Something that's been bothering but I've had little hope of effecting, how do we feel about that second +2 to an ability that the races get? I mean, the reason given is that it balances the core races against noncore races, right? Well... which races, specifically, are so much more powerful than the core races?
|
Something that's been bothering but I've had little hope of effecting, how do we feel about that second +2 to an ability that the races get? I mean, the reason given is that it balances the core races against noncore races, right? Well... which races, specifically, are so much more powerful than the core races?
I dunno if it's so much to balance the fact that non-core races are more powerful, I think it's more of a minor boost in power so that those borderline LA+1 (Aasimar, Hobgoblin, and Tiefling are the main three that come to mind) races could instead be dropped down to LA+0 and used in normal gameplay without much fuss.
I have one player who really enjoys playing Hobgoblins but doesn't like being limited/penalized by doing so (due to their level adjustment). With the current racial ability modifier setup it's much easier justifying him playing a LA+1 race (which I'd now treat as LA+0) without feeling left behind.
This is just my take on it, of course. So your mileage may of course vary.
If I were forced to choose one bonus to a stat I'd just leave it up to the player. If they want to play the typical strong half-orc let 'em, but if they choose to play a wise half-orc let 'em have at it. Choice is never a bad thing in that respect.
In general, I don't recall any races that I would call stronger than the core races. I've just assumed that the intention was that some races outside the core were better at certain classes (spellcasters specifically when other races have mental bonuses) and that the goal was to make sure that the core races would not be worse than other races for those classes. I'm could definitely be wrong on this though.
I have no real idea what to say on dropping it or keeping it. Maybe make it a choice of a single bonus, either mental or physical. I'm not exactly sure what is the best choice.
Well... which races, specifically, are so much more powerful than the core races?
Only one that comes to mind offhand for me is whisper gnome... That said, I like the power boost for the core races. Especially elves. Now elves really can be the best mages, instead of humans. Sure, humans get that extra feat, but elves can punch through SR better than anyone now.
Something that's been bothering but I've had little hope of effecting, how do we feel about that second +2 to an ability that the races get? I mean, the reason given is that it balances the core races against noncore races, right? Well... which races, specifically, are so much more powerful than the core races?
The ones that came to my mind were whisper gnomes, any race that boosts a spell-casting stat (gray elves, sun elves, spellscales), and maybe +0 LA races that aren't of type Humanoid (warforged!, elans, those Outsider frog dudes from the Planar Handbook, the Fey creatures from Magic of Incarnum and Races of the Wild).
I don't really get a bee in my bonnet about an extra +2 since I generally play with point buy stats generation; I can always reduce the point buy to compensate for the extra "free" +2.
Fixing overpowered races and classes by boosting up everything else really doesn't seem to be a good idea to me. That's why I started to ignore the first chapters of the alphas and the beta alltogether and review and test the other chapters by themselves. There's some cool stuff to be found there, but the changes to races and classes seem unneccessary and not improving anything to me, and if it does not turn out much better, don't fix it.
I like the boost myself but YMMV
|
|
we oly use point buy so the second +2 levels the characters to normal
alsoafter dealing as a DM with normal races and Aasimar, Genasi and Tieflings
i would say that they now are more or less balanced, and since abckwards compatibility is what is part of what islooked for, and they arenot messing with this races (which many players took at heart since Forgotten Realms Campaing Setting for 3.0, i would say leave it)
also it adds a bitmore of customization for human an half-elves that i really like, making this 2 clases non-standard (making every human and hhalf-elf different in some basic level just for this)
So are I right in saying that other than the Whisper Gnome and the Grey Elf (both of whom are almost always considered to be overpowered), there isn't much reason for this other than that you guys just like having the extra bonus +2?
|
So are I right in saying that other than the Whisper Gnome and the Grey Elf (both of whom are almost always considered to be overpowered), there isn't much reason for this other than that you guys just like having the extra bonus +2?
Well that and if you want the Pathfinder point buy to work out the same as the Old 3.5 one.
So are I right in saying that other than the Whisper Gnome and the Grey Elf (both of whom are almost always considered to be overpowered), there isn't much reason for this other than that you guys just like having the extra bonus +2?
Definitely add warforged to that list.
But certainly the addition of crappy new races in various WotC products doesn't affect balance one way or the other; it's just a certain subset that are good enough to throw balance out of whack.
Definitely add warforged to that list.
But certainly the addition of crappy new races in various WotC products doesn't affect balance one way or the other; it's just a certain subset that are good enough to throw balance out of whack.
The warforged are not overpowered. Good, but not too good.
I still don't like the power creep, especially when it involves bonuses to mental scores at LA+0.
The warforged are not overpowered. Good, but not too good.
A gazillion racial features (no sleeping, no eating, no breathing, etc.) makes them better than every 3.5 PHB race in my book. YMMV, of course.
A gazillion racial features (no sleeping, no eating, no breathing, etc.) makes them better than every 3.5 PHB race in my book. YMMV, of course.
He's got some immunities, sure, but most of them are to fairly uncommon things, and he gets added vulnerability to a couple (admittedly uncommon) spells as well. Plus, no natural healing and half-healing from cure spells, unbalanced ability mods, no ability to gain dragonmarks, and being the target of bigotry that the rest of the races are unlikely to encounter (he's meant for use in Eberron, remember, and his is the only race that is pretty much universally sneered at, with the possible exception of Shifters) make him pretty well balanced in my book. He also has to pick what armor he'll wear for the rest of his career at first level and can't take it off afterward. All in all, it's not all roses to be a warforged. Not having to sleep is nice, but there are plenty of races which only need 4 hours of "meditation," which, to me, implies they can still keep watch. He's certainly not substantially better at, say, being a Fighter than a human, even before the extra +2.
I still don't like the power creep, especially when it involves bonuses to mental scores at LA+0.Several people posting in this thread have already said they've crunched the numbers and found that 3.5 characters and PRPG characters end up with nearly identical ability score arrays. So please explain what power creep you are talking about. Subtracting 2 points from every character during ability score generation and then adding 2 points to every race equals a net gain of 0.
Not everyone's going to use Pathfinder pointbuy. 4d6 drop lowest hasn't changed, and plenty of groups have their own method.
|
|
I still don't like the power creep, especially when it involves bonuses to mental scores at LA+0.Several people posting in this thread have already said they've crunched the numbers and found that 3.5 characters and PRPG characters end up with nearly identical ability score arrays. So please explain what power creep you are talking about. Subtracting 2 points from every character during ability score generation and then adding 2 points to every race equals a net gain of 0.
that is not exactly true
even beginning with 10 in every skill and 3.5 with 8, the cost to geta 18 in an attribute (for example) is more in pathfinder (17 vs 16)but you are elft with just 8 points, while in 3.5 you are left with 16
this is justan example to expose how more expensive is pointbuy in pathfinder... i am not against it, none at all, even being player (i will just prefer 25 than 20 points, buti digress), but to be equal the +2 of the races is indeed necesary, already did a frew characters myself andhelped other persons to do the same.
]Not everyone's going to use Pathfinder pointbuy. 4d6 drop lowest hasn't changed, and plenty of groups have their own method.
certainly this is true, butremmber those in organiced games (not me) and those DM that try to have their player in equality of circumstances (yes iam that kind of evil, but already decided that my online campaigns are point boy, i won't trust evenmyself not to reroll)
I'm not crazy happy as my players are with the added +2... But it certainly balances out the big difference with Powerful races. I can't stand goliaths!!! love'em but honestly all their abilities are quite beyond the +1 LA but not good enough to get a LA+2. So I think all in all the best way is not to modify all the races with LAs but to increase a bit the power of core classes.
Still the human remains the underdog!!! power to the humans!!!
Like Montalve said, Pathfinder's pointbuy system is more expensive than SRD.
(and sure, you can roll however you want, but PFS is pointbuy at least)
Allowing Humans a single +2 mean that double +2's are necessary to give a meaningful build-boost to non-Humans (since any one attribute can be matched by Humans, and 18+2->20 scores are so much more expensive than SRD anyways)
Humans rock anyhow, now they get a +2 boost, while not having any negatives, on top of their free Feat, weapon prof, and skills. Honestly, I think the weakest race overall now is the Half-Elf, though their Enchantment resistances can (not dependably) prevent Save-or-Die effects and they can qualify for Elf Feats if they're Elf-socialized at all.
