It would seem that Halflings have lost their bonus on thrown weapons. I am sure this is an oversight, but this really should be added back in.
in its place they gain keen senses
which i think is more logical than an attack bonusi would leave them as they are
They had a racial bonuson Listen before. Besides, backward compatibility says that the racial bonuses should stick around. (Otherwise I'd still be lobbying for Dwarven and Gnomish Hatred/Defensive Training to go away).
Director of Games
|
Hey there all,
This one got cut on purpose, just to bring up this issue. Should these bonuses (along with the dwarven and gnomish hatreds/trainings) be cut. They are some of the most forgotten rules in the game, imo, and could probably go. That said, I understand that these border on sacred cow territory, so I am definitely open to debate.
Thoughts
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
For my money, the small, conditional abilities are unnecessary and just make the race seem cluttered. The primary purpose of racial abilities is to give you the flavor of the race, and if you can do that with four or five things rather than ten or twelve, so much the better.
I agree that the gnome's and the dwarf's racial enemy stuff could easily be made into into feats (that most people wouldn't take).
I kind of liked the halfling's bonus with thrown weapons, but I suppose that could be made into a racial feat, too.
Should these bonuses (along with the dwarven and gnomish hatreds/trainings) be cut.
Please don't cut them - and it would be good to have the halfling bonus restored. They are indeed often forgotten, but they can make a very nice difference at the early levels when you are generally fighting those types of creatures.
Also when someone actually uses the ability routinely, it tends to be remembered quite well. It's just the occasional use that suffers forgetting, and that's okay. I would say Dodge has been forgotten far more often than these.
|
I would leave in the halfling bonus for thrown weapons, because it's backwards compatable, ties the halfling race to its fictional origins, and is a bonus that makes the class beneficial -- when you look at the racial advantages of elves or dwarves, halflings often come up short. There's no need to pare them back further.
I've had a number of players play halflings and remember and enjoy this bonus -- it would be a shame to remove it.
Hey there all,
This one got cut on purpose, just to bring up this issue. Should these bonuses (along with the dwarven and gnomish hatreds/trainings) be cut. They are some of the most forgotten rules in the game, imo, and could probably go. That said, I understand that these border on sacred cow territory, so I am definitely open to debate.
Thoughts
I've always liked these different racial traits, because they gave flavor to the classes. That said, a +4 to AC against giants always seemed very powerful to me, albeit a niche and highly conditional ability.
Ultimately, I think I would be sad to see them go, but I'm not sure if it's because of the flavor or because of tradition. I will say this: in the games I DM (6 players) noone ever forgets these bonuses, and my players take real relish when going up against their traditional foes (I have a dwarven player that rubs his hands with glee when he meets an ogre). They would not be happy to lose them.
-Steve
|
This one got cut on purpose, just to bring up this issue. Should these bonuses (along with the dwarven and gnomish hatreds/trainings) be cut. They are some of the most forgotten rules in the game, imo, and could probably go. That said, I understand that these border on sacred cow territory, so I am definitely open to debate.
I like the racial bonuses staying in line with the 3.5 versions, even though it means tracking a few more things I'd hate to see these rules get TOO streamlined. I know it's easy to forget random modifiers, but for the races especially I like having something that differentiates them other than everyone having a slightly different bonus to Perception, etc.
Also, very minor point, I'd like to see the "Hatred" ability renamed "Racial Enmity" or something similar.
This one got cut on purpose, just to bring up this issue. Should these bonuses (along with the dwarven and gnomish hatreds/trainings) be cut. They are some of the most forgotten rules in the game, imo, and could probably go. That said, I understand that these border on sacred cow territory, so I am definitely open to debate.I like the racial bonuses staying in line with the 3.5 versions, even though it means tracking a few more things I'd hate to see these rules get TOO streamlined. I know it's easy to forget random modifiers, but for the races especially I like having something that differentiates them other than everyone having a slightly different bonus to Perception, etc.
Also, very minor point, I'd like to see the "Hatred" ability renamed "Racial Enmity" or something similar.
Yeah, "Hatred" does sound kind of... Sith...
[edit] Then again, "racial emnity" can be misinterpreted too...
-steve
Totally new to these boards, and I'm sorry to jump in with possibly more unpopular opinion--scrap'em all--halfling thrown weapons, dwarven and gnomish racial hatred bonuses.
Apart from the AC bonus vs giants, the bonuses in question are all +1 -- not that big a deal unless maybe you're a 1st level character. They're often forgotten, adding oft-overlooked statline noise.
