would indeed leave me satisfied.
See, I challenge you to make your dwarf fighter exciting. I've seen more interesting dwarf fighters and elf wizards than those who played odd combinations. That's where I've seen players fall to the stereotypes as a crutch.
How is it an odd combination to have a dwarven rogue or a dwarven ranger? These are core classes, and should be available to all the races. They are available to all of the races by *definition* actually. If you have a dwarven city, there will still be a sizable portion of the population who are sorcerers, wizards, paladins, rangers, rogues, and monks. Not all elves are rangers and wizards, nor should they be. You've put the race concepts in far too tight of a box.
-Steve
See, I challenge you to make your dwarf fighter exciting. I've seen more interesting dwarf fighters and elf wizards than those who played odd combinations. That's where I've seen players fall to the stereotypes as a crutch.
I'm not knocking the archtypes, I played a great dwarf fighter called Iron Claw Leacheater, I remember him affectionately. Archtypes are going to be common in the game regardless of whether we add this or not, I know this because they are common under 3.5.
My question is why should the game system reward people for playing archtypes? What is it about archtypes that enhance the game such that you would give players a significant play advantage for using an archtype?
Keep in mind that the favored class mechanism in the beta adds power to the game. The Paizo classes are already more powerful than their SRD counterparts, why do they need this additional boost?
|
|
See, I challenge you to make your dwarf fighter exciting. I've seen more interesting dwarf fighters and elf wizards than those who played odd combinations. That's where I've seen players fall to the stereotypes as a crutch.How is it an odd combination to have a dwarven rogue or a dwarven ranger? These are core classes, and should be available to all the races. They are available to all of the races by *definition* actually. If you have a dwarven city, there will still be a sizable portion of the population who are sorcerers, wizards, paladins, rangers, rogues, and monks. Not all elves are rangers and wizards, nor should they be. You've put the race concepts in far too tight of a box.
-Steve
I think you're really overestimating the attraction of the favored class bonus. I realize that there will be some examples of a variety of classes and profession among all the races. There will just be more of those within the favored classes. It's been my experience that players who choose traditional, "stereotypical", or "generic" race/classes have found a way to tweak them and make them unique. those who choose to play for instance, a dwarf ranger act like a sterotypical dwarf, and a sterotypical ranger, but remind you every so often that that chose something "different" and use that juxtaposition as a replacement for real creativity. It's my assertion that the favored class rule will deter that type of player, or lead him to try harder to make a chracter that is distinct. A player with a good character concept tends to be itching to try it out and will be willing to forego a minor bonus for it.
I think you're really overestimating the attraction of the favored class bonus. I realize that there will be some examples of a variety of classes and profession among all the races. There will just be more of those within the favored classes. It's been my experience that players who choose traditional, "stereotypical", or "generic" race/classes have found a way to tweak them and make them unique. those who choose to play for instance, a dwarf ranger act like a sterotypical dwarf, and a sterotypical ranger, but remind you every so often that that chose something "different" and use that juxtaposition as a replacement for real creativity. It's my assertion that the favored class rule will deter that type of player, or lead him to try harder to make a chracter that is distinct. A player with a good character concept tends to be itching to try it out and will be willing to forego a minor bonus for it.
To be honest, and I mean no insult by this, your argument is so subjective I can't even respond to it. How can you assert that someone playing a non-archetypal class is better or worse or an RPer than someone playing an archetypical one? It's an entirely subjective argument, because it relies on an accurate assessment of who's a better roleplayer, and that can never be determined.
-Steve
|
|
No insult taken. I can only say I'm speaking from experience. I could give you examples, but taking this discussion further wouldn't be productive. Back to the real topic, I like the idea of favored classes. I think the current rule works well, is elegant, fair, and doesn't overpower the game. I'd hate to lose the rule without a good replacement. Since that conversation has already been started in another thread, I think it's good time to let this go and focus attention there.
Back to the real topic, I like the idea of favored classes. I think the current rule works well, is elegant, fair, and doesn't overpower the game. I'd hate to lose the rule without a good replacement.
