|
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.
So you'd just ban a Dwarven Wizard or an Elven Barbarian, for instance, because it's an unusual choice and not 'archetypal?'
|
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.
actually no
i think in a character concept (usually human, half-elf orelf because those are the races i feel wel portraying) then i think in race and classif what you said was true i would be playing a gnome bard instead of an elven one... i planned to make a rogue witha single level of wizard (to getidentify and detect magic to appraise magical items), but forthe true concept of teh character the bard was right... using performance oratory to order her ship around would be nice...
no skill bonuses, to hp bonuses... and i don't feel penaliced at all :P
|
|
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.So you'd just ban a Dwarven Wizard or an Elven Barbarian, for instance, because it's an unusual choice and not 'archetypal?'
if he so decides in his campaign that wizards are unable to cast magic or that savage elfs are killed by their fellow elves, he is in HIS right to enforce such rule in HIS campaign :P
|
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.So you'd just ban a Dwarven Wizard or an Elven Barbarian, for instance, because it's an unusual choice and not 'archetypal?'
if he so decides in his campaign that wizards are unable to cast magic or that savage elfs are killed by their fellow elves, he is in HIS right to enforce such rule in HIS campaign :P
I think you mean if dwarves can't cast magic, but thanks for the support.
For the record, in AD&D 1&2e, both those example concepts were banned by RAW and the 3E DMG made the suggestion that this could be done in a 3E campaign if the DM so chose.
And no, I really don't want to ban those two options. I prefer the the favored class rule. It makes the expected combos just a little more common.
|
if he so decides in his campaign that wizards are unable to cast magic or that savage elfs are killed by their fellow elves, he is in HIS right to enforce such rule in HIS campaign :PI 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.So you'd just ban a Dwarven Wizard or an Elven Barbarian, for instance, because it's an unusual choice and not 'archetypal?'
While I know you're joking a bit, why have it in the system to encourage old school racial stereotypes to begin with? I don't like it. I never have. I don't like penalties to starting attributes and I can't stand favored classes because they both strongly discourage players from concepts that would work just fine without them.
I don't like Pathfinder rewarding stereotypes. If it stays in the game, I will house rules those rules away. You shouldn't give a bonus to encourage players to ignore character concepts and you definitely should not penalize them for choosing to do so. This is a fantasy RPG where imagination is the biggest key to having fun. It's not a video game and it's not earlier editions of AD&D where certain classes belong only to certain races for some arbitrary and rarely explained reason. I feel it's a carry-over that's being carried over just because it was always that way rather than looking at it in a different light. I prefer to encourage my players to play what they want and have a rule set that will allow them to do so. While these aren't necessarily deal-breaking rules, I know I can live without them.
Arovyn
|
|
If it stays in the game, I will house rules those rules away... While these aren't necessarily deal-breaking rules, I know I can live without them.
If it goes way, I can house rule it back, too. You're right, it's not a big deal one way or the other. Some people like the rule enough to keep it. We're just saying so.
|
|
If it stays in the game, I will house rules those rules away... While these aren't necessarily deal-breaking rules, I know I can live without them.If it goes way, I can house rule it back, too. You're right, it's not a big deal one way or the other. Some people like the rule enough to keep it. We're just saying so.
Somehow, I think I'm giving off the wrong impression. I'm not trying to be vehement in way that says this rule must die and those who want to keep it should go away too, but more of a show me why said rule should exist to begin with.
Edit: In other words, if you can, please give me a good enough to keep it and use it and not just throw it away.
|
|
If it stays in the game, I will house rules those rules away... While these aren't necessarily deal-breaking rules, I know I can live without them.If it goes way, I can house rule it back, too. You're right, it's not a big deal one way or the other. Some people like the rule enough to keep it. We're just saying so.Somehow, I think I'm giving off the wrong impression. I'm not trying to be vehement in way that says this rule must die and those who want to keep it should go away too, but more of a show me why said rule should exist to begin with.
Edit: In other words, if you can, please give me a good enough to keep it and use it and not just throw it away.
You're not giving the wrong impression. You're being very polite and diplomatic, and I hope I am, too. I've gone over this issue in this and other threads already, but simply put, I like it. I like what it does for my campaign. I like to reward my players, and this is one more way I can do that. My players like it. They like the bonus and how simple it is to get it. It's good for my game. That's the feedback I'm giving for the playtest.
A justification......Well right here.
To encourage stereotypes (that's why tey are called stereotypes :)
And also to discourage the overly use of prestigeclasses.
|
|
A justification......Well right here.
To encourage stereotypes (that's why tey are called stereotypes :)
And also to discourage the overly use of prestigeclasses.
While I do realize that no one will get any kind of bonus for selecting a prestige class, I don't see the bonus, or a lack of one, from stopping players from taking all the prestige classes they want. The only realistic way to keep people from taking a lot of classes and cherry picking is to encourage them to specialize with exceptional benefits, or put a fixed limit on the number of classes that can be taken. Pathfinder is trying for the former route. 4E is taking the latter route. I haven't decided which is the better method yet.
|
|
A justification... Well right here. To encourage stereotypes (that's why they are called stereotypes). :)
Yet the most popular characters seem to be the stand-outs, the ones like Drizzt or Elminster or Wolverine who break all of the rules, shatter the stereotypes and do things differently (and sometimes by different mechanics) than everyone else in their respective groups.
Fantasy novels are full of them. Hobbits are boring stay-at-homes, oh, except for Bilbo, whose family has an unsavory reputation for being 'adventurous.' Pug grows up on a world where magic is weak and formulaic, with magic that redefines his worlds previous limitations. Chameleon is the kid who *doesn't* have a spell of his own, but develops a greater talent instead. Luke isn't just any farm-boy wannabe-pilot, he's got special Jedi powers that nobody has seen in a generation. Eragon turns out to have special powers, and a special destiny, due to his birth. The Grey Mouser isn't just a thief, isn't just a fighter, he also dabbles in the arcane arts. Elric isn't just some dissipated Melnibonean warrior-prince, he's also a sorcerer, a disciple of Arioch and an albino who needs to take mystic potions just to thrive! The Dwarves who crafted Thor's hammer weren't just grumpy old bearded recluses, they were also powerful shapeshifting magical artisans, capable of working enchantments, as well as metal. Drizzt wasn't any old Drow wizard, like Drow males are 'supposed to be' (when Drow males in print are *vastly* more likely to be fighters and rogues!), no, he was a Ranger, and instead of being evil, also like he was 'supposed to be,' he was of good alignment.
It's what makes a *hero,* instead of, 'Bob, 117th Dwarven Fighter in a long line of Dwarven Fighters.'
It's also what makes a *character.* Arbitrary limitations on class by race are fine, for a specific game-world. If the game-world is based on the original D&D conceptions, with Dwarves being magic resistant and incapable of being arcanists, then that's a fine specific ruling *for that setting.* But if Dwarves in another setting are like the Dwarves of Norse lore, powerful magic users and crafters of magical items, with rune ken aplenty, digging up and hoarding forgotten lore and geomantic secrets from their otherworldly contacts in their deep caverns, then they are *more* likely to be powerful wizards than humans or even elves, and the rules of the game shouldn't be so limited to one specific (and decades-abandoned) setting premise that they become inflexible and overly restrictive for anyone using a more modern 3.0-ish or more ancient-Nordic-inspired setting.
And also to discourage the overuse of prestige classes.
Gosh, I kinda hate prestige classes. I thought, when 3rd edition first came out, that prestige classes counted for the Favored Class xp penalty thing, and that taking a prestige class was an automatic sacrifice for that reason, because you'd be taking an XP penalty. I was... displeased to learn otherwise.
If I felt losing a skill point per level was an adequate discouragement for taking a Prestige Class, I'd be right there with ya on that one. :)
I'm not trying to be thick, I just don't understand the "its a penalty" mentality.
Are all rogues halflings or elves for the +2 dex? When someone makes a dwarven rogue are they being penalized for being creative since someone else gets the +2 dex and they don't? Of course not.
They had a choice. They made it. The +2 ability score wasn't there to penalize or reward anyone- it's just an example of what that race has that some other race doesn't.
Now they have added something else to that. Each race gets 2 classes for which you can choose either +1 hp or +1 skill point at each level.
If you choose dwarven rogue are you being penalized? No. You made a choice, you live with the decisions.
That elven wizard over there will get some bonuses you won't- but that's the case in alot of class/race combinations.
Now I'm not going to say that favored class thing is really a big deal to me either way- I lived without it up until now and if needbe i can live without it again. I just don't understand how, in the face of a game that "penalizes" you for choosing the wrong race in very BIG ways (attributes and other bonuses.. elves and secret doors, I'm lookin at you boy!), why folks would not bat an eye at that but have a big gigantic problem with a possible +1hp or +1 skill point.
By the "penalised for not choosing the right thing" standard, any rogue that isn't an elf is being penalized.
-S
I'm not trying to be thick, I just don't understand the "its a penalty" mentality.
What I don't get is why people are obsessing over the turn of phrase. Who cares if it's called a "penalty" or a "bonus" or a "racial feature", what benefit does it bring to the game?
From the groups I've played in there has been little trouble keeping archetypes populated. If you want to encourage a race/ class combination then you can easily do so within the racial traits. Why do you need to encourage elf wizards with an arbitrary bonus when the race gets +2 INT and Elven Magic?
Maybe we should be asking why other races have racial traits that don't support the favored class mechanism. For example the gnome illusion racial trait is more supportive of a wizard illusionist but the CHA bonus and favored class supports the sorcerer.
I see enough characters following archetype under core 3.5 that I don't see a need to add another mechanism to pigeon hole them into them.
|
|
A justification... Well right here. To encourage stereotypes (that's why they are called stereotypes). :)Yet the most popular characters seem to be the stand-outs, the ones like Drizzt or Elminster or Wolverine who break all of the rules, shatter the stereotypes and do things differently (and sometimes by different mechanics) than everyone else in their respective groups.
And yet, if it weren't for those stereotypes existing, if it weren't for these iconic characters being counter-culture to everyone's consciousness and understanding, they would not 'stand-out.'
If all drow were goodly ranger types, then there wouldn't be 1200 or so books written about Driz'zt.
Robert
|
|
This is starting to sound almost identically to the Favored Class Discussion thread. I don't know how to make that link, though... But if you haven't been following that one, you should check it out.
as you requested.
Robert
|
|
I think you mean if dwarves can't cast magic, but thanks for the support.
For the record, in AD&D 1&2e, both those example concepts were banned by RAW and the 3E DMG made the suggestion that this could be done in a 3E campaign if the DM so chose.
And no, I really don't want to ban those two options. I prefer the the favored class rule. It makes the expected combos just a little more common.
ups
yes Dwarves :P, my bad, was thinking in Dwarfs not being able to be wizards like in 2nd edition :Pand i know, favored classjust add some theme to the game without really altering it, if someone thinks that a player would change a character concept for a small bit of benefit, i think there is already soemthing wrong on how they play...favoredclass won-t change this, they would try to do the same by magic items or similar mechanics...
but aside of that as someone just mentioned... i like iconics characters in pathfinder because they NOT ONLY are interesting a few of them direclt jump put of the stereotips of their races, which would be imposible if there were no stereotypes...
|
|
Somehow, I think I'm giving off the wrong impression. I'm not trying to be vehement in way that says this rule must die and those who want to keep it should go away too, but more of a show me why said rule should exist to begin with.
Edit: In other words, if you can, please give me a good enough to keep it and use it and not just throw it away.
it really doesn't matter, if you already don't like it NO justification would make change your mind
both as player and as DM i do like the small bonus, and i feel it gives something EXTRA for customization and to give the proper mood to class and race combo... whichi know many of my players would not comform... i myself perssed between the bonus or character concpet wouldgo for the concept... it doesn't matter that ican drain decent concpets for any class and race :P
3 characters: half-elf cleric (gets the bonus), elven bard (captain, gains nothing doesn't complain), elven ranger/cleric (hunter of the dead, woudl win only half the time)
for playerswith whioch i have been playing because most ofthe group is human all are winning the bonus, except the gnome druid or the elven rogue...
and i know, favored classjust add some theme to the game without really altering it, if someone thinks that a player would change a character concept for a small bit of benefit, i think there is already soemthing wrong on how they play...favoredclass won-t change this, they would try to do the same by magic items or similar mechanics...
First, there's no wrong way to play as long as everyone's having fun.
Second, if it doesn't change anything, why have it at all?
|
|
First, there's no wrong way to play as long as everyone's having fun.
Second, if it doesn't change anything, why have it at all?
reading between lines i have read another thign entirely, when attacking the idea of player chosing a class and a race just to get an small bonus (which i don't think its a true issue), if thos playertake that option and have fun... why the idea to take extra options form them?
you first, why not? (if it doesn't change anything at all)
|
|
First, there's no wrong way to play as long as everyone's having fun.
Second, if it doesn't change anything, why have it at all?
reading between lines i have read another thign entirely, when attacking the idea of player chosing a class and a race just to get an small bonus (which i don't think its a true issue), if thos playertake that option and have fun... why the idea to take extra options form them?
you first, why not? (if it doesn't change anything at all)
As long as I'm understanding your challenge correctly and this is with the idea of keeping the +1 hp/skill per level mechanic in place. It does change things, small at first, but like a pebble on a hill... or maybe a better way to describe it is a ripple in the pond. The more times a player acquires a bonus another player didn't, the difference between the two becomes more apparent. It's a power creep mechanic, albiet a much slower creep than others. A single class character will have 20 more hp or 20 more skill points, so some variation in between. A multiclass character, not so much, but they still have something more for taking a specific combination that another player who didn't won't have, and that's wrong.
I's still rewarding playing to type and taking something away from those who don't. I don't think a mechanical bonus is in order. No one will ever complain when they're given a bonus. Everyone cries foul when you take a bonus away. If it's not in the game, players can still be on a bit more of a level playing field (as level as unbalanced races can make it anyway).
The racial description and attribute bonuses a race receives should be more than enough to encourage playing certain classes. Nothing else should be added, and until Pathfinder, nothing ever was.
If your challenge, however, is in how does it change things without the mechanic, it doesn't change anything since there's nothing there.
Sorry if I seem confused, but there's my take.
|
|
As long as I'm understanding your challenge correctly and this is with the idea of keeping the +1 hp/skill per level mechanic in place. It does change things, small at first, but like a pebble on a hill... or maybe a better way to describe it is a ripple in the pond. The more times a player acquires a bonus another player didn't, the difference between the two becomes more apparent. It's a power creep mechanic, albiet a much slower creep than others. A single class character will have 20 more hp or 20 more skill points, so some variation in between. A multiclass character, not so much, but they still have something more for taking a specific combination that another player who didn't won't have, and that's wrong.
I's still rewarding playing to type and taking something away from those who don't. I don't think a mechanical bonus is in order. No one will ever complain when they're given a bonus. Everyone cries foul when you take a bonus away. If it's not in the game, players can still be on a bit more of a level playing field (as level as unbalanced races can make it anyway).
The racial description and attribute bonuses a race receives should be more than enough to encourage playing certain classes. Nothing else should be added, and until Pathfinder, nothing ever was.
If your challenge, however, is in how does it change things without the mechanic, it doesn't change anything since there's nothing there.
Sorry if I seem confused, but there's my take.
maybe
20 hit points or 20 skill points extra to level 20... where a fighter if he has his mas hit points and at least +1 for for constitution, we would be talking about 110 hps... lets suppose its his favored class he will take 1 more hit point to have sort of 10% more hit points or a skill point where he will add about 150% in according to the usual basic fighter? ok... the wizard would get at least a bonus of 15% benefit.of course this would depend how players get their hps... my dm (and i myself) ask each player to roll a dice... if the hit points are to low i ask agains only once... afterthatthey take the higher one... (rolls of 3 or less are always rerolled)
in other hand skills... we have 4 classes with so low skills that thay are unable to get any customiation (yes i know, many say they don't need... have you played a fighter, a wizard, a sorcerer or a cleric that was different to just a 2D hitting machine, rayattacking or healing box? have you played such classes at all or justsay they don't need them looking from a different perspective where you see you area of expertise in jeopardy?)
again, this only happens if the players decide to take this options, they could not do it, why they should feel it affected them since they made their option from level 1?
the things thatwere offered instead of the simple +1 hp or +1 sk in this an other threads were even more unbalancing
but in the end... i think this topic is already exhausted, wearenot bringing anything new to the table, we are mostly discussing the same thing inaround 3 or 4 different topics...
for my part its enough... at least for my own games i have made my mind, now i will just wait and see which is Jason's decision and then i will decide to roll with it or not... blessed power of the GM to rule ot the game designer in your own home (yeah even when players complain, bleseed rule 0, golden rule, etc :P)
you first, why not? (if it doesn't change anything at all)
First, I asked first.
