|
In general, I really like the basic racial template of +2/+2, I'm not a real big fan of a minus anything. The reason I say that is because I'm really very strongly in favor of a level playing field. Giving a penalty to an attribute really discourages players from taking a class when that class features that attribute as one of its keys. I encourage my players to play whatever they want to, but I do get some teeth gnashing when they can't quite make the class work for them because of the racial penalty. I think we can afford to remove it.
I like a lot of what I see in how races are put together, but I also see some things that I'm not a real fan of, and I'll be happy to explain why. I'm not a big fan of racial abilities are based around the concept of external forces or sources. I've never seen a good reason to keep certain racial abilities because they've always been a trope. I'll be more specific.
Defensive Training, Greed, Hatred, [Race] Magic, and Stonecunning racial abilities are all written on a certain assumption. Somehow every single member of a race, regardless of where they live, how they were raised, and their chosen profession in life, must have somehow acquired some pretty specialized training. On top of that, even if they've never met or seen a specific (monster) race, they truly hate and despise them with such a burning raging passion that they will always be really good fighting against them. Racial magic really smacks of following a trope because it's always been that way, and I don't like that much either. Why should a race *always* be that magical, and why can't other races have their own form of racial magic? All of these traits (a lot shared between races) really come across to me more as racial feats more than racial traits. Just because I want to play a dwarf, for example, why should that mean I have to be good with working with stone? What if I wasn't raised in a mountain fast? Even the description of dwarves in Golarion implies they are losing their cultural identity, so why should they have some of these? Why can't there be Dwarven Magic?
Elven Immunites kinda bug me too. I can understand being immune to sleep when a race simply does not sleep. But why are they also resistant to enchantment? I haven't seen a good written justification for it. It feels like it's being carried over for the sake of being carried over than for any real specific reason. I know the idea is to be backwards compatible, but I think a justification is in order for an ability like that. And again, I can see it more as a feat than an ability. And when it comes to half-elves, there is that implied elven blood being so strong that it carried it over to them, but does that mean that half-elves also don't sleep?
I really do like the template feel to the races. Each race has a good feel by description. But I don't think they need certain abilities to be applied to every single member. I think each race should have three or four abilities at most that have a good "genetic" