Mr. Bulmahn, here is a possible solution to the argument over whether or not to keep favored class as a mechanic.
First, the current favored class rule is replaced with a simple mention of classes that the race gravitates towards in the racial cultural description.
Second, new racial feats that have class features as prerequisites are introduced. For Example:
DWARVEN DEFENDER'S GUILE
[RACIAL]
Prerequisites: Dwarf, defensive stance class feature
Benefit: You gain 2 temporary hit points per character level whenever you adopt a defensive stance.GNOME ILLUSION TALENT
[RACIAL]
Prerequisites: Gnome, arcane caster level 1st
Benefit: You gain a +1 racial bonus to the save DC of all illusion spells that you cast.ORC RAGER
[RACIAL]
Prerequisites: Orc, rage class feature
Benefit: You gain 1 additional rage point per character level.This results in less paperwork for the DM and more design space for the game designers.
This will encourage DMs to use Pathfinder and satiate players that want some kind of special benefit for their class based on their race.
I can get behind this 100%. Some of the issues I have with preferred classes is that they are, for starters, stereotyping. They put races into boxes that discourage creativity. Secondly, they hamper the introduction of aditional base classes. It disinclines people from playing Warlocks or Duskblades or Artificers unless they are playing them as humans.
However, using racially-oriented feat chains allows for much greater degrees of variance and flavor. Taking it further, you could develop racial feats around many classes, which would lend interesting racially-based flavors to those classes. I can see chains of feats for elven rogues, or for halfling barbarians. Even more interesting would be trying to find synergies between racial feats and racial abilities. This really seems neat to me, and I would love to see it developed further.
-Steve
|
However, using racially-oriented feat chains allows for much greater degrees of variance and flavor. Taking it further, you could develop racial feats around many classes, which would lend interesting racially-based flavors to those classes. I can see chains of feats for elven rogues, or for halfling barbarians. Even more interesting would be trying to find synergies between racial feats and racial abilities. This really seems neat to me, and I would love to see it developed further.
I completely agree, and it's why I've been arguing in favor of racial feats since Alpha 1.
You're not limited to everyone having the same "favored class" advantage, and you can customize and expand on whatever that advantage is by creating a handful of feats for each race/favored class combo. If you (as DM or player) don't like the favored class mechanic, then just disallow (or don't take) any Racial Feats that support it.
I doubt at this point it will do much good to keep raising this idea, but that sure hasn't stopped me from doing it ;)
|
|
I have to disagree. First of all, the new favored class mechanics are inherently a reward-based system: you get an added benefit for choosing a class that your race is good at or has a society that fosters training in such a class.
In 3.5 it was a punitive system: you got docked XP for multiclassing in certain ways if you did not take into account your races favorite class (ie. your character was stupid at training if it was something their race didn't like).
So the PRPG rule is a stereotype, sure, but at least it is a positive one in a game full of them. Now, instead of "Me dumb dwarf, me not know how to be a rogue/wizard!" you get "As a dwarf, I excel at being a fighter, but I could just as easily be a rogue."
Also, you argue that racial feats and mentioning types of preferred classes will SAVE space for designers, players, and DMs? How so?
From my personal playtest experience, I find the PRPG favored class mechanic takes about 3 seconds to add to a statblock in the form of hp, and about 10 in regards to skills. If the system were changed to feats, that would mean as a DM I have to know what the feat does, and whether I want the character to have it or not (plus, having an Orc Rage feat is just as stereotyping, if not more, than +1 hp for Dwarf Fighters).
I enjoy racial feats, but I do not think they are a valid or necessary replacement for the favored class mechanic.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Racial feats are all well and good, and I'm sure we'll see plenty of them after the core rules are out, but I for one wouldn't want to sacrifice my 1st level feat for a racial feat. There are too many useful standard feats to make that swap. What I like about the existing FC bonus is that it's small enough that if you go against type, it doesn't hurt you (like 3.5 favored class rules), and helps you enough that you notice, at least at low levels. I think that FC mechanics here have been designed primarily to encourage people to stick with the core classes instead of PrCing out.
|
I wouldn't mind seeing racial feats, but I still think preferred classes are a good idea. In Pathfinder, it's just a bonus, a demonstration of a race's natural aptitude. It encourages a certain flavor, but does not hobble a PC who bucks the trend the way the old XP penalty did.
Although I think adding base classes should only be done very rarely, when it is done, a short list of races that may consider it favored should be included in the class description.
|
|
It's like the debate over stat penalties. Is the absence of a bonus actually, in fact, a penalty, or not? Giving favored classes a bonus is saying that the absence of a bonus is not a penalty, where some people seem to be saying that it is.
Yes, it's exactly like that. I'm firmly in the camp that no bonus is not the same as a penalty. These kinds of bonuses do encourage stereotypes. That's not really a bad thing. These adjustments and bonuses help define a race, and to the extent that the race is present, the setting at large.
It's like the debate over stat penalties. Is the absence of a bonus actually, in fact, a penalty, or not? Giving favored classes a bonus is saying that the absence of a bonus is not a penalty, where some people seem to be saying that it is.Yes, it's exactly like that. I'm firmly in the camp that no bonus is not the same as a penalty. These kinds of bonuses do encourage stereotypes. That's not really a bad thing. These adjustments and bonuses help define a race, and to the extent that the race is present, the setting at large.
I'm pretty firmly in the opposite camp. From an optomization perspective, it only makes sense to use the classes that races are optomized to take. For anyone else, it becomes sort of a defacto penalty. The end result is that a gnome wizard gets less hit points and/or skill points then an elf wizard. It's even more severe than the old XP penalty, since that didn't even apply to single-class PCs.
-Steve
well of course the Elf wizard should be better than the Gnome one, Elves are famous for wizardry. Its been that way for as long as i can remember, so i fail to see what the problem is for granting them a bonus.
Also, what's wrong with having both Racial feats and the favored class bonuses? why must it be one of the other?
|
|
First off, I said design space for GAME DESIGNERS, not players or DMs. I meant that the number of possibilities for designing supplemental material increases, thus more DESIGN SPACE.
Okay, perhaps you made a bad choice of words. What you explain here is actually DESIGN POTENTIAL. "Space" to me literally meant the space on the page or in a book, hence the confusion.
Second, changing it to feats changes the 3 seconds per statblock to 0 seconds because you're not being forced to add the feats to any stat blocks as they are OPTIONAL.
Except that if a designer or DM wants to give their NPC a bit of a bonus based on their race, they DO need to know the feat and include it in the statblock. This takes up a feat slot, and space (adding extra hp or skill points doesn't unless you pick a new skill). Plus, if it is a rare feat, such as from a splatbook you suggest they could make in the future, the designers need to include such a feat with its description IN the statblock, since they cannot assume everyone owns every splatbook.
Third, of course racial feats are not necessary to replace the favored class mechanic but they would do a better job of spicing up the ways in which a class is favored by a race. Two different races that have the same favored class would very likely favor that class in different ways. For example, aasimar may favor the celestial bloodline for a sorceror, gaining access to special celestial style feats while tieflings favor the infernal bloodline, gaining access to special infernal style feats.
This would seem to be better accomplished by just making general feats, and if a player wants to create their character around a theme they can select them. For instance, going back to your Barbarian Orc example, just make a general Rage Point feat that an Orc player (or any Barbarian) could select for a bit of flavor.
Again, I'm not arguing against Racial Feats - I love them. I just think the favored class mechanic is something else entirely, and it works as is: an enticement to single-class characters.
well of course the Elf wizard should be better than the Gnome one, Elves are famous for wizardry. Its been that way for as long as i can remember, so i fail to see what the problem is for granting them a bonus.
Two words: Gnome Illusionist.
Also, what's wrong with having both Racial feats and the favored class bonuses? why must it be one of the other?
I think the whole idea of racial feats is that they're being floated as an alternative to favored class bonuses, which some people (including me) feel shove races into preordained optomized roles.
-Steve
|
|
Racial feats are all well and good, and I'm sure we'll see plenty of them after the core rules are out, but I for one wouldn't want to sacrifice my 1st level feat for a racial feat.