Second, could you rephrase the question, please?
|
|
you first, why not? (if it doesn't change anything at all)First, I asked first.
Second, could you rephrase the question, please?
I think he/she is responding to your quip that "if having a favored class mechanic that doesn't change anything (in regards to people not changing the way they play if the mechanic exists or not) then why bother having the mechanic at all?"
instead he/she is challenging you to answer the thought of "if it doesn't change anything - why contend its existence?"
Robert
|
|
Take Conan the barbarian as an example:
Barbarian in attitude, serious figher training, spent time as a rogue, jungle fighting, survival and sailing skills, becomes a general of armies of many types, and finally a king.
What single class covers this interesting character?
a fighter (maybe just barbarian) with more skills and proper feats
he came from a difficult land which made him a "barbarian", he was in general a fighter, a warrior, the rogue part he just stole for a living when he needed, general of armies (leathership feat and knowledge: tactics), same forking, but you and (Knowledge: royalty o knowledge: local)
you see! fighter needs more skills...
and swordchucks of course...
multiclass should not be and is not necesarry (or interchangeable) for a good character concept...
Conan concept is a warrior from a dark and difficult land, full of savage people thrown in a "cuviliced" world... and from tehre you see him evolving as a character, multiclass should not define this... but character choices... which fighter indeed lacks (combat featrs only choice is how you kill your enemy... no how you live, usually)
|
|
you first, why not? (if it doesn't change anything at all)First, I asked first.
Second, could you rephrase the question, please?
I think he/she is responding to your quip that "if having a favored class mechanic that doesn't change anything (in regards to people not changing the way they play if the mechanic exists or not) then why bother having the mechanic at all?"
instead he/she is challenging you to answer the thought of "if it doesn't change anything - why contend its existence?"
Robert
gah!!! i am NOT going to repeat everything i alerady said!!!! (i sent a message and it was lost in the web :S)
ok
1) yes i eman that Robert, my thanks
2) i am a he, i just love to see Merisiel everywhere :D (for those who says that the iconics have no fanbase :P)
3) 1... its wrong to consider that players that doesn't chose their favored class are being punished... no one ispunished because another person recives an small boon (ok i understand the calculus... +20 hp or +20 sp or any combination of the 2... after 20 levels... is as noticeable as at 1st level, meaning ITS not noticeable...)
i do believe that there is people who has more natural inclination to certain profesions... either they were born with something that makesit so orthey were not
there are people who are more apt for mechanics, literature, mathematics, cooking, etc.
and even then, they doens't always chose to follow what some would call "their heart desire"
there are individuals that even when they haveit toughter to learn something they deside to follow such path, those whohave it easier do lesseffort and can learn other things, while those who don't they CAN do well... just need more effort... effort has its costs.
for example... a real example... a friend of mine has discallculia (a inborn difficulty to associate numbers) and even then he studied computer ssytems and worked as a programer and he is good in thoseareas, as good as others with such an affinity...
did he needs to strive more than otherevery day? yes
does he feelscehated orpunished because of this? no
he is proud of who he is and what he does? yes
now to gamming terms
what does stop a player from doing a dwarven bard, a gnome druid (we have one of this), elven rogue (we haveone of this in the party), half-orc wizard, halfing paladin, etc
ok sometimes their racial features in many case work agains them (dwarven sorcerer vs gnome sorcerer even before adding the favored class boon... he is already 4 attributo points below... but if a player wants to be one, he will not care)
if your playes has so little imagination that an small boons wins them overa great character concept... well that is sad... but a possibility, not everyone has the same level of iamgination, but everyone is entitled to fun... i see the favored class as a good change... before you penaliced players who multiclassed (which seems unfair since in general they are weaker if more flexible, iknow played enough of them), why should a player feels punished for going away of the standar?
i for one would rember more frequently the happy dwraven bard than the generic elven wizard... we playtyohavefun, if they chose stereotype or not, the players would be able to find fun
cutting short options... its not
|
Take Conan the barbarian as an example:
Barbarian in attitude, serious figher training, spent time as a rogue, jungle fighting, survival and sailing skills, becomes a general of armies of many types, and finally a king.
What single class covers this interesting character?
The Conan example is great as a translation from literature to game, but I personally have never seen this justification played out in a working campaign. Players rarely make a correlation between the campaign/environment and their character's development. What they do do is preconceive a multiclass build based upon proven synergies. When you get to know a player, one look at their 1st level character sheet will tell how they plan to shape the character - jungle warfare or sailing vessels be damned.
For example, you have a gritty urban campaign were the players are constantly skulking from dilemma to dilemma, brokering with ruffians and living by their wits. They survive to 6th level, and now your cleric player is considering a prestige class - Radiant Servant of Pelor. You'd be within your rights as a DM to steer the cleric towards a level in Rogue but at the risk of gimping the character for the sake of continuity.