I would say that if Favored-Class is removed or made a free choice not dependent on Race, the Half-Elf should get a few more minor bonuses, like a 2nd extra class skill (they have lived longer than Humans) or +2 to a Saving Throw of choice.
Like Montalve said, Pathfinder's pointbuy system is more expensive than SRD.
(and sure, you can roll however you want, but PFS is pointbuy at least)Allowing Humans a single +2 mean that double +2's are necessary to give a meaningful build-boost to non-Humans (since any one attribute can be matched by Humans, and 18+2->20 scores are so much more expensive than SRD anyways)
Aye, no more +2 to humans, but more crunchi racial flavor for them!!!
Aye, no more +2 to humans, but more crunchi racial flavor for them!!!
Well, I agree with the racial flavor, though I think that's best added via the various ethnicities, which are setting-dependent. I see the single +2 going hand in hand with the more expensive point-buy.
Like Montalve said, Pathfinder's pointbuy system is more expensive than SRD.
(and sure, you can roll however you want, but PFS is pointbuy at least)
"PFS" means "Pathfinder standard"? If so, you can't make that assumption. The book itself doesn't say anything to that effect, and in fact lists 4d6 drop lowest as just another method you can use.
"PFS" means "Pathfinder standard"? If so, you can't make that assumption. The book itself doesn't say anything to that effect, and in fact lists 4d6 drop lowest as just another method you can use.Like Montalve said, Pathfinder's pointbuy system is more expensive than SRD.
(and sure, you can roll however you want, but PFS is pointbuy at least)
No, it's "Pathfinder Society" organized play. But I agree that it's just another method you can use.
|
|
"PFS" means "Pathfinder standard"? If so, you can't make that assumption. The book itself doesn't say anything to that effect, and in fact lists 4d6 drop lowest as just another method you can use.Like Montalve said, Pathfinder's pointbuy system is more expensive than SRD.
(and sure, you can roll however you want, but PFS is pointbuy at least)
PFS means Pathfinder Society I would assume (which uses point buy).
|
|
Something that's been bothering but I've had little hope of effecting, how do we feel about that second +2 to an ability that the races get? I mean, the reason given is that it balances the core races against noncore races, right? Well... which races, specifically, are so much more powerful than the core races?
I think its a great way to make the core races on par (if a little more appealing) with the non-core races that have been released over the years.
It makes players want to play the original races of the D&D game, which i consider a good thing.
If you (or another) are uncomfortable with it, you could always remove it for your players, or an easier answer would be have your character generation be 2 points less on the character attribute building.
Regardless if you roll 4d6 - which I believe rolling for stats has changed to be the minority among gamers over the years - the organized play is all point-buy based - and in this instance, the stats are on par for the character overall power considering their point-buy system is not according to the SRD of 3.5 either.
Robert
I think its a great way to make the core races on par (if a little more appealing) with the non-core races that have been released over the years.
I feel that if this is really just a myth, when you get right down to it. There are a few notable exceptions, but I haven't really seen very many LA+0 races around that are much more powerful than the core races, and anything with LA is probably a mistake (largely because the LA system is kinda shoehorned into the game. Though, the core races shouldn't be trying to compete with LA races anyway). I mean, I asked for examples and the only ones anyone was able to provide were the grey elf (which is notorious), the whisper gnome (which is from a frankly rather obscure supplement, as I recall), and the warforged (which I dispute). Wouldn't it be better to fix the grey elf and whisper gnome (likely just by ditching them, since I don't really see what they add to the game anyway)? The alternative is to power up every single other race (since the power of LA+0 effects the power of LA+1, and so on). That just strikes me as bad mojo.
Also, to address the pointbuy thing: if it all ends up the same anyway, then all you've done is forced the player to choose their abilities in an even more specific way. If you're an Elf and you want to play a fighter, you're even more gimped because not only are you playing against type, but even the pointbuy system is against you!