On this point, I think this could actually be a good thing, promoting diversity between characters who choose to focus on their racial affinities for beefing up their class abilities and characters who focus on a narrower martial or magical discipline.
For Humans, you could have one feat to grant +1 hp (and another to grant +1 skill point) per level in the favored class. Or possibly just one feat that allows you to choose one or the other each time you take it.
Even more interesting (to me), with a good handful of Racial Feats to choose from, you'd have the option to customize your Favored Class benefits, distinguishing between even characters who choose to focus equally on Racial Feats with a Favored Class flavor.
And you get three extra feats in Pathfinder over 3.5, for 20th level characters, so you could reasonably copy an existing 3.5 character exactly and use the "extra" feat slots to flesh out using Racial Feats ... or not :)
Edit: it could even be included in the PFRPG as an optional rule that you gain a bonus Racial Feat at first level, so you could take that "+1 hp" or "+1 skill point" feat and be done.
I am a big fan of racial feats. I'm not sure if they would be best as a replacement for favored class or in addition to it. For example I could see some interesting dwarf rogue feats but wouldn't want dwarves to have rogue as a favoured class.
I enjoy racial feats, but I do not think they are a valid or necessary replacement for the favored class mechanic.
Yeah! Everything he said.
After reading this thread, I've understood better the argument for Racial Feats, but my difficulty is that you don't really need to entice players to gravitate towards certain class/race combos, the ability score modifications for each race do that fine.
I still feel like the extra hit point/extra skill point mechanic is just enough to illustrate how these races are just a little bit better at these classes than other races.
After reading this thread, I've understood better the argument for Racial Feats, but my difficulty is that you don't really need to entice players to gravitate towards certain class/race combos, the ability score modifications for each race do that fine.
I still feel like the extra hit point/extra skill point mechanic is just enough to illustrate how these races are just a little bit better at these classes than other races.
I would say that the beauty of racial feats is that they are a much better and more flavorful enticement. They are also more subtle, and more versatile, and they help to illustrate far better how a race is skilled in some roles.
Skill and HP bonuses, in the end, are sort of bad for versatility in the game. It basically swings two ways: if they're a big enticement, then everyone who doesn't make use of them will feel like they're missing out by making a sub-optimal game choice. If they're not enough of an enticement, then they will be effectively ignored. Not only that, they don't really demonstrate *why* a race is better at some classes. OK, gnomes get an HP bonus for playing a bard. Why? They get a skill point bonus. Why? Human bards don't study as hard at Bard College?
Racial feats or sub levels, on the other hand, are a fantastic means for conveying the flavor and class preferences of a race. They're also entirely burden-free. There's no requirement that they be taken (unless a requirement is put in), and they can be ignored if the player wants to go in a different direction with his character idea without the character actually *losing* something (hp/skill bonus). Not only that, but with a pool of racial feats to choose from, they increase the individuality of the characters, allowing for more customization.
Ultimately, one of Pathfinder's stated goals is about increasing choices for the players instead of limiting them. I would say this is a much more effective way of doing so.
-Steve
I'm of the camp that says that racial ability modifiers and abilities are enough to push people in the "racial stereotype role". With XP penalties out of PF, I don't see any reason to keep favored class at all. An elf already makes a sweet ranger or wizard due to their stat bonuses and "Elven Magic" and "Keen Senses".
I think that racial feats would only be upside. The design space is wide open. They could reward people for playing to stereotype, but since it takes a feat slot someone playing against type doesn't lose out because they spend that slot on something else that is equally as usefull.
|
I think we had 100+ or so Racial Feats on the '[THINK TANK] Racial Feats'-thread. I could repost mine, if you guys want to (on another thread). We're playtesting them, and my players like them, saying that Racial Feats add more depth and mechanical difference between the races.
Having said that, I must say I like the current racial abilities (whether they're stereotyping or not) except perhaps dwarven 'Hatred' and 'Defensive Training'.
|
|
For Humans, you could have one feat to grant +1 hp (and another to grant +1 skill point) per level in the favored class. Or possibly just one feat that allows you to choose one or the other each time you take it.