I don't like the racial hatred bits because
1) It assumes something about "training" that may not fit every dwarf/gnome backstory. Fact I don't imagine my world's rather magical gnomes training in martial fighting versus much of anything unless one individually sought it out. Might be different for Pathfinder's world, but I imagine there are some folks like me who are thinking of using the Pathfinder revisions for their homebrew 3.5 campaigns.
2) It's a feature that may not come up much, especially if the GM has specific plans for his campaign. What's a gnome/dwarf going to do with that bonus in an urban adventure where savage races don't live in the city? A seafaring adventure? A desert adventure? Or even just a high-level adventure where the GM has moved away from "grunt" races like goblins (not to say there aren't cool things you can't do with high level goblins, but just looking at the stereotypical uses for them). Unlike, say... Stonecunning. It's a nicely "flavored" ability, and though it isn't going to come up ALL the time, it's much more likely that at some point it will be useful in judging that piece of craftsmanship/architecture or finding a secret door, etc. And if you look at racial features like bonus skill points or extra feats, and that little conditonal +1 looks pretty darn useless.
The thrown weapon bonus for halflings is much less flavor-of-adventure dependent and therefore a little better off, though it kind of pigeonholes halflings a little into what weapon they might use. They'll either use nothing but thrown weapons, or not and have an extraneous racial ability thrown around that's again never useable.
That said, if I were to keep some and not others, I'd actually do the opposite of what the Beta shows--KEEP halfling thrown bonuses, but get rid of the racial enmity.
Or maybe make the halfling thrown bonuses more like elven weapon proficiencies where you have a choice in what you might get a bonus to use (e.g., thrown dagger or melee dagger).
As for backward compatibility, I don't see that little +1 bonus being that much of a gamestopper. And for converting NPCs over--how much have racial hatred bonuses ever been useful to an NPC?
That said, it's not like I'd throw a hissy fit if the bonuses stayed in. :) Just don't think they're very good racial features, compared to others.
This one got cut on purpose, just to bring up this issue. Should these bonuses (along with the dwarven and gnomish hatreds/trainings) be cut. They are some of the most forgotten rules in the game, imo, and could probably go. That said, I understand that these border on sacred cow territory, so I am definitely open to debate.
I would love to cut the Gnome/Dwarf bonuses. The Orc/Goblin/Reptilian ones are often forgotten and don't matter much at high levels, while the Giant one is so huge my players never forgot it. Giants might as well not bother trying to hit armored dwarves. These bonuses also rely on cultural issues that may or may not actually apply to a given character.
However, I'd like to keep the halfling bonus. Since it applies all the time (not just against some foes), it's usually written down on the character sheet/stat block and therefore not forgotten.
Lots of halfling PCs use slings or thrown daggers instead of bows because of the bonus, and that racial difference would go away if the halfling bonus did. Dwarves and Gnomes very rarely refuse to fight anything but goblins.
I don't want these abilities to go away. I do not believe that they are so often overlooked...at least they have not been in any of the groups I've played in or DM'd.
The halfling thrown weapon bonus in particular is always written into the stat block on our character sheets, just like Weapon Focus would be, so it's never forgotten since it's already added in.
As for the others, I don't think they're forgotten all the time...well, at least not in my groups. Others may vary, of course. But I think taking them away is not the right choice. IMO this version of D&D/Pathfinder is still all about options and choices...and taking these things away is the removal of those options/choices.
|
Hey there all,
This one got cut on purpose, just to bring up this issue. Should these bonuses (along with the dwarven and gnomish hatreds/trainings) be cut. They are some of the most forgotten rules in the game, imo, and could probably go. That said, I understand that these border on sacred cow territory, so I am definitely open to debate.
Thoughts
I've always liked these different racial traits, because they gave flavor to the classes. That said, a +4 to AC against giants always seemed very powerful to me, albeit a niche and highly conditional ability.
Ultimately, I think I would be sad to see them go, but I'm not sure if it's because of the flavor or because of tradition. I will say this: in the games I DM (6 players) noone ever forgets these bonuses, and my players take real relish when going up against their traditional foes (I have a dwarven player that rubs his hands with glee when he meets an ogre). They would not be happy to lose them.
-Steve
Steve this could be one of the bonus Fre Racia feats for Dwarves and gnomes
(in our actual campaign we have agnome Druid that when asked whatthe goblins are saying -he understand thems - he says "i don't care, i hate them, i kill them")
|
|
While I don't want the halflings' Thrown Weapon Bonus cut, I (boldly) suggest (like others before me) that it could be made into a Racial Feat.
I absolutely don't like 'Defensive Training', and Hatred' is a bit boring... how about if you got to choose a monster type these bonuses apply against? Maybe your PC's clan has defended their clan-holds against Aberrations instead of Giants? I think that would add more flavour to these abilities, although I wouldn't mind 'Defensive Training' being cut completely.