Also the "lesser X" from Player's Guide to Faerun. Well, not all of them, maybe (I haven't looked at all of them recently) but aasimar at least are better at LA 0 than core 3.5 races (except possibly humans in feat-tight builds).
If you're an Elf and you want to play a fighter, you're even more gimped because not only are you playing against type, but even the pointbuy system is against you!
See, this I don't get. Just because someone else gets an extremely mild bonus (and let's be clear -- a +2 to a single stat is not a huge advantage), that doesn't mean that you're being "gimped".
That being said, I wouldn't cry if all of the mental stat bonuses were removed from the races. But I think it should be decided once and for all -- is a +2 to a casting stat allowable for a +0 LA race?
Personally, I had my questions about a couple of them at first... particularly the half orc's wisdom (but I've grown to actually appreciate the insight into that now), but I honestly really like the second +2 bonuses... it adds just enough difference to the flavor of Pathfinder without making it non-backwards compat. (okay, so alot of these elves are a bit more this than those elves... no big deal)
I am very fond of the +2 wherever bonus for Humans and half elves.
So, I have no personal complaints here... but as always, appreciative of other's insights into the game.
Personally, I had my questions about a couple of them at first... particularly the half orc's wisdom (but I've grown to actually appreciate the insight into that now), but I honestly really like the second +2 bonuses... it adds just enough difference to the flavor of Pathfinder without making it non-backwards compat. (okay, so alot of these elves are a bit more this than those elves... no big deal)
I am very fond of the +2 wherever bonus for Humans and half elves.
So, I have no personal complaints here... but as always, appreciative of other's insights into the game.
I'm not too keen on the ability score breakdown as given in Beta (in particular, the CHA bonuses and penalties).
My simple, proposed changes are:
Dwarves: +2 to CON, +2 to WIS (strong-willed and tough), -2 to DEX (short-legged and stoutly built).
Favored class: Fighter or Cleric.
Elves: +2 to DEX, +2 to INT (Graceful and learned), -2 to CON (slight of build).
Favored class: Ranger or Wizard.
Gnomes: +2 to CON, +2 to WIS (surprisingly tough and attuned to the surroundings... intuitive/perceptive), -2 to STR (their size limits their strength).
Favored class: Bard (for backward compatibility) or Druid... like the Pathfinder iconic druid.
These changes are more in line with the fey background of gnomes in Pathfinder.
Half-Elves: +2 to any one ability score.
Favored class: Any
Half Orc: +2 to any one ability score (just like half-elves and humans).
Favored class: Barbarian or Druid.
Halflings: +2 to DEX, +2 to CHA (Nimble and persuasive, halflings are well-received in most societies), -2 to STR (their size limits their strength).
Favored class: Rogue or Bard (tricksters, charlatans, gypsy performers,etc).
Humans: +2 to any one ability score.
Favored class: Any
To be honest, giving a CHA bonus to halflings still bothers me a bit, I just can't imagine another "mental" ability score that would replace it. WIS was my original choice BUT it doesn't fit with the new-fangled halflings (who are more like kender than Tolkien halflings).
|
|
I think its a great way to make the core races on par (if a little more appealing) with the non-core races that have been released over the years.I feel that if this is really just a myth, when you get right down to it. There are a few notable exceptions, but I haven't really seen very many LA+0 races around that are much more powerful than the core races,
For the record, I said more appealing - not more powerful. They may seem more powerful - which would be part of the appeal for many.
and anything with LA is probably a mistake (largely because the LA system is kinda shoehorned into the game. Though, the core races shouldn't be trying to compete with LA races anyway). I mean, I asked for examples and the only ones anyone was able to provide were the grey elf (which is notorious), the whisper gnome (which is from a frankly rather obscure supplement, as I recall), and the warforged (which I dispute). Wouldn't it be better to fix the grey elf and whisper gnome (likely just by ditching them, since I don't really see what they add to the game anyway)?
It doesn't matter if Paizo "ditches" the other races - they essentially have by not including them, but they're not going to come out and say, "You are in no way allowed to include the Whispergnome and the Goliath and the ...... in this RPG"
DMs and players that want these races are going to include them in their games whether they're part of the PF-RPG core or not.
By making the core races more "appealing" they are making the choies for the players more apt to stick to their core races than trying the other typically 'more appealing' races.
With each supplement book WotC came out with the classes and the races got more and more powerful. Elves were abandoned for catfolk, halflings became tieflings, gnomes became whispergnomes, dwarves and half-orcs became goliaths, and humans were becoming aasimars.
I'm an old-school gamer from the old basic red box set and consider myself a traditionalist - I always stick to the core races and classes. I have never played a class or race from one of the supplement splat books. When I DM I don't even allow the supplement books. I think it's wonderful that Paizo has seen the pragmatism in making the races and classes from the core products more appealing to be played for the long-haul, and add back some of the love for the true bread and butter that the D&D game was founded on.
The last 3.5 campaign that I took part in - which ended just before Alpha 1 was released, (Forgotten Realms campaign), here was the roster of the characters involved.
Aasimar Cleric
Goliath Fighter
Whispergnome scout/cleric
Half-elf Warlock
Gnome Marshall
Half-elf Factotum
Catfolk Ranger
and me: Human Paladin
I was the only one of 8 that came wholly from the PHB. I realized at that point that something was wrong. Something needed to change.
I welcomed the new updated versions of the races and classes for PF with open arms and make them definitely viable options for players again.
Also, to address the pointbuy thing: if it all ends up the same anyway, then all you've done is forced the player to choose their abilities in an even more specific way. If you're an Elf and you want to play a fighter, you're even more gimped because not only are you playing against type, but even the pointbuy system is against you!
Thats just silly. How in the world can a +2 to any stat ever be considered "gimping" ? Sure INT may not be the more productive stat for a fighter - but then again elves are suppose to be wizards based on their favored class - so an elf is definitely better off as a wizard than as a fighter - but the fighter isn't gimped any more. In fact any +2 to any stat for any class is certainly not a disadvantage in any way. The elf in question would simply have smarter fighters than halflings have.
Robert
See, this I don't get. Just because someone else gets an extremely mild bonus (and let's be clear -- a +2 to a single stat is not a huge advantage), that doesn't mean that you're being "gimped".
The way the stat blocks end up, you're being gimped by comparison.
That being said, I wouldn't cry if all of the mental stat bonuses were removed from the races. But I think it should be decided once and for all -- is a +2 to a casting stat allowable for a +0 LA race?
No, I don't think so. It makes those races the de facto best for those casting stats. Whereas a race that gives +2 con or str can still be a good rogue race (he hits a little harder or can take a bit more of a beating), one that gives +2 to dex can still be a good fighter (maybe he's going for swashbuckler or something; and the +1 to AC couldn't hurt a normal fighter, of course), and the barbarian could really use any of them, a wizard only needs Int, a sorcerer only needs Cha, and a cleric only needs Cha insofar as he wants to channel a lot, but it's not that big a deal if he just doesn't want to bother it.
All of the physical stats help fightery classes fight. Some help some more than others, but they can all get some sort of benefit out of each. Casting classes only need one stat to cast. The other mental abilities may give them peripheral benefits, but they don't help their casting, so they can pretty much ignore them. Consequently, if the wizard can get +2 to Int, he doesn't care about the other races.
|
|
That being said, I wouldn't cry if all of the mental stat bonuses were removed from the races. But I think it should be decided once and for all -- is a +2 to a casting stat allowable for a +0 LA race?No, I don't think so. It makes those races the de facto best for those casting stats. Whereas a race that gives +2 con or str can still be a good rogue race (he hits a little harder or can take a bit more of a beating), one that gives +2 to dex can still be a good fighter (maybe he's going for swashbuckler or something; and the +1 to AC couldn't hurt a normal fighter, of course), and the barbarian could really use any of them, a wizard only needs Int, a sorcerer only needs Cha, and a cleric only needs Cha insofar as he wants to channel a lot, but it's not that big a deal if he just doesn't want to bother it.