Pathfinder Companion just introduced the official 3.5 Pathfinder rules for traits (which includes a Racial Trait category). I am pretty sure they will continue this system over to PRPG in some form.
Why not have Racial Traits every few levels? They are worth less than a feat (usually around half, for example +2 initiative or +1 to two skills), so Jason could simply include an optional sidebar in the PRPG showing when characters should gain racial traits. My vote would be one at first level and every 3 levels after (4th, 7th, 10th, 13th, 16th, 19th).
I could go for this system in addition to the favored class mechanic. As for justifying favored class - that race picks up the training of their favored class so easily that they can devote more of their training to other small things (defending themselves/toughening up, or learning new skills from other people or books). So yes, a halfling rogue literally has more time to study than a half-orc rogue, and so reads more books, talks to more people, and the net result is +1 skill point per level (or hp if he decides to get in a few extra training fights).
Pathfinder Companion just introduced the official 3.5 Pathfinder rules for traits (which includes a Racial Trait category). I am pretty sure they will continue this system over to PRPG in some form.
Why not have Racial Traits every few levels? They are worth less than a feat (usually around half, for example +2 initiative or +1 to two skills), so Jason could simply include an optional sidebar in the PRPG showing when characters should gain racial traits. My vote would be one at first level and every 3 levels after (4th, 7th, 10th, 13th, 16th, 19th).
I could go for this system in addition to the favored class mechanic. As for justifying favored class - that race picks up the training of their favored class so easily that they can devote more of their training to other small things (defending themselves/toughening up, or learning new skills from other people or books). So yes, a halfling rogue literally has more time to study than a half-orc rogue, and so reads more books, talks to more people, and the net result is +1 skill point per level (or hp if he decides to get in a few extra training fights).
That's the first justification I've read that sounded plausible. I still find the whole idea pretty clunkly, mind you, and I don't think it's necessary. PCs don't really need any more powering up.
As for the question about specific racial abilities. I actually like the idea of choosable acial traits replacing them, similar to how I like the idea of racial feats. I don't think you should have them every three levels, however. That feels like too much. The classes already get 3 extra feats over 20 levels, and a racial trait is equivalent to approximately half a feat. You're adding the equivalent of 3 and a half *more* feats to the progression that's already had feats added to it.
Instead, what if we make racial traits choosable at first level, and then offer racial feat choices at specific feat intervals.
|
|
As for the question about specific racial abilities. I actually like the idea of choosable acial traits replacing them, similar to how I like the idea of racial feats. I don't think you should have them every three levels, however. That feels like too much. The classes already get 3 extra feats over 20 levels, and a racial trait is equivalent to approximately half a feat. You're adding the equivalent of 3 and a half *more* feats to the progression that's already had feats added to it.Instead, what if we make racial traits choosable at first level, and then offer racial feat choices at specific feat intervals.
The official traits system starts at 2 at first level (or more/less depending on DM), and there is a feat that grants another 2. Essentially, a bonus feat for each character (with limitations on what traits you can select). Given that the favored class mechanic is about equivalent to 1 feat (Toughness), that gives us 2 feats added already. So, if we DID replace favored class with racial traits, that would be 1.5 feats over 20 levels. Still a bit much, I agree.
What about every 5 levels (1st, 6th, 11th, 16th)? That would give them the equivalent of 2 feats over 20 levels?
I should point out that having 2 half-feats does not necessarily equal a whole feat. For example, (+2 initiative, +1 spot +1 listen) is still less powerful than (+4 initiative) because the half-feats do not add to the same abilities. It might be more apt to call them 1/3 feats.
|
|
As for the question about specific racial abilities. I actually like the idea of choosable acial traits replacing them, similar to how I like the idea of racial feats. I don't think you should have them every three levels, however. That feels like too much. The classes already get 3 extra feats over 20 levels, and a racial trait is equivalent to approximately half a feat. You're adding the equivalent of 3 and a half *more* feats to the progression that's already had feats added to it.Instead, what if we make racial traits choosable at first level, and then offer racial feat choices at specific feat intervals.