If I may ask...
Do you like the idea of the favored class concept or the idea of encouraging archetypal characters. I understand that they are intimately related, but it would help me understand your point of view.
'findel
|
|
If I may ask...Do you like the idea of the favored class concept or the idea of encouraging archetypal characters. I understand that they are intimately related, but it would help me understand your point of view.
Both ideas separately, actually. I think losing favored classes means losing a point of distinction for the races. I also want to encourage archetypes, so that as a DM, I can fine tune my campaign concepts. I want to be able to encourage PCs that "fit," with a gentler rule than just banning unusual PCs.
|
|
Like I've said - I think the favored class should have ONE class per race (the historically cliche class/race combo), and allow for a player to choose a second class - so that you can still multi-class freely among the cliche' class and the new one without missing out on the benefit of the favored class, OR choose a single-class option that is outside the standard cliche and still have the benefit.Robert, thinking about this, it's not a bad idea. All things being equal, I wouldn't be too upset if this became the default rule.
-Steve
Thanks, Steve. I see my concept as allowing the archtype/favored classes to exist which I like - without pigeon-holing those who just want to play a single-class character concept that happens to not be a favored class - the xp penalty of 3rd edition never hindered such a character choice.
Both systems do give a benefit to those that decide not to cherry-pick classes in a min/max multi-class smorgasboard.
Robert
The way I see it, is you can, and will choose to look at it from one of two ways,
1, You gain a boon for taking levels in your favoured class.
or,
2, You get penalized if you show creativity and don't get pigeon-holed into take the favoured classes.
It seems to me that the Racial bonuses are what really makes us choose a race for our chosen class. If you then give bonuses for continuing to follow that class, you are in effect, penalizing those who don't.
I would just give everyone, regardless of class or race an option of either 1 skill point or 1 hp each level, or dump the whole idea.
|
This is my first post ever, so please bear with me here.
Personally, I can't stand the favored class mechanic at all, either as a DM or as a player. My players, nearly as a rule, trend towards taking classes that are "against type." In fact, one of my players is rather famous for doing it with every character she's ever built. I don't see why there should be any form of encouragement towards playing a given class just because it's a racial trope. There isn't a good reason to constantly and continuously play up on a "classic" trope just for the sake of honoring the past or because it was how it was always done. Just because it showed up in 3.x doesn't mean it has to remain in Pathfinder. I've got other racial issues, but that would actually be off-topic. I don't see any justification for its existence. So what if elves nearly always seem to be magical? Why should an elf be penalized or thought less of for not taking a magical class? I hardly see elven guards (fighters) or priests (clerics) being looked down on for doing a neccessary job, so why should there be a bonus for taking a magical class (wizard)? There is no good reason for it.
The best solution I have ever seen is in AEG's Warlords of the Accordlands RPG. There were no Favored Class rules. Rather than encourage a given class, every single class had 3 specific abilities that belonged to each specific race. So, no matter what race you chose, every class had a place for it. They weren't racial substitution levels or racial feats. Basically, no matter what race you wanted to play, you got some benefit for playing it no matter what class you chose. When you looked at the class table, you would find three gaps. Each "gap" was a slot reserved for the racial class ability.
Why can't we go with that? I already know it would add a lot of word count to add that many abilities to each class description. I know that it would be somewhat problematic to find the word count to add those abilities to each new race and class added to the game, but I think it would be worth it. Instead of encouraging racial tropes, players can choose any race and class combination and be rewarded for doing so. It's not you'd have to go with 3. You could go with 2 if you wanted to.
If you want to discourage rampant mulitclassing, there are a multitude of options I've seen taken in a lot of different games and settings. Pesonally, I suggest limiting the number of core classes a character can take to 2 or 3. It's usually a good idea to encourage them to remain "specialized." When you read fantasy or look at real life, you don't see very many characters or people "multiclass." When they do, it's a really big deal. You get chapters (or whole books, or months or years of study and training) devoted to how they re-train themselves and then find a way to synergize what they knew before with what they've learned. I've never read of anyone getting it instantly (with the possible exception of a scene in Eldest).