All of the physical stats help fightery classes fight. Some help some more than others, but they can all get some sort of benefit out of each. Casting classes only need one stat to cast. The other mental abilities may give them peripheral benefits, but they don't help their casting, so they can pretty much ignore them. Consequently, if the wizard can get +2 to Int, he doesn't care about the other races.
I dont see that as any better or more definitive than saying a halfling is the best race for a rogue.
Just to make sure I understand what you're contention is: you feel that the elf would be imbalanced still if it only had one +2 stat of INT and one -2 stat to CON? (one of each + and - stat if they were INT and CON instead of DEX and CON)?
Robert
I dont see that as any better or more definitive than saying a halfling is the best race for a rogue.
All I can say is that I disagree. An especially high Dex bonus won't net you a rogue that's especially better than a rogue with a lower Dex but a higher something else. A higher Int will give you an appreciably better wizard: at at least one point during his career, and very possibly at most points, he'll get an extra spell slot of his highest level (18 Int gives a first level wizard 2 spells per day + his school slot, and 20 gives him 3+1. That's +25% to his power. That extra +2 will continue to give him +25% max spell level slots every other level until he gets his Int to 30, at which point it still helps him with lower-level spells).
The halfling's rogue supremacy isn't nearly so clear-cut. Humans get that bonus feat and extra skill ranks, both of which are extremely attractive to rogues. Both elves and half-elves make very respectable rogues as well.
My point is, if you want to play an elven rogue, you've still got some things going for you directly related to rogueishness. If you're playing a wizard, though, all you really care about is your Int (then maybe some Con, if it isn't too much trouble).
Just to make sure I understand what you're contention is: you feel that the elf would be imbalanced still if it only had one +2 stat of INT and one -2 stat to CON? (one of each + and - stat if they were INT and CON instead of DEX and CON)?
Yes.
|
|
I dont see that as any better or more definitive than saying a halfling is the best race for a rogue.All I can say is that I disagree. An especially high Dex bonus won't net you a rogue that's especially better than a rogue with a lower Dex but a higher something else. A higher Int will give you an appreciably better wizard: at at least one point during his career, and very possibly at most points, he'll get an extra spell slot of his highest level (18 Int gives a first level wizard 2 spells per day + his school slot, and 20 gives him 3+1. That's +25% to his power. That extra +2 will continue to give him +25% max spell level slots every other level until he gets his Int to 30, at which point it still helps him with lower-level spells).
The halfling's rogue supremacy isn't nearly so clear-cut. Humans get that bonus feat and extra skill ranks, both of which are extremely attractive to rogues. Both elves and half-elves make very respectable rogues as well.
My point is, if you want to play an elven rogue, you've still got some things going for you directly related to rogueishness. If you're playing a wizard, though, all you really care about is your Int (then maybe some Con, if it isn't too much trouble).
Then you're right - we really do disagree. While I agree that an elven rogue is a good option - I dont agree that only an elf is a good wizard - granted he may be the best choice - but not the only good choice. Furthermore, I disagree with you and still do belive the halfling makes the best rogue - more than just for the bonus of dex - but other reasons such as - a loss of Str is unimportant when using finesse and sneak attack, they gain racial bonuses to many rogue skills....significant racial bonuses, the DEX helps their finesse attack - which stacks with their size mod to hit, and the DEX helps their AC for a class that wears light armor - another bonus that stacks with with their size mod - and their saving throws being aided is gravy considering rogues who made their reflex saves benefit from evasion, and one of their main weaknesses is their vulnerability to fear affects due to their usual dump-stat of WIS and a poor Will save - since Halflings gain a +3 to fear saves (combining the +1 to all with the +2 for bravery).
On the wizard front; IMO, humans, dwarves and halflings all make good wizards, too - again, not the best - but very good, and I don't think that the elf is the ONLY choice; just like Half-orcs make the best choice for a barbarian - but not the only good one.
Regardless - apparently, we indeed disagree in our assessments. But that is okay. As the OP on this thread, you had asked for feedback and if others saw things as you do. I am one who does not.
And I still firmly believe that the additional +2 is a needed step in character construction - especially with the PF suggested point buy. I welcome any change that once again brings the core races and classes back to not only status quo, but the cat's meow for choices; as I've always been traditionally staunch on limiting choices to only those. Like I said - you asked how we feel about it - this is how I feel.
Robert
|
Mechanically speaking, in all edition previous to 3.0, humans seemed to be mechanically penalized for being human. In theory, it was the other benefits (unlimited advancement and no class restrictions) that made up for it. That pretty much disappeard with 3 (and thank God).
Giving a +2 to humans is really not a bad thing at all. They finally get a boost everyone else had been getting for a long time. It's not such a bad boost, really.
But here's a thought for you. The existing bonuses to races are basically carry-overs in one form or another. They can be changed pretty much at any time if a campaign world wanted to change the races up a bit. A dextrous dwarf would be - interesting. But it would also be refreshing to see the archetypes get all mixed up.
I say the +2 to humans should firmly remain. The extra +2 to the other races makes it a bit more fair. Mechanically, and apparently mathematically, it's a wash.
Arovyn
I don't think it's unacceptable to have a +2 to a casting stat for an LA 0 race either. In fact, if it is, then it's also unacceptable to have mental stat penalties (that -2 to Charisma for being a dwarf isn't such a big deal when you're the fighter, after all, but a -2 Con for being an elf does hurt the wizard in having less HP and, more importantly, an even weaker Fort save).
|
|
I don't think it's unacceptable to have a +2 to a casting stat for an LA 0 race either. In fact, if it is, then it's also unacceptable to have mental stat penalties (that -2 to Charisma for being a dwarf isn't such a big deal when you're the fighter, after all, but a -2 Con for being an elf does hurt the wizard in having less HP and, more importantly, an even weaker Fort save).
This is the first time I've ever agreed with a drow....or a vampyre for that matter!
Regardless, good point. I agree.
Robert
I don't think it's unacceptable to have a +2 to a casting stat for an LA 0 race either. In fact, if it is, then it's also unacceptable to have mental stat penalties (that -2 to Charisma for being a dwarf isn't such a big deal when you're the fighter, after all, but a -2 Con for being an elf does hurt the wizard in having less HP and, more importantly, an even weaker Fort save).
You can avoid the penalty, work around it. A bonus gives you something you didn't have before, something you can build on. Dwarves don't have to be sorcerers, but elves can be wizards. I wouldn't especially mind seeing mental penalties go, but a penalty is not as big a deal as a bonus.
I think you can use Pathfinder RPG as well as a collection of variant rules, as like a complete rule system in it's own right.
I dislike Chapter 3 and 4, and big parts of chapter 5 and 6, but I really like great parts of chapter 9 and 11, chapter 12 and 13, and many things from chapter 5 and 6.
I use those, but discard the rest. So I don't think it's too problematic to have other variations of the core rules in PF. I lets the grpups decide how they arrange their games.
|
|
I don't think it's unacceptable to have a +2 to a casting stat for an LA 0 race either. In fact, if it is, then it's also unacceptable to have mental stat penalties (that -2 to Charisma for being a dwarf isn't such a big deal when you're the fighter, after all, but a -2 Con for being an elf does hurt the wizard in having less HP and, more importantly, an even weaker Fort save).You can avoid the penalty, work around it. A bonus gives you something you didn't have before, something you can build on. Dwarves don't have to be sorcerers, but elves can be wizards. I wouldn't especially mind seeing mental penalties go, but a penalty is not as big a deal as a bonus.
Once again, I fail to see this or agree with you. An elf with a -2 to CON is just as impacted by that stat as a Dwarf with a +2 to CON. To me, one is just as big a deal as the other.
put another way; a -2 to CHA as a dwarf makes as much of an impact on one's choice to play a dwarven sorcerer as a race that gets a +2 to CHA does.
Robert
Once again, I fail to see this or agree with you. An elf with a -2 to CON is just as impacted by that stat as a Dwarf with a +2 to CON. To me, one is just as big a deal as the other.