The official traits system starts at 2 at first level (or more/less depending on DM), and there is a feat that grants another 2. Essentially, a bonus feat for each character (with limitations on what traits you can select). Given that the favored class mechanic is about equivalent to 1 feat (Toughness), that gives us 2 feats added already. So, if we DID replace favored class with racial traits, that would be 1.5 feats over 20 levels. Still a bit much, I agree.
What about every 5 levels (1st, 6th, 11th, 16th)? That would give them the equivalent of 2 feats over 20 levels?
I should point out that having 2 half-feats does not necessarily equal a whole feat. For example, (+2 initiative, +1 spot +1 listen) is still less powerful than (+4 initiative) because the half-feats do not add to the same abilities. It might be more apt to call them 1/3 feats.
I would prefer 1st, 5th, 10th, 15th and 20th. No matter whether Racial Feats will be in PF RPG or not, I still hope that the Favored Class bonus (+1 HP or Skill Point) will remain in the game. :)
I would prefer 1st, 5th, 10th, 15th and 20th. No matter whether Racial Feats will be in PF RPG or not, I still hope that the Favored Class bonus (+1 HP or Skill Point) will remain in the game. :)
You've got to ask the question though, how much is too much? Already you've got 3 extra feats for 20 levels. and an added +2 to ability stats. In addition, you want to add (potentially) +20 HP or Skill Points. +20 Skill points is certainly equal to more than one feat. On top of that you've got two traits at lvl 1, and people are talking about even *more* traits as you level up!!!
At some point don't you worry that the game is going to end up looking like the game Munchkin?
-Steve
|
|
I would prefer 1st, 5th, 10th, 15th and 20th. No matter whether Racial Feats will be in PF RPG or not, I still hope that the Favored Class bonus (+1 HP or Skill Point) will remain in the game. :)You've got to ask the question though, how much is too much? Already you've got 3 extra feats for 20 levels. and an added +2 to ability stats. In addition, you want to add (potentially) +20 HP or Skill Points. +20 Skill points is certainly equal to more than one feat. On top of that you've got two traits at lvl 1, and people are talking about even *more* traits as you level up!!!
At some point don't you worry that the game is going to end up looking like the game Munchkin?
-Steve
Well, it's still far from what you get in 4E, hey? ;)
Besides, if the monsters and NPCs also get a similar "boost" in PF, isn't everything in "balance", then?
Well, it's still far from what you get in 4E, hey? ;)
Besides, if the monsters and NPCs also get a similar "boost" in PF, isn't everything in "balance", then?
I haven't read the section on monsters, but I'm assuming they don't get traits or preferred character classes, at least the ones that don't generally take PC classes.
Besides, I thought that the point was to streamline the game? How is it helping the DM when he's got to make 15 more decisions for high level encounters?
-Steve
|
|
Well, it's still far from what you get in 4E, hey? ;)
Besides, if the monsters and NPCs also get a similar "boost" in PF, isn't everything in "balance", then?
I haven't read the section on monsters, but I'm assuming they don't get traits or preferred character classes, at least the ones that don't generally take PC classes.
Besides, I thought that the point was to streamline the game? How is it helping the DM when he's got to make 15 more decisions for high level encounters?
-Steve
You misunderstood me -- I was referring to the fact that it's possible to give monsters a given amount of extra HPs, for example, to "toughen" them up. It does not need to be extra Feats, Skill Points or Traits. NPCs won't get any Traits, in any case, but why shouldn't they get the same amount of General or Racial Feats? It doesn't complicate the game too much, IMO (far from those 15 extra decisions ;).
You misunderstood me -- I was referring to the fact that it's possible to give monsters a given amount of extra HPs, for example, to "toughen" them up. It does not need to be extra Feats, Skill Points or Traits. NPCs won't get any Traits, in any case, but why shouldn't they get the same amount of General or Racial Feats? It doesn't complicate the game too much, IMO (far from those 15 extra decisions ;).
One problem I do see arising is with racial feats and traits, is when you address non-core races that, regardless, utilize class levels, such as goblins, orcs, or kobolds. Would these races need their own feat banks to be developed, or would they be using the feats of another core race's. Same thing goes for traits. I'm not really sure about how to address this. It's definately an issue, however.
