I think that this would be a step in the right direction. Although I doubt that Paizo would put these options in (but you never know), I think that it is certainly interesting. The only change that I would make there is that the gnome should be able to choose four of the traits. That way you can exactly build the gnome in the current Beta, or you can effectively "swap" some traits for other ones.
The idea is to add flexibility while keeping the racial flavor. Many of the racial traits are targeted at specific classes, the gnome illusionist would probably not take the combat related feats or 'The Knack'. The gnome bard would.
It's possible some of the racial traits should be combined, perhaps Hatred and Defensive training could be combined into "Gnome Combat Training".
|
Note that under this the races generally get less in traits than the default. Not sure whether that's a problem or not.
To answer the original question, the answers are yes. the default assumptions of races assume that all elves are trained for war due to thier long lives and many enemies. (after all they do spend over a hundred years before being ready for adventuring) And that most gnome communities at one time or another are menaced by the big folk. Just like it's assumed that most dwarves spend thier lives underground.
No, I don't think it's a real problem since there would be ways of getting back "lost" abilities. I was not, and am not, a fan of the idea that adding more abilities make things better. Let me put that into perspective. I don't think giving the dwarf some 10 racial abilities was a good idea while giving other races only three that don't have quite impact. I see this mechanic as a means of balancing the races and giving players options they didn't have before. It also doesn't make all of the members of a race cookie-cutter. If you can take different options in a class to stand out, why not be able to do the same with your race?
Arovyn
Cannot locate my last post, so I apologize if I double-posted this:
While I like this mechanic very much, I think that in order to have everybody's thumbs-up, a player should be at least able to recreate the WotC D&D 3.5 line-up of racial traits.
i.e. if I want to play my dwarf as it was in 3.5, I should have enough points (or features should be condensed in fewer traits) to buy all the traits to make it identical to the older version. This would also make the system more backward compatible.
'findel
|
|
Cannot locate my last post, so I apologize if I double-posted this:
While I like this mechanic very much, I think that in order to have everybody's thumbs-up, a player should be at least able to recreate the WotC D&D 3.5 line-up of racial traits.
i.e. if I want to play my dwarf as it was in 3.5, I should have enough points (or features should be condensed in fewer traits) to buy all the traits to make it identical to the older version. This would also make the system more backward compatible.
'findel
Agreed. I can't remember if was this thread or one that I started where I said the racial builds in Pathfinder are not very well balanced and should have been built a bit differently. I like a template approach.
Race
Attributes
Size
Speed
Vision
Keen Senses
3 or 4 innate abilities
Elsewhere you get the trait system and buy up the cultural and trained traits you want to retain. For purposes of backward compatibility for NPCs, you assume they bought the standard kit. PC's, however, should feel free to change it up.
I think the original poster feels that the 3.5 package was too much and is actually looking to trim the total amount of features down at least for some races.
Well actually my thinking is that individual racial traits are more or less valuable to different characters. For example an elf range would probably not benefit much from Elven Magic and would pick some other racial traits instead. Perhaps some characters will be marginally less powerful but they gain flexibility.
If you make the physical aspects of the races roughly balanced and make the 'cultural traits' all roughly the same value (though that is a huge challenge right there) then you have a level playing field.
If you make the physical aspects of the races roughly balanced and make the 'cultural traits' all roughly the same value (though that is a huge challenge right there) then you have a level playing field.But why do all races have to be physically equal and culturally equal? I see no problem with highly physical races with fewer cultural traits and physically weak races that get to choose more cultural traits. There's no reason for every race to have the same number of choices.
This is true, I do think all characters should start on a more or less equal footing though. Perhaps one race could have less than stellar physical stats but they might have 4 cultural traits instead of 3... or 5 instead of 4. Or perhaps their racial traits are just better than most other races.
Just adding my voice to the many saying that this is a fantastic idea.
|
shades of the Skills and Powers version of 2nd Ed. They did something like this with races/classes/and skills (proficiencies)
Each player received 200 points at 1st level to 'build' their character...It was reccomended to not exceend 45 points on race, and 120 on class giving you 35 for traits and proficiencies. Anyone remember those besides me?
That, by the way, was one of my favorite versions of D&D. I have a link to the tables...someone posted before, if anyone wants it.
I can't believe that I missed this thread. :(
Denis, well done in presenting this idea. I am all for it, yet totally against the favoured class idea. This just makes more sense. Unbinding cultural aspects from physical racial traits, and placing them as possible options according to setting, region, city, kingdom, etc.
As the same time if the favoured class must be kept, then the favoured class must be defined as a cultural aspect, which is determined by setting, region, kingdom, etc. Depending on the setting, and the character's upbringing, their may be various favoured classes for a race and are listed according to situation the character may be in at time of taken up a class.
(...) I do think all characters should start on a more or less equal footing though (...)
I agree with that as well.
When dealing with cultural traits, I can see two decisive factors: cultural variety (the amount of different upbringings and backgrounds a race would offer = the amount of traits available to a race) and cultural divergence (how an individual vary from the rest of the population = the amount of trait "slots" available).
For example, Humans, who are highly diversified and different among themselves, would have the most slots and options. Dwarves, who are a traditional and isolationist race, would have less choices and options. Some like the Half-Orcs could have a high divergence but fewer choices due to their similar upbringings etc.
On the whole however, races should have a similar amount of traits altogether(including the physical/innate/universal traits), if only to make races equally attractive and even-powered.
'findel
I'm also throwing out here...
Could there be a set of universal traits available to all races. Things such as "coastal upbringing" of "cosmopolitan city dweller" etc.
I'm not sure if this is going beyond the original intension however...
|
Love the idea Dennis.
I have thought the races are actually far too complex and often present some rather useless abilities for some characters while others might find them ok.
While from a "real life" point of view I would say the races do not need to be balanced, but from a game point of view they really should be. Paizo has done a great job of starting to balance the races with the +2/+2/-2 Abilities template they employ. I certainly do not think the number of Racial Abilities need to be equal, nor the number of Racial and Cultural Talents need to be the same, but they should balance.
Some have suggested adding regional or perhaps Environmental Talents as well. Those are available through the Unearthed Arcana already and set for OGL.
I would suggest a section of races in the format Dennis suggested above, followed by an Environmental Talents section. This way a player can choose his/her race, modify abilities, and apply the races physical characteristics. Then the player is allowed to choose X number of Talents available from the generic race's list or from another race's list if appropriate and even from an Environmental list that accounts for the effect of the environment upon the character.
Its an interesting idea, but I can't say as I care for it personally.
The overall idea is well thought out, it just seems to me that folks will likely pick (or have the potential to pick) only those racial things that are beneficial to their particular character.
Not many gnome wizards will pick up the +2 disable device, and not many gnome fighters will take the +1 illusionist buff.
I think the mainstays of the races need to stay static. If you have some particular background that might warrant some sort of change, then I think you and the DM should sit down and come up with a balanced alternative. I am in favor of more options, but these just seem to be a way to "stream line" your character into just flat out being more powerful than they alredy are.. and alot of classes are already getting boosts in Paizo RPG.
I'm not saying every rogue will pick the +2 device disable, but lets face it- a LOT of them will. They'll scrape off the stuff that the rogue won't use, and pick every option to make them excel. Even a "good RP'er" can scratch his head half a second and come up with even a half-decent background that takes into account every useful racial trait for his character.
It is well thought out- but in actual practice I don't think it'd be a good idea to implement.
-S
If you have some particular background that might warrant some sort of change, then I think you and the DM should sit down and come up with a balanced alternative.
I suggest a "Cultural" asterisk next to those abilities that are not in the genotype, and a small section in the GMing chapter that explains how to adjudicate characters raised in another culture. That takes up minimal space and doesn't alter the existing system.
|
|
I personally would not mind if non beneficial abilities were weeded out in the character creation process.
For one, not many gnome illusionists are going to actually take advantage of the +2 pick locks or whatever it is, as they will not have any ranks in Disable Device and prefer to leave it to the rogue.
Also, someone who has an aptitude for picking locks and picking pockets is not as likely to go into a career as a paladin. Not that it couldn't happen, just not as likely.
I have a dwarven fighter who is now lvl 22 I think. He has racial abilities I have never used even once. And Paizo seems to have added even more stuff for some races, amounting to overkill in my opinion.
As a tangible result I don't know that it makes any real difference. The Min/Maxers are going to do that anyway and ignore the stuff that does not benefit them. The Roleplayers are probably playing up the weird stuff that has no bearing on their class at all and now they can make even more weird combinations to make them happy and giddy (Dwarf raised by elves and has all the elven weapons talents... dang weirdo!)
Though honestly I doubt any real substantial changes will be made, as the nature of a Beta is not to make major changes, but to tweak and clean up the errors. If they were going to make dramatic changes they should have been done between the Alpha and the Beta. Unless the guys of Paizo don't understand the purposes of Alpha and Beta (which may be the case as one editor suggested they never intended to make any major changes between Alpha and Beta and was going to hold off until Beta to Final)
The overall idea is well thought out, it just seems to me that folks will likely pick (or have the potential to pick) only those racial things that are beneficial to their particular character.