One, no it's not, because the Wizard can get away with defensive buffs and staying out of combat, and two, it's harder to work around Con penalties because everyone uses Con, but this doesn't negate my argument with respect to the other five abilities.
put another way; a -2 to CHA as a dwarf makes as much of an impact on one's choice to play a dwarven sorcerer as a race that gets a +2 to CHA does.
You're looking at this wrong. -2 Cha effects what the dwarf won't play, but +2 Int effects effects what the elf will, and when he does pick wizard, he will be much better at it than races that don't get +2 Int. The dwarf can just pick something else and be perfectly good at it.
Removing mental penalties wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea, but they don't result in overpowered characters.
|
|
put another way; a -2 to CHA as a dwarf makes as much of an impact on one's choice to play a dwarven sorcerer as a race that gets a +2 to CHA does.You're looking at this wrong. -2 Cha effects what the dwarf won't play, but +2 Int effects effects what the elf will, and when he does pick wizard, he will be much better at it than races that don't get +2 Int. The dwarf can just pick something else and be perfectly good at it.
I see what you're saying about the difference between what will and and won't; but I say that the +2 to INT affects what the elf will play as much as the +2 Dex did, for the elf, and certainly what the +2 Dex did for the halfling.
Removing mental penalties wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea, but they don't result in overpowered characters.
Overpowered is subjective.
Robert
|
|
the extra +2 does nothing to the overall power of the races in comparison to each other. Rather, it allows more variety among the races (just like 2 favored class options).
mental stat bonuses are really not that big of a deal since the bonus spells are only earned when you reach the appropiate level to cast them. Only if a player managed to reach 20 at 1st level does that become a huge issue (with the 2nd extra 1st level spell) since an 18 is prohibitively expensive in a 15 point build character, I see no problem here. And yes, a character could stat dump to below 10 to do this, but hey if they want to gimp their character to go all out for the int, I'll be happy to teach them why you don't want a -1 fortitude or reflex save. ;)
|
|
the extra +2 does nothing to the overall power of the races in comparison to each other. Rather, it allows more variety among the races (just like 2 favored class options).
Don't get me started on favored class. Rather, go read the two big favored class threads. I hope favored class dies, personally.
|
|
the extra +2 does nothing to the overall power of the races in comparison to each other. Rather, it allows more variety among the races (just like 2 favored class options).Don't get me started on favored class. Rather, go read the two big favored class threads. I hope favored class dies, personally.
Hmm... i'll go take a look, but I actually like the mechanic, as it helps adjust probabilities in game that members of a given race will follow a certain set of classes defined by their "traits and talents" (read: abilitu bonuses and favored class).
Anyway, thanks for pointing to the other thread.
the extra +2 does nothing to the overall power of the races in comparison to each other. Rather, it allows more variety among the races (just like 2 favored class options).
mental stat bonuses are really not that big of a deal since the bonus spells are only earned when you reach the appropiate level to cast them. Only if a player managed to reach 20 at 1st level does that become a huge issue (with the 2nd extra 1st level spell) since an 18 is prohibitively expensive in a 15 point build character, I see no problem here. And yes, a character could stat dump to below 10 to do this, but hey if they want to gimp their character to go all out for the int, I'll be happy to teach them why you don't want a -1 fortitude or reflex save. ;)
Not everyone... scratch that... most people are not using a 15 point buy, many use the classic 4d6, and many use 18 or 20 point buys. Regardless, if you have a munchkin player with a wizard at first level and a 15 point buy he will very likely dump both Strength and Charisma down to 8, neither of which will significantly effect his character. Put his INT at 18 and either his DEX or CON at 12... dumping Dex or Con is silly for nearly any character. 18s in mental stats are quite attainable at 1st level.
It's not always about overall balance between races. You could give all the races +2 to every stat and it wouldn't affect balance between then. It's lame though.
After thinking about this, and playtesting it some, I don't think the mental stat boosts improve the game and actually significantly help the classes that need help the least. The caster classes have always had an edge in the game and this just boosts that edge a bit more.
The +2 INT bumps up DCs by 1 on every spell, it also gives casters an average of 1-2 more spells, often at the highest level they are currently casting. Considering they are already the BAMF of the D&D world is a boost that helps casters primarily really a great idea?