At any rate, that's my first two cents. I'm sure I'll be tossing more coppers around.
Arovyn
Hi, just my thoughts and apologies to other posters for not quoting / crediting them but its a long thread to cut and paste from :-)
(And sorry it turned into a long post)
Gaming Perspective
1. +1 skill point / hit point is not a massive bonus, its a very minor item. no-one (probably) ever picked human in 3,5e just for that extra skill point!
1a. not having the +1 therefore is a very minor penalty. but it is a penalty
2. Racial feats / Racial Substitution levels / cultural feats are good ideas. I really like what they did in eberron for the new races, and other sourcebook materials. BUT, and i do speak from experience when i did cultural traits for my homebrew, they are a lot of work and tend to make large assumptions about the background that might not fit in all worlds. as such they tend to belong in sourcebooks rather than core - so I'd treat them as add on rather than a core solution
3. When we did our alpha playtesting, this change was given a serious thumbs up from all the players. even the ones who can be counted on to come up with unusual character concepts. its unusual to see changes that get instant approval. this one did. please dont knock the benefits it gives to newbie's / casual gamers that might be ignored by us ancient & venerable dm's....
Flavour Perspective
The main reason for favoured classes (IMHO) is the flavour it gives to the races and the world. this explains powerful archetypal images and in game perspectives. now that is not an argument for these mechanics, but is a powerful argument for A mechanic for favoured class. without something then you have to accept that everyone can be everything means that there will be very little distinction between the races ... you might like this but i think it detracts from the fantastical element in the game. (YMMV)
seen from the other perspective - whats the advantage of being the 'unusual' half-orc sorcerer if its not actually that unusual ? (ability score penalties aside)
Multiclassing
its difficult to talk about favoured class without bringing up multi-classing. I'm not trying to derail the thread so i'll keep my opinions on this to the topic in hand
+1 Sp / hp per level will not discourage min/max builds or dipping. neither will it unduly penalize rp concepts. It might just tip the balance between taking a level of sorcerer instead wizard for example, but that shouldn't be a bad thing
Simplicity Perspective
I've been wondering about elf, and wether wizard makes sense for an innately magical creature. now I could argue long and hard that wizard should be replaced by sorcerer as an elven favoured class, and i'm sure it would spark of some interesting debate but doubt it would bring a solution that suited everyone....
OR i could just houserule that elves from the region of XYZ in my campaign have favoured class sorcerer instead of wizard. Tada - thats all i need to create an entirely new cultural reputation!
with the current simple + 1 sp/hp rules i have no extra work to do, with racial feats or some of the other more inventive suggestions etc i now need to review / redo these to support my game. lots of work, little reward.
my vote is to keep it simple.
In summary. I like the favoured class concept, i'm open to suggestions on different mechanics, but at the moment I haven't heard of a suggestion that ticks the gaming / flavour / simplicity boxes as well as +1 sp/hp
(and to answer the OP, no i have no idea how you can explain the extra hp in anything other than gamist terms. but then hp is such an abstract concept anyway .......)
Like I've said - I think the favored class should have ONE class per race (the historically cliche class/race combo), and allow for a player to choose a second class - so that you can still multi-class freely among the cliche' class and the new one without missing out on the benefit of the favored class, OR choose a single-class option that is outside the standard cliche and still have the benefit.
This is a reasonable compromise solution. I don't see any need for favored class at all but of the options for favored class I find this one the best I've seen
1. +1 skill point / hit point is not a massive bonus, its a very minor item. no-one (probably) ever picked human in 3,5e just for that extra skill point!
In my eyes it has less to do with how big or small the power up is as much as the fact that it is a net power increase with little or no benefit. I don't see any value in rewarding people for playing an archetype beyond the rewards inherent in the races themselves. Players are going to play the archetypes because they are comfort zones and because the races support the archtypes.