Not many gnome wizards will pick up the +2 disable device, and not many gnome fighters will take the +1 illusionist buff.
Frankly, this is the idea. This is more or less what players do with the current system anyways. What is the point of a gnome fighter having a +1 illusion buff? (Maybe to buff his innate spellcasting?). If you make an elf ranger you aren't using elven magic.
I am in favor of more options, but these just seem to be a way to "stream line" your character into just flat out being more powerful than they alredy are.. and alot of classes are already getting boosts in Paizo RPG.
This is absolutely not my goal here, and I realize that my example is horrible from that perspective. I would suggest that if this were developed further that it should be planned so that the choices have parity with existing racial benefits. If anything the net outcome of any choices beyond the current ones should be slightly lower powered than the current. Again, my example is a rough out and I agree with you that it shouldn't be more powerful.
I also think the +2 Dis Dev is probably a poor choice for me to add in since rogue is not one of the preferred classes of the gnome. It's my personal love affair with gnomes and gadgets that made me put it in. <derail>Though... Illusionist Thief was a common gnome archetype back in the day... Where did this bard crap come from? </derail>
It is well thought out- but in actual practice I don't think it'd be a good idea to implement.
It's good to hear well reasoned arguments I generally agree with your thoughts but think the issues could be worked around.
I suggest a "Cultural" asterisk next to those abilities that are not in the genotype, and a small section in the GMing chapter that explains how to adjudicate characters raised in another culture. That takes up minimal space and doesn't alter the existing system.
I'm not sure how you could do this without creating even more rules and explanation. I think that what I suggest could be added to the rules with very little additional space. Your suggestion would also spread character creation rules over 2 sections of the book which I personally think is one of the more frustrating things about the PHB/DMG split.
I really like the idea so long as some of the names get changed. The Knack? The Cure? Really?
Then again, I'd like to pick a racial trait called 'Quiet Riot' (trained Intimidation; gain +2 against 4 or more Commoners)... or even 'REO Speedwagon'! (Trained in Profession, Caravan Driver; gain +2 when being chased) Maybe even 'Flock of Seagulls' ("Augury" as a spell-like ability once per day when you can see the flight paths of birds. what's that called? Ornithomancy?) would be an interesting choice.
But seriously, solid idea. Good thinking, OP. :)
|
|
Traditionally the cultural traits are the first things to get houseruled or altered in variant settings. With that in mind, I think setting them aside and allowing players to choose the abilities they want really makes sense. I like this idea and I hope we see something like this in Pathfinder.
Not only can a DM say "oh, you are dwarf from the Grinding Peaks? Well then, these racial traits are most appropriate for you" it gives us worldbuilders a basic set of guidelines we can use to create our own traits.
I think this idea has great potential and, like others, I will use this as a houserule if it does not show up in Pathfinder.
There was some chatter about the idea of deliniating cultural and innate racial abilities during the Alpha. This racial traits notion seems like a good approach.
From a design viewpoint it would make creating subraces and special castes sooooo much easier if we started out knowing what was cultural and what was innate.
I really like the idea so long as some of the names get changed. The Knack? The Cure? Really?
Then again, I'd like to pick a racial trait called 'Quiet Riot' (trained Intimidation; gain +2 against 4 or more Commoners)... or even 'REO Speedwagon'! (Trained in Profession, Caravan Driver; gain +2 when being chased) Maybe even 'Flock of Seagulls' ("Augury" as a spell-like ability once per day when you can see the flight paths of birds. what's that called? Ornithomancy?) would be an interesting choice.
Keep in mind the example was just for illustrative purposes. 'The Knack' was a reference to "She as a knack for the piano"... I'd completely forgotten about the band. "The Cure" as (IMO clearly) a joke in response to the other poster and was not intended as anything beyond that.
I do like your other examples, I could see Quiet Riot being a good half orc trait :)
But seriously, solid idea. Good thinking, OP. :)
Thanks :)
|
|
shades of the Skills and Powers version of 2nd Ed... Anyone remember those besides me?Beat you to it by four posts!
Each player received 200 points at 1st level to 'build' their character...It was reccomended to not exceend 45 points on race, and 120 on class giving you 35 for traits and proficiencies.Actually, according to the book, each race receives a fixed number of points to be spent on that race and each class receives a fixed number of points to be spent on that class. The total number of points varies from character to character, but the number for each race and each class was fixed.
haha ;) yes you did. That is what I get for stopping reading after about half the thread. :D
Yes the original had it fixed...however, the link I have is to someone's readjustement of the original. It adds a few minor things, and readjusts the point's alloted.