This is what multiclassing has become, an exercise in mechanical synergy, not an expression of character development. Take a gander at all the "examine my build" threads. They're rife with powerful, well built characters that need ridiculous story justifications to exist. Conan would not exist in D&D as a barbarian/rogue/fighter if the player can squeeze more advantage from some nonsensical (but badass) prestige combo. That’s the problem I think Jason is wrestling with.
---
As for racial preferred class bonuses, I’ll say it again: Please stop trying to separate the concepts of race and culture into two separate categories. In the real world, yes, it’s appropriate and enlightened. In the D&D fantasy genre it undermines the mystical intrinsic link between races and their roles. Elves aren’t just good archers because they grew up in the woods. They’re good archers because it’s in their blood – a sort of godly gift, a cross between destiny and essence. Same goes for all demi-humans! Humans are unique in the sense that they are somehow unleashed from their destiny, free but lost. The orphan race.
There’s too much modern sentiment in this discussion of races, and it’s really sucking all the frikkin’ mystery out of them.
|
|
This is what multiclassing has become, an exercise in mechanical synergy, not an expression of character development.
I believe this is indeed common - more common than many of use would like to admit our would like to see - but it is usually the synergy of the abilities. This is indeed what Jason is probably trying to curtail.
However, I dont think that synergy and roleplaying is mutually exclusive.
Funny that you brought up the fighter/rogue/barbrian combo - that is actually the very make-up of my favorite character I've ever played - no prestige class. Named Frostrazor.
the synergy was great - but it was his story and the story of his adventure in the campaign that made him the most fun characters I've ever played. I loved playing that character - got to 13th level then the DM pulled the plug on the campaign when he found out 4E was coming out - I'm not interested in that endeavor.
I made that same character in my DDO (Dungeons and Dragon Online) game - to re-live the enjoyment I had for him - but the character was a failure within the parameters of the game - as I quickly learned the cold facts that the character had no MMO "Build" to be effective.
I'm not really playing DDO anymore - because of this emphasis on a BUILD just to be effective - and I'd rather create interesting characters.
So....on to Pathfinder it is! If I am ever a player again, I may try to recreate him in PF rules, or rever to my usual favorite - paladins.
Robert
|
|
Ah, Conan... IIRC he was statted as a Fighter/Barbarian/Rogue in Conan RPG (Fighter 4/Barbarian 16/Rogue 1 or something like that...).
Anyway, a lot of people seem to think that the "ideal" solution would be to remove all the race mechanics, leaving a sort of "create-your-own-race"-type of mechanic as a list of freely picked abilities. Is this really what people want, because it would remove *all* racial flavour from the game.
As to the topic of this thread... I want to have strong racial concepts and "archetypes" (i.e. half-orc barbarian or dwarven fighter) in D&D, and it's only logical that some races excel at something and others at something else. The fact that dwarves make for better melee fighters than, say, halflings, do not prevent me from creating a halfling fighter that excels at ranged combat. Or an elven fighter that is a master of two weapons and generally has even a higher AC than a dwarf or half-orc fighter. Or I might create a dwarven Rogue with Dex 17 and Con 17, and it would be a "better" racial choice in certain situations (higher Fort and HPs) than an elven rogue with Dex 20 and Con 13.
The fact is that there's a lot of potential "builds" in D&D, and I don't see the racial mechanics in PF Beta "invalidating" them in any way. In fact, IMO the added favoured class options and ability "boosts" give you more room for character concepts now.
And the "single-classing bonuses" (i.e. +1 HP/Skill Point per Level) and the "cap" abilities are a nice mechanical "lure" to *encourage* single-classing without "invalidating" multi-classing.
All in all, I like the way things are in PF Beta.
|
|
Ah, Conan... IIRC he was statted as a Fighter/Barbarian/Rogue in Conan RPG (Fighter 4/Barbarian 16/Rogue 1 or something like that...).
Anyway, a lot of people seem to think that the "ideal" solution would be to remove all the race mechanics, leaving a sort of "create-your-own-race"-type of mechanic as a list of freely picked abilities. Is this really what people want, because it would remove *all* racial flavour from the game.
As to the topic of this thread... I want to have strong racial concepts and "archetypes" (i.e. half-orc barbarian or dwarven fighter) in D&D, and it's only logical that some races excel at something and others at something else. The fact that dwarves make for better melee fighters than, say, halflings, do not prevent me from creating a halfling fighter that excels at ranged combat. Or an elven fighter that is a master of two weapons and generally has even a higher AC than a dwarf or half-orc fighter. Or I might create a dwarven Rogue with Dex 17 and Con 17, and it would be a "better" racial choice in certain situations (higher Fort and HPs) than an elven rogue with Dex 20 and Con 13.
The fact is that there's a lot of potential "builds" in D&D, and I don't see the racial mechanics in PF Beta "invalidating" them in any way. In fact, IMO the added favoured class options and ability "boosts" give you more room for character concepts now.
And the "single-classing bonuses" (i.e. +1 HP/Skill Point per Level) and the "cap" abilities are a nice mechanical "lure" to *encourage* single-classing without "invalidating" multi-classing.
All in all, I like the way things are in PF Beta.
Well said - I completely agree.
Robert
However, I might suggest that normal multiclassing is not nearly enough to draw most people away from single classing.
It is not like multiclassing (exclude PrC) is that good. If someone wants to be a barbarian 10/fighter 10, +10 hp or +10 skill points are going to do nearly nothing to push them back toward single classing.