As far as the 15 choices goes, I see that as a combination of deciding on how many HP vs. Skill points, as well as the additional feats, and potential traits. Someone was talking about having a regular trait progression - 6 or 7 I believe.
-Steve
|
|
From an optomization perspective, it only makes sense to use the classes that races are optomized to take.
Then that means the rule is doing its job. There will always be optimizers, and there will always be those who want to try something unusual. For some, the strangeness is its own reward.
It's even more severe than the old XP penalty, since that didn't even apply to single-class PCs.
I would hardly call 1 point/level severe. 20%?, that's harsh.
a gnome wizard gets less hit points and/or skill points then an elf wizard
Except that the elf has a Con penalty. I expect most elven wizards would choose the extra hit points to offset this. The gnome has a Con bonus, and doesn't need to do that in the first place. Also, if you really are set on playing a gnome arcanist, but still want to take advantage of a favored class, you can choose to play a sorcerer, and with Pathfinder you can use the Arcane bloodline. If that doesn't work, and you really must be a gnome wizard, you'll do it anyway. Once again, the rule is doing its job.
|
|
Except that the elf has a Con penalty. I expect most elven wizards would choose the extra hit points to offset this. The gnome has a Con bonus, and doesn't need to do that in the first place. Also, if you really are set on playing a gnome arcanist, but still want to take advantage of a favored class, you can choose to play a sorcerer, and with Pathfinder you can use the Arcane bloodline. If that doesn't work, and you really must be a gnome wizard, you'll do it anyway. Once again, the rule is doing its job.
And for the true munchkin, Gnome Sorcerer [Aberrant]. With average hp and Toughness it is possible to have 110hp at 10th level, plus light fortification.
Then that means the rule is doing its job. There will always be optimizers, and there will always be those who want to try something unusual. For some, the strangeness is its own reward.
Except it's a very limiting box. Under the old rules there was no out-of-the-box disadvantage. There wasn't even a disadvantage for multiclassing if you used one of your preferred classes or kept the two classes within a level of each other. You could take five classes if you wanted if they were within a level of each other.
I would hardly call 1 point/level severe. 20%?, that's harsh.
Used to be 10%. Anyway...
The 20% XP penalty was much more conditional than the Pathfinder proposal. It only kicked in under a limited set of conditions.
Except that the elf has a Con penalty. I expect most elven wizards would choose the extra hit points to offset this. The gnome has a Con bonus, and doesn't need to do that in the first place.
This is a strawman argument. Fine, reversing it, an elf sorcerer gets even less hit points and/or skill points than a gnome sorcerer.
Also, if you really are set on playing a gnome arcanist, but still want to take advantage of a favored class, you can choose to play a sorcerer, and with Pathfinder you can use the Arcane bloodline. If that doesn't work, and you really must be a gnome wizard, you'll do it anyway. Once again, the rule is doing its job.
No it's not. The job of the original rule was to focus multi-classing along racially-preferred class lines and to prevent class-dipping. It wasn't meant to discourage playing a class with a different race than its Favored Class Here, you're punished for going out of the box as a single-class character, losing out on skills or hit points.
-Steve
I like the favored class mechanic and prefer it be kept, though I wouldn't mind seeing racial feats in addition to that.
As to those who think that favored class mechanics lead to stereotyping, would the following solve your issues with it? Link: [url]http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/design/ability/racesInherentAndLearnedFeatures[/url]
I like the favored class mechanic and prefer it be kept, though I wouldn't mind seeing racial feats in addition to that.
As to those who think that favored class mechanics lead to stereotyping, would the following solve your issues with it? Link:
Your link didn't work, but I was able to find the thread.
Yeah, I'd say the general list sort of summs up what is an inherent ability vs. a cultural ability. But it doesn't solve my specific issue with it that it de-facto punishes people for playing characters that are outside of the box. The original class preference rule was meant to put limits on multiclassing and level-dipping, not to put limits on or discourage taking non-preferred classes.