I'm just screwin' around, OP. I wasn't taking those seriously. :) Sometimes inspiration strikes you in strange ways.
|
|
Here's the Linky I mentioned Id get...
Skills and Powers Variant Link.
You might this valuable in your cafeteria idea.
|
If all elves get the elven racial bonus, why not break down the humans into subraces. That way to put the +2 into str, you must be a Kellid, or Tain might get +1 to Int and Dex. It makes being humans from different area different.
As for the different racially abilities I think the new trait system , is trying to help anti-sterotyping every race.
If all elves get the elven racial bonus, why not break down the humans into subraces. That way to put the +2 into str, you must be a Kellid, or Tain might get +1 to Int and Dex. It makes being humans from different area different.
I see an opportunity for humans to shine here... similarly, I see this as a neat way to differentiate sub-races without making them different races altogether (i.e. high-elves vs. wood elves vs. grey elves etc)
As for the different racially abilities I think the new trait system , is trying to help anti-sterotyping every race.
The challenge will be to give each races a unique feeling and yet not make all individuals exactly the same. Call it post-post-modernism: glorification of difference rather than equality for all.
'findel
I had suggested a racial level system that develops alongside of your class levels, but perhaps this option is superior.
The idea that racial traits might scale with level is intriguing. Some traits are useful at all levels (Elven Magic?) but some quickly become meh (Hatred against Orcs and Kobolds) and would scale well.
speaking of as yet unused trait names, how can we be overlooking 'Night Ranger'?
I think this is the racial trait that gives elven rangers the equivalent to a favored terrain anytime they are engaged in night combat.
yes, as I think I mentioned, Skills and Powers was what I consider to be about the best that had been put out for designing characters....It was very fun to be able to create your character, pretty much, exactly as you envisioned it.
But seriously, solid idea. Good thinking, OP. :)
I also remember that Skills and Powers was a lot of fun.
I'm in favor, since I enjoy flexibility in the character creation process. I also agree that the proposed system should let you build the character as the race is currently defined.
I'm not sure how much I care about separating innate and cultural traits. I remember the 3e Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting had a category of cultural feats that you could only take at first level. I thought the idea was interesting, but didn't like how the choices were tied to specific parts of the Forgotten Realms setting. I know that I could have easily translated a feat I liked for use outside the intended geography or religion, but seeing the choices encumbered with cultural assumptions was a turn-off. Dennis' Gnome example was thankfully free of cultural specifics, letting players imagine those specifics in whatever way works best for their campaign.
I've seen in other threads that there isn't consensus about what the innate racial traits ought to be. Any system that promises to let me build my character concept as I envision it must also give me some flexibility when it comes to the innate traits. For example, I might want an elf with +2 Wisdom instead of +2 Intelligence, or a Gnome with +2 Intelligence instead of +2 Charisma. Or I might like my Gnome's Keen Senses to apply to hearing, as in 1st edition rules (see Hear Noise in the Thief Function Table). I agree that it's an advantage to offer this kind of flexibility without resorting to sub-races (another example of encumbering choices with unwanted assumptions). I don't want to be told, "You can do that, but then you'd have to be a desert elf and belong to such-and-such cult that wears these kinds of tattoos."
I like Dennis' example. However, I prefer to merge the "Physical Characteristics" and "Racial Traits" into a single list of racial traits with enough flexibility to allow different interpretations of the same race. Or if there's value in separating the innate from the cultural, at least offer some limited flexibility within the innate section as well.
Alternatively from a "cafeteria style pick-what-you-want salad-bar", PF could offer cultural packages. At the limit, these would not have to be bound to a race in particular, but available to all races (with some packages restricted to certain races maybe?)
Although packages are less versatile, it allows designers to include cool (read semi-powerful) abilities without fearing that certain players would drop all the flavorful abilities in exchange for the more powerful ones.
Packages could also reflect some background or upbringing that are not necessarily racial-based but more environmental-based (such as city-dweller, aristocrat, coastal villager etc.)
This could bring the difference between a high elf and a wood elf without having to create two distinct races, and differentiate different human cultures beyond the choice of character classes.
While several feat attempt to do just that, most players are still hesitant to sacrifice their 1st level feat for cultural flavor, unless the feat is truly powerful(and I don't think this will change even with the faster feat progression of PF)