To repeat: Multiclassing, in general, sucks. The favored class bonus doesn't really matter.
Edit: I can not feel this is complete yet. I'll just write something longer later.
|
|
However, I might suggest that normal multiclassing is not nearly enough to draw most people away from single classing.
It is not like multiclassing (exclude PrC) is that good. If someone wants to be a barbarian 10/fighter 10, +10 hp or +10 skill points are going to do nearly nothing to push them back toward single classing.
To repeat: Multiclassing, in general, sucks. The favored class bonus doesn't really matter.
Edit: I can not feel this is complete yet. I'll just write something longer later.
My experience in 3rd edition is different than yours. I rarely see anyone play single-class characters; I know RPGA does have a bit of a different tendency/behavior - but most players I have known since the release of 3rd edition have made a habit of multi-classing synergistic classes and abilitis
(PrCs notwithstanding)
You're not wrong - just that my experiences are drastically different.
Robert
However, I might suggest that normal multiclassing is not nearly enough to draw most people away from single classing.
It is not like multiclassing (exclude PrC) is that good. If someone wants to be a barbarian 10/fighter 10, +10 hp or +10 skill points are going to do nearly nothing to push them back toward single classing.
To repeat: Multiclassing, in general, sucks. The favored class bonus doesn't really matter.
Edit: I can not feel this is complete yet. I'll just write something longer later.
My experience in 3rd edition is different than yours. I rarely see anyone play single-class characters; I know RPGA does have a bit of a different tendency/behavior - but most players I have known since the release of 3rd edition have made a habit of multi-classing synergistic classes and abilitis
(PrCs notwithstanding)
You're not wrong - just that my experiences are drastically different.
Robert
Alright, it is just that the multiclassing that I've seen (that didn't involve PrCs) was more like Conan's up there. Most levels in one class with a dash of another. Not anything near half and half.
The majority in the games I was in, used prestige classes heavily.
Then for second most common for me was either: one class with a few levels at most in other classes or just one class. They were close but still a minority.
In last were characters who had equal levels in multiple classes.
I did someone over react. Whenever I see someone say that it is good people are getting an additional bonus for not multiclassing, part of me translates that into "they think fighter 10/wizard 10 is too powerful", which bugs me a lot (even though that might not be what they are saying).
|
|
The majority in the games I was in, used prestige classes heavily.
Then for second most common for me was either: one class with a few levels at most in other classes or just one class. They were close but still a minority.
In last were characters who had equal levels in multiple classes.I did someone over react. Whenever I see someone say that it is good people are getting an additional bonus for not multiclassing, part of me translates that into "they think fighter 10/wizard 10 is too powerful", which bugs me a lot (even though that might not be what they are saying).
I don't think thats an accurate assumption of what they meant.
As for multi-classing - when I said MOST characters I've ever seen were multi-classed - I meant just that - not necessarily an even split of class levels - I mean most that I've seen splash class a few here and there for the variety of the class features.
It was very commone for 3 levels of rogue, or 2 levels of fighter, or 1 level of barbarian or 2 levels of ranger to be involved in many character concepts.
What has been being said - is that awarding a character for have one class give bonuses, will reward players who do not splash classes such as this be instead granting that 1 extra hp or skill point when they stick to the main class instead - granted, it's not a big reward - but its enough that it is noticed and I feel it's well deserved for those sticking to a solo class concept.
Robert
|
|
i agree in the topic that racial flavor is important, don't need to add something extra or even "arm yourself" races... that is beyond the point... i think as i stated thatthe +1sk/+1hp is small enough and flavorable enough for this
it won't stir away the "build characters" (i hate that, i even get sometimes scolded because my characters mostly focus in RP andnot always are good at something like my old Wizard/Cleirc of Kelemvor who was supposed to become a Kelemvor Necromancer (similar to True Necromancer but returning undeads to the other side)
and in fact one of my favorite characters was a cleric of Corellion La... (whatever is called the god of elves) who was suposed to become a Temple Guard (mostly for the name i am a rabid admired of the Templars)... during the adventure he abandoned his beliefs and discovered a new godin that world (he became LG, CG was good for dungeoncrawling, but in a city i was unable to hide my true colors), so he grew just as Cleric, advancing his newgod techings which msot people saw weird because no one has ever heard of such god, but his powers were real and he with other friends become one of the city's heroes, so they made the city their base of operations and heslowly but steadily grew the new fate...
the adventure was pulled the plug around when he was level 9 or 10. the DM has not much time to rpepare adventures, and we have alots of new players... so we tried a little experiment... but that is entirely another matter...
as i see... to stop "character building" there would have to be a cataclismic change of rules... which no one really cares of... so we deal with what we have (yes i suck in MMO for the same reason, i take the skills that soun nice or are good for MY concept, but usually I endgimping my character for such reason,meh)
As for racial preferred class bonuses, I’ll say it again: Please stop trying to separate the concepts of race and culture into two separate categories. In the real world, yes, it’s appropriate and enlightened. In the D&D fantasy genre it undermines the mystical intrinsic link between races and their roles. Elves aren’t just good archers because they grew up in the woods. They’re good archers because it’s in their blood – a sort of godly gift, a cross between destiny and essence. Same goes for all demi-humans! Humans are unique in the sense that they are somehow unleashed from their destiny, free but lost. The orphan race.
by theway, i loved this definition, i would haveto steal it :D
I don't think thats an accurate assumption of what they meant.