-Steve
Your link didn't work, but I was able to find the thread.Yeah, I'd say the general list sort of summs up what is an inherent ability vs. a cultural ability. But it doesn't solve my specific issue with it that it de-facto punishes people for playing characters that are outside of the box. The original class preference rule was meant to put limits on multiclassing and level-dipping, not to put limits on or discourage taking non-preferred classes.
I guess I am not sure how to link properly on these forums...
The point of the thread is that you can exchange the cultural abilities (including favored class) of a race for cultural abilities of a different race, provided your DM approves and you do it wholesale. How this could be implemented, yet remain simple is burried deeper in the first post.
The point of the thread is that you can exchange the cultural abilities (including favored class) of a race for cultural abilities of a different race, provided your DM approves and you do it wholesale. How this could be implemented, yet remain simple is burried deeper in the first post.
Right, I get what you're trying to say in the post, I guess what I'm saying is that it still doesn't solve the underlying problem of the preferred class bonus concept. It makes more sense if you set it up as a sort of cultural perogative, where the DM and/or player set up cultural conditions that let their sub-race or whatever lean toward different class preferences, but that doesn't really solve the problem. It just gives you somewhat more justification to ignore it. And if it's a design element that is so unweildy that you're putting in an option to ignore it right out of the gate, why have it in the first place? Why not find a better solution to the problem?
-Steve
As a followup: my personal preference is to pair down the abilities of the different races, and set up a bank of racial traits (or feats) that you can pick from. These traits would scew toward either general bonuses (such as the traditional +1 against goblinoids) or class specific bonuses that matched with the races' "preferred" classes.
I think the only question becomes what to do with the generalist races, such as half-elves or humans. Anyone have some ideas?
-Steve
Racial Traits = interesting option but also increases paperwork
Switch to racial feats = choice of taking a certain type of feat when you take a feat, no extra feat, just the option to take the feat
Previous favored class mechanic = multiclassing XP penalty waived, didn't matter with characters with just the one class or one class + favored class or favored class + prestige class or one class + prestige class or one class + X number of prestige classes or favored class + X number of prestige classes
You're also forgetting 2+ classes within one level of each other.
The racial traits option does not add any extra paper work if the starting default abilities are reduced, and a set of choices made available from a bank of options. Essentially, you're already writing down that a gnome has the spell-like ability to cast prestidigitation. Now instead of writing that down, you might write down that he gets +1 DC to illusions or something like that (to pick a bad example off the top of my head) assuming you picked that trait.
-Steve
|
|
From an optomization perspective, it only makes sense to use the classes that races are optomized to take.Then that means the rule is doing its job. There will always be optimizers, and there will always be those who want to try something unusual. For some, the strangeness is its own reward.
It's even more severe than the old XP penalty, since that didn't even apply to single-class PCs.I would hardly call 1 point/level severe. 20%?, that's harsh.
a gnome wizard gets less hit points and/or skill points then an elf wizardExcept that the elf has a Con penalty. I expect most elven wizards would choose the extra hit points to offset this. The gnome has a Con bonus, and doesn't need to do that in the first place. Also, if you really are set on playing a gnome arcanist, but still want to take advantage of a favored class, you can choose to play a sorcerer, and with Pathfinder you can use the Arcane bloodline. If that doesn't work, and you really must be a gnome wizard, you'll do it anyway. Once again, the rule is doing its job.
QFT. :)
|
|
QFT. :)
Thanks for the validation.
I just want to clarify something. I realize that the original purpose of the rule was to curb multiclassing. I also realize that Jason & Co. are trying to make the classes attractive enough to make that redundant. My purpose, and the reason I want to keep the rule, is a secondary effect of encouraging classic archetypes. When I refer to rule as "doing its job," this is the effect I'm referring to.
Also, I'm all for DMs who want to adjust the favored classes to fit their own campaigns. It lets the players know what kinds of PCs are going to be appropriate for the campaign.
I just want to clarify something. I realize that the original purpose of the rule was to curb multiclassing. I also realize that Jason & Co. are trying to make the classes attractive enough to make that redundant. My purpose, and the reason I want to keep the rule, is a secondary effect of encouraging classic archetypes. When I refer to rule as "doing its job," this is the effect I'm referring to.