Another option would be to give a bunch of "alternative" Racial Abilities, and you pick from them. Or from thematically fitting General Feats... for example, you don't want 'Greed'? Alright, take a Skill Focus (Armorsmith) or Endurance instead.
Thoughts?
I don't think the racial enemy bonuses should be cut.......i understand some people don't use them much but i'm running a game now (crown of the kobold king) where i have a gnomish rogue in the party and the player is role playing his hatred of kobolds perfectly.......in fact he's seriously considering dropping the character after the adventure because of one little kobold who gave up and has the party convinced to "give him a chance"..........what i'm trying to say is it can make for memorable games and adventures if done correctly
Another option would be to give a bunch of "alternative" Racial Abilities, and you pick from them. Or from thematically fitting General Feats... for example, you don't want 'Greed'? Alright, take a Skill Focus (Armorsmith) or Endurance instead.
Thoughts?
I like that idea.
|
Hey there all,
This one got cut on purpose, just to bring up this issue. Should these bonuses (along with the dwarven and gnomish hatreds/trainings) be cut.
Not cut, maybe a Racial Feat where the player chooses a single "racial weapon" to apply Weapon Focus to, and gains +2 instead of +1. That way EVERYBODY can benefit.
I'd like to follow that with the idea that there be a "Halfling Sling" like the War Sling in Races Of The Wild [maybe without the X4 Crit though, seems a bit much] since Slings are so important to Halflings in general.
Small size does grant a +1 ATT anyway, but when you look at the DAM from small weapons, "we" need to be more accurate in order to survive.
As far as Dwarven and Gnomish H/T, I'd like to see it treated like favored enemies, with +2 dodge bonus against selected enemy; so that the type/sub-type can correspond with the backstory of the character.
Cheers
|
|
I don't think the racial enemy bonuses should be cut.......i understand some people don't use them much but i'm running a game now (crown of the kobold king) where i have a gnomish rogue in the party and the player is role playing his hatred of kobolds perfectly.......in fact he's seriously considering dropping the character after the adventure because of one little kobold who gave up and has the party convinced to "give him a chance"..........what i'm trying to say is it can make for memorable games and adventures if done correctly
Letting the player choose the target of his PC's 'Hatred'-ability will only add more options and flexibility to the game, IMO -- and it is completely backward compatible. You can still include the monsters the PC "hates" in your adventures, right? By letting the player choose, it's not just automatically the same kind of creatures every dwarf hates. I think this is also thematically fitting, as some clans may fight aberrations or undead more often than goblinoids or giants ("We have battle the Aboleth for untold millennia, yet I feel no animosity towards them... however, now that I've seen orcs for the first time in my life, my blood is *boiling* with hate!" ;))
Letting the player choose the target of his PC's 'Hatred'-ability will only add more options and flexibility to the game, IMO -- and it is completely backward compatible. You can still include the monsters the PC "hates" in your adventures, right? By letting the player choose, it's not just automatically the same kind of creatures every dwarf hates. I think this is also thematically fitting, as some clans may fight aberrations or undead more often than goblinoids or giants ("We have battle the Aboleth for untold millennia, yet I feel no animosity towards them... however, now that I've seen orcs for the first time in my life, my blood is *boiling* with hate!" ;))
Yep. I've played dwarf rangers with favored enemy (Elf) due to fighting drow.
Steve this could be one of the bonus Fre Racia feats for Dwarves and gnomes
I definately agree. That, or one of the racial traits to be picked at 1st lvl.
-Steve
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I'd also like to see these "cultural" racial abilities become racial feats instead. You could give each race a free racial feat at first level, and they could take the one that matches the current "standard" ability, or another choice instead. Humans would simply keep their current bonus feat that could be anything, keeping them in the flexible role.
This would allow DMs to easily change the culture of a particular racial variant by having say, jungle dwarves, always pick a dwarven racial feat about fighting dinosaurs instead of giants. This would also solve one of the big problems with the reincarnate spell, since you'd keep your feats, any only get the physical traits of the new race you became.
I think we should be careful about getting bogged down in complexity. One of the goals of Pathfinder is to streamline D&D, not make it more difficult.
-Steve
Hmmm... I'm thinking about whether to "relaunch" the Racial Feats-thread or not... Jason and others, how would you feel about it?
I'd be interested in seeing it discussed, if Jason and all are interested in pursuing it.
-Steve
I am in favor of dropping them. If you keep them I do agree that turning them into a racial or cultural feat would be better (give everyone one free one during character creation if one wants). These things are some of the most commonly changed and altered parts in different campaign settings and I think that it would be a good compromise, people can take a feat and keep their character in the classical vein if they want, or they can get something that more matches the character concept they want to create.
1) It assumes something about "training" that may not fit every dwarf/gnome backstory. Fact I don't imagine my world's rather magical gnomes training in martial fighting versus much of anything unless one individually sought it out. Might be different for Pathfinder's world, but I imagine there are some folks like me who are thinking of using the Pathfinder revisions for their homebrew 3.5 campaigns.
There is definitely 'cultural' stuff in there which fits well in the Pathfinder world... but also has history in D&D in general. If we were talking about rules that Paizo created to support Pathfinder then I might agree with you but all of these rules have history in the game. The core rules are not meant to be a straight jacket, they are meant to be a foundation for DMs to work from. In my campaign world gnomes and elves have been having a silent war for years and neither has encountered orcs or kobolds in some time. I'm considering replacing gnome hatred for kobolds with hatred for elves.
House ruling is not a crime.
Hey there all,
This one got cut on purpose, just to bring up this issue. Should these bonuses (along with the dwarven and gnomish hatreds/trainings) be cut. They are some of the most forgotten rules in the game, imo, and could probably go. That said, I understand that these border on sacred cow territory, so I am definitely open to debate.
Thoughts
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I say cut them, and the dwarven and gnomish hatreds/trainings. Having a long list of racial adjustments just doesn't appeal to me. I'd rather have a shorter list of significant traits that help define the races than a long list that really starts to look hodgepodge.
House ruling is not a crime.
Yes, but it also shouldn't be the norm. If you build the rules right, most people should be able to take them as they are, and they should make sense. Here, they kinda don't, a lot of the time. What if you played a dwarf who grew up orphaned in a human city? Where would he have the opportunity to learn special techniques against giants? Why would he bother to learn them? Certainly, one could craft answers to these questions to explain the bonuses away, but they very well might not apply.
The races should be a foundation on which the other character-creation rules build. If your dwarf is especially good at killing giants, perhaps he took a feat for it. My dwarf, on the other hand, has never met a giant in his life, nor plans to, and devoted his efforts towards tending the sick (Skill Focus: Heal). This works much better than having to carve parts out of your dwarf race to suit each individual situations.
Why not get rid of races completely.
Let each player make his own race. Everyone gets two +2 ability mods and one -2 ability mod. Then they can each choose four racial features from a menu of available features.
There you have it, any kind of race at all.
With no color, fluff, history, style, or tradition.
Or... The DM could change any racial feature to accomodate a character that is an exception to the standard.
-Jack
|
|
I am of two minds.
On one hand I say cut them. These kind of traits are one of those things that get houseruled all of the time.
On the other hand, I say keep them for the sake of tradition.
I don't think it has be an either/or situation. As many have already suggested, turn them into racial feats or traits of some kind. Let players choose what kind of training they have had over the years. That way, a player can create the old standby character of race X raised outside of their normal racial community without trying to justify a laundry list of odd racial traits in-game.
House ruling is not a crime.Yes, but it also shouldn't be the norm. If you build the rules right, most people should be able to take them as they are, and they should make sense. Here, they kinda don't, a lot of the time. What if you played a dwarf who grew up orphaned in a human city? Where would he have the opportunity to learn special techniques against giants? Why would he bother to learn them? Certainly, one could craft answers to these questions to explain the bonuses away, but they very well might not apply.
The races should be a foundation on which the other character-creation rules build. If your dwarf is especially good at killing giants, perhaps he took a feat for it. My dwarf, on the other hand, has never met a giant in his life, nor plans to, and devoted his efforts towards tending the sick (Skill Focus: Heal). This works much better than having to carve parts out of your dwarf race to suit each individual situations.
I guess that depends on the setting. Should you make rules that are suited for dwarves that are raised by humans or should you make rules that are suited for 99.999% of dwarves and make an exception (house rule) for dwarves that are in that .001%?
If you start separating the cultural stuff from the actual physical stuff then you suddenly find very sparse racial entries. Dwarves would lose not just the hatred and defensive training but likely Greed, Weapon Familiarity, Stone Cunning, plus all of their languages except common. Elves are similarly affected.
I suppose you could separate the cultural aspects entirely but then suddenly you have to rewrite every single race entry and you lose many of the benefits of the individual races. So I don't know, how far do you want to take it, how much cultural stuff would you remove?
So I don't know, how far do you want to take it, how much cultural stuff would you remove?
My preference would be getting to choose your race and your culture, but that's obviously too big a rewrite. As such, I'd just remove stuff like "hatred" and maybe "Weapon familiarity/proficiency" and other things like that on the far end of "cultural specific," beef them up a bit, and then turn them into worthwhile feats.
So I don't know, how far do you want to take it, how much cultural stuff would you remove?My preference would be getting to choose your race and your culture, but that's obviously too big a rewrite. As such, I'd just remove stuff like "hatred" and maybe "Weapon familiarity/proficiency" and other things like that on the far end of "cultural specific," beef them up a bit, and then turn them into worthwhile feats.
I'm not sure what I think about this. What makes a dwarf a dwarf? Is it a set of racial stats that represent some the physical aspects of the race or is there more to it?
I can almost see this but I really think that characters (even humans) should have a set of cultural 'traits'. Some of those traits should be assigned by default in the core setting so that DMs who don't want to bother building an entire campaign setting can just use those default racial traits.
A campaign setting or a DM could provide an alternate set of racial traits based on regions, class, clans, or religions but I think it's important that a core set of cultural traits be there for the 'lazy' DMs out there.
Alternately if the 'traits' system from the Pathfinder APs were rolled into the core system I wouldn't mind seeing the racial traits rolled into those that players could use as 'optional' racial traits.
As it stands right now, I say that we should retain racial combat bonuses. If you have a special character or a campaign where these bonuses need to be changed, then make the appropriate modifications accordingly.
As it stands right now, I say that we should retain racial combat bonuses. If you have a special character or a campaign where these bonuses need to be changed, then make the appropriate modifications accordingly.
I totally agree.
Keep the bonusses and add the halfling throwing weapons please.As for bookkeeping......no hussle for me :)
You just need to write it down. Just little writings near the apropriate base value on you PC-sheet
|
|
My standard wish for this racial stuff is the same as it was back in Alpha 1.
Have each racial ability listed in a column, with the ones at the top being inherent, and the ones at the bottom being italicized and defined as cultural.
Dwarf
+2 This, +2 That, -2 The Other
Slow runner
Sees good in the dark
hates goblins
good with metalcrafting
Elf
+2 in X, +2 in Y, -2 in Z
Sees good in the dark
trained with swords and bows
At the beginning of the chapter on races can be the following sentences;
Some racial abilities are inherent, these are listed first. Other traits are the result of training and culture, and may vary by culture, region and individual character backstory, these abilities are italicized and future products may offer regional variants.
So a new product could come out six months later with;
Savage Elves
+2 X, +2 Y, -2 Z
Sees good in the dark
trained in spears and bows
Arctic Dwarves
+2 This, +2 That, -2 The Other
Slow runner
Sees good in the dark
hates yeti
skilled at survival & tracking
So the Gnomish and Dwarvish 'hatreds' can count as cultural, and options might exist to swap them out, in later books, to represent civilized Gnomes that grew up hearing stories about Kobolds, but have never seen one (let alone trained to fight them) or Elves who think that metal weapons are soulless crude things of ironmongery, and prefer weapons of stone, bone, leather and wood.
I'd rather see a list of selectable racial traits provided in the description of each race (like the way rogue talents are part of the rogue instead of 'rogue feats'). That keeps the Feats chapter from getting bogged down in long lists of new feats. Just add one new feat that lets a character select an additional racial trait.
this sounds good in theory, i just wonder how easy it will be too balance them for feat purposes. i'd hate to see great flavour lost to efficiency choices. but definitely worth exploring.
fwiw i'd keep the halfling thown bonus (played a halfling wizard who definitely remembered it at low levels) and change the hatreds to a favoured enemy type bonus allowing backwards compatability AND customisation....
|
I play a halfling rogue/fighter/dervish in my friend's campaign, using PRPG rules for rogue and fighter levels. I had to redo the dervish skills list, and settled to the following: (let me know what you think)
Dervish class skills: Acrobatics, Craft, Escape Artist, Knowledge (dungeoneering), Knowledge (geography), Knowledge (local), Linguistics, Perception, Perform, Profession, Swim
I know it won't affect me much as this character is melee-based, but I was kinda bummed out to discover they don't get their +1 on thrown weapons anymore (don't care much about slings, but I've always made heavy use of that racial trait with thrown daggers and thrown alchemist fire / holy water vials...)
Is Paizo thinking of putting the +1 to thrown weapons back?
I'm not so sure about the other racial traits, but I know that the halflings throwing trait should stay. The only time I see anyone using thrown weapons is when they are playing a halfling. Otherwise bows are the order of the day due to better range, damage, and ease of use (and it's better to enchant a bow so the arrow is none magical, than it is to have magical throwing weapons used against you after you throw them).