I know, I'm just a little sensitive about multiclassing issues.
|
|
I agree with you. It is cultural. It makes no sense for a dwarf, raised by elves, to know about battleaxes and fighting orcs.
-Steve
That's a rather extreme example. Freaks by nature are what define the outside limits of the rule. Freaks are what you create houserules for, not to set the standard for the norm. The majority of dwarves, not even a significant minority, are not going to be raised by elves.
And a Freak character should take a development hit or two for being a freak.
I'm not sure if "freak" is the right word - but by far your the point and message of your post is spot on! When you say MOST dwarves are not raised by elves, it's like 1 in a million might be.
Robert
|
|
That's a rather extreme example. Freaks by nature are what define the outside limits of the rule. Freaks are what you create houserules for, not to set the standard for the norm. The majority of dwarves, not even a significant minority, are not going to be raised by elves.
A better example would be differences between a half-orc raised in a human community (who may have never seen an 'orcish weapon,' or a full-blooded orc, for that matter) and one raised among orcs, or a half-elf raised among elves (and, presumably, as likely to have received bow and sword training next to her half-siblings) as opposed to one raised among humans.
Other races, such as halflings and gnomes often are portrayed as having no (or few) cities or nations of their own, but more often live in human-dominated cities and nations, which would make them quite likely to have grown up with more human peers than peers of their own particular race, and have little exposure to 'halfling culture' or 'gnome culture.' The son of a dwarven merchant / craftsman in a human city might similarly have little exposure to 'traditional' dwarvish society, and be more prone to following the customs and traditions of the humans he's grown up surrounded by.
Skipping the oddball dwarf-raised-by-elves thing, there are plenty of extremely likely and commonplace references to gnomes, halflings, humans and half-breeds all co-existing in predominantly human cities and nations in just about every setting.
|
|
i think that indeed some of iot is for blood, other is for training
the half-elf would receive soem trianing inwepaons, but he lives so quickly to the common elf that they would give them very little training... eles rain with such weapons for years, with calm and without rush... 100 years are a lot of time to learn the basics of 4 weapons even if you are a wizards... the half elf has not such time...
i suppose for the half-orc raised with humans the notion of one day taking one fo the favored races of his race, liftining it he would think it fits so well... it feels natural in his hands... when he rain destruction versus his enemies with it... hewould have found the call of his blood rushing toward his destiny.
I agree with you. It is cultural. It makes no sense for a dwarf, raised by elves, to know about battleaxes and fighting orcs.
-Steve
That's a rather extreme example. Freaks by nature are what define the outside limits of the rule. Freaks are what you create houserules for, not to set the standard for the norm. The majority of dwarves, not even a significant minority, are not going to be raised by elves.
And a Freak character should take a development hit or two for being a freak.
It was an extreme example, but it demonstrates a point.
Dwarves that don't live near giants or orcs should not have those as racial enemies.
Dwarves that live in jungles probably wouldn't specialize in Urgoshes.
Gnomes in a world without Kobolds wouldn't know how to effectively fight them.
Half-orcs in tribes that are using stone-aged technology won't specialize in double-axes.
Should I go on? Please don't attempt to specifically refute every example I just listed. That would just be tedious. The point is that there are lots of examples and settings where the racial characteristics above don't make sense.
-Steve
Grognard Perspective
I like the new favored class hit point bonus because it gives a strong reason for a race to choose their favored class while not eliminating other options. I also like the fact that it gives humans and half-elves a boost vis-a-vis 3.5 favored class.
In earlier versions of DND, certain classes were just completely off limits to certain races. This was too restrictive. I like third edition's opening up of multiclassing, but there were some problems and I like Pathfinder's attempt to steer things back a bit, to reward iconic race/class combos. The problem with 3.5e was that the favored class mechanic didn't give one any incentive to be your favored class, it just gave you a class you could "cherry pick" for a level or two when multiclassing. In other words, favored class didn't really work IMHO in 3.5. I think favored class works much better in PfRPG. For folks who want to ignore multiclassing restrictions, it is one of the easiest things to houserule (and believe me this has been houseruled since 1e).
All of this is not to disagree with the OP's comment which is that the "+1 hit point" feels very gamist instead of simulationist. I am open for something other than +1 hit point, something that is more simulationist, as long it is equally strong as an incentive.
I also agree with another poster on this thread who mentioned that the "racial preferences" are largely cultural preferences. I don't know how easy this would be to change given the goal of backwards compatibility, but I think that it is worth exploring. Some combination of set and optional "racial characteristics" might work.
Marnak
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
I favour keeping both the skill/hit point benefit and the 20% multiclass penalty. The proverbial carrot and stick. Here are some reasons why I think the favoured class concept needs to stay.
1) I think it's an excellent method of organically encouraging what classes are more common to what races. Different campaign settings can adjust the favoured classes for races to suit that setting's mix or just use the default favoured classes.
2) It's a good shorthand way to point new players towards a race/class that best suits them.
3) It's one of the best abilities of humans and half-elves. Letting everybody freely multiclass takes away one of their benefits.
4) It helps preserve some of the quasi-medieval flavour of most PFRPG games. Historically, medieval people stayed with a single profession their entire lives. There were exceptions, but nothing like the "Renaissance Man" of later time periods or the chaotic career changing of the modern age.
5) Fantasy literature and mythology are full of archetypes. The dwarven fighter, the elven wizard/ranger, the halfling rogue, etc. Even break-the-mold characters are an archetype--the iconoclast. Some may look at them as stereotypes and clichés, but when handled correctly they are useful tools for telling great stories.