Also, I'm all for DMs who want to adjust the favored classes to fit their own campaigns. It lets the players know what kinds of PCs are going to be appropriate for the campaign.
It's not necessary. Why encourage the archetypes this way when the ability scores of the races, and their accompanying features, can accomplish that more effectively and flavorfully? The encouragement becomes a straightjacket.
It seems like you agree that the classes have been modified enough to encourage people to follow through with 20 levels of them. If that's the case, aren't there better ways to encourage stereotyping?
-Steve
|
|
I just want to clarify something. I realize that the original purpose of the rule was to curb multiclassing. I also realize that Jason & Co. are trying to make the classes attractive enough to make that redundant. My purpose, and the reason I want to keep the rule, is a secondary effect of encouraging classic archetypes. When I refer to rule as "doing its job," this is the effect I'm referring to.
Also, I'm all for DMs who want to adjust the favored classes to fit their own campaigns. It lets the players know what kinds of PCs are going to be appropriate for the campaign.
It's not necessary. Why encourage the archetypes this way when the ability scores of the races, and their accompanying features, can accomplish that more effectively and flavorfully? The encouragement becomes a straightjacket.
It seems like you agree that the classes have been modified enough to encourage people to follow through with 20 levels of them. If that's the case, aren't there better ways to encourage stereotyping?
-Steve
I don't think the impact of favored classes is as significant as you do. It's a simple rule, and one that applies each and every level. But sure, I'll discuss other ideas. It's important (to me) that any replacement rule is simple and consistent throughout a PC's career, and doesn't require too large a sacrifice of other options.
Racial traits are a given, but race is a one-time choice. Racial feats are a neat idea, but they have to be just as good or better than general feats to encourage a player to take them. I see a bigger danger of power creep here than with one point per level. Substitution levels might have the same problem, and are even more complicated to implement. Racial prestige classes might encourage a PC to stay on track long enough to qualify, but again, they need to be attractive enough without significant power creep.In the interest of moving this conversation forward, I do have a suggestion. Perhaps, at some point in a PC's career, he can begin to gestalt with one of his favored classes. I've tried this in my home campaign, and it doesn't cause any trouble for my group. I require a PC to be multiclassed normally at Favored Class 2/Any Class 2. At fifth level, he can advance as a gestalt. Further multiclassing results in leaving both classes in the gestalt. This preserves some of the flavor of the old 3.5SRD favored class rule, and doesn't penalize single classers of any class or race.
Just to toss something out there.
I don't think the impact of favored classes is as significant as you do.
Lets set the impact of the actual mechanism aside for a second. Any change to the system, particularly a net power increase, should be justified. What is the benefit to the game of encouraging archtypical class/ race combinations?
As far as I am concerned there is no benefit to this. Players will play archetypes, they did under 3.5, they will under Paizo. Why do we need a rule to encourage it?
|
|
What is the benefit to the game of encouraging archtypical class/ race combinations?
As far as I am concerned there is no benefit to this.
When you ask a question, then answer it yourself, you basically announce that you're done listening to other opinions. That's fine. We've both had our say on the topic. I'm still in favor of it, or something like it. You think it's unnecessary. Neither one of us is going to budge, so I think it's best just to move on.
I don't think the impact of favored classes is as significant as you do.Lets set the impact of the actual mechanism aside for a second. Any change to the system, particularly a net power increase, should be justified. What is the benefit to the game of encouraging archtypical class/ race combinations?
As far as I am concerned there is no benefit to this. Players will play archetypes, they did under 3.5, they will under Paizo. Why do we need a rule to encourage it?
I have to agree with Dennis here.
If doing something different from the archetype was wrong, then there should be some rules to guide players to do the right thing. But I don't see going off the beaten path as being "wrong" and thus, do not see the reason of being penalized (even if the penalty is not to have a bonus).
I think the whole concept of favored classes should be introduces more subtly. Racial feats can be fun (especially if they are available after 1st level) and designer can orient them in any direction they want.
There has to be more options and already, I've been reading some promising ideas.