6) This is related to #3. It's something that is factored in with balancing the races. Taking it out leaves all the races
7) While I think this is something more up to the DM to control, I think it does help curtail class ability shopping and power gaming.
As for the extra hit point not being realistic...Well, hit points aren't realistic either. I could explain the hit point as the person becoming more attuned to their role in combat, thus allowing them to withstand damage or avoid death.
It was an extreme example, but it demonstrates a point.Dwarves that don't live near giants or orcs should not have those as racial enemies.
Dwarves that live in jungles probably wouldn't specialize in Urgoshes.
Gnomes in a world without Kobolds wouldn't know how to effectively fight them.
Half-orcs in tribes that are using stone-aged technology won't specialize in double-axes.
Should I go on? Please don't attempt to specifically refute every example I just listed. That would just be tedious. The point is that there are lots of examples and settings where the racial characteristics above don't make sense.
-Steve
That is why you either make subraces that have different abilities/favoured classes or you change abilities for the standard races to suit your particular campaign. The abilities as written are meant for the standard Pathfinder/fantasy world.
[...]It's a power creep mechanic, albiet a much slower creep than others. A single class character will have 20 more hp or 20 more skill points, so some variation in between. A multiclass character, not so much, but they still have something more for taking a specific combination that another player who didn't won't have, and that's wrong.
I's still rewarding playing to type and taking something away from those who don't.[...]
Yes it is rewarding playing to type, but how is it taking away from those who don't? If I want to create a Dwarven wizard, I don't begrudge the rest of the players (my team) for taking Dwarven fighters and clerics. I'm not out to build the strongest character in the group, just the character I've created in my head. If that means I don't get the bonus so be it.
I say keep it as is.
|
|
I agree with you. It is cultural. It makes no sense for a dwarf, raised by elves, to know about battleaxes and fighting orcs.
-Steve
That's a rather extreme example. Freaks by nature are what define the outside limits of the rule. Freaks are what you create houserules for, not to set the standard for the norm. The majority of dwarves, not even a significant minority, are not going to be raised by elves.
And a Freak character should take a development hit or two for being a freak.
It was an extreme example, but it demonstrates a point.
Dwarves that don't live near giants or orcs should not have those as racial enemies.
Dwarves that live in jungles probably wouldn't specialize in Urgoshes.
Gnomes in a world without Kobolds wouldn't know how to effectively fight them.
Half-orcs in tribes that are using stone-aged technology won't specialize in double-axes.
Should I go on? Please don't attempt to specifically refute every example I just listed. That would just be tedious. The point is that there are lots of examples and settings where the racial characteristics above don't make sense.
-Steve
These are excellent examples, Steve. However, Paizo is working on the standard core rules for the RPG game in general.
Such racial diversity is usually reserved for campaing-world specific supplements - like the Forgotten Realms Campaign Book.
Players and DMs across the board playing PF-RPG will still be able to play alternate campaign world flavor that they wish - but the core standard for the game, for the PF Society, and for those wishing to play as is, will have access to the core standard races and their standard make-up.
The Beta Rules is the PHB and DMG equivalent - it includes only the necessary standard game-rules to be able to play the game functionally. There's simply not enough room in such a book for every cultural possibility and their diversity.
Robert
Hit points don't represent just your physical toughness. The represent a combination of luck, training, skill, divine favor and on top of all that physical toughness.
If I believed that, I might be playing 4e. But since Healing Surges don't feel right to me, I'm still playing 3.5, and want to play PF. And since that point keeps coming up, I think the community needs to accept that there are some of us that DO see HP as toughness and training, period. :)
|
|
I agree with you. It is cultural. It makes no sense for a dwarf, raised by elves, to know about battleaxes and fighting orcs.
-Steve
That's a rather extreme example. Freaks by nature are what define the outside limits of the rule. Freaks are what you create houserules for, not to set the standard for the norm. The majority of dwarves, not even a significant minority, are not going to be raised by elves.
And a Freak character should take a development hit or two for being a freak.
It was an extreme example, but it demonstrates a point.
Dwarves that don't live near giants or orcs should not have those as racial enemies.
Dwarves that live in jungles probably wouldn't specialize in Urgoshes.
Gnomes in a world without Kobolds wouldn't know how to effectively fight them.
Half-orcs in tribes that are using stone-aged technology won't specialize in double-axes.
Should I go on? Please don't attempt to specifically refute every example I just listed. That would just be tedious. The point is that there are lots of examples and settings where the racial characteristics above don't make sense.
-Steve
Certainly, but as others have pointed out, characters like these are *exceptional* cases, at least from the perspective of a "typical" D&D campaign and the core rules. That's what you've got houserules or regional feats for. If the PF RPG core rules are supposed to cover every potential background your players come up with, the only possibility would be to remove all races from the rules and include a list of freely pick "traits" to make your own race. I don't know if I liked that, really...
The reason that there are "stereotypical" racial abilities/characteristics is, to me, only natural, because *most* members of a race are influenced by traditions and environment -- at least in a fantasy setting. And I think those traits also help role-playing and character immersion in the sense that's it's easier to identify yourself, for example, with a dwarf who is brave and tough and wields an axe. Now, a dwarf who shaves his beard, speaks eloquently, and wields a longbow because he was raised by elves... that would be fun to play in 'tongue-in-the-cheek' sort of way, but he would be so different from my own idea of dwarven behaviour that I probably would have trouble with identifying with him in many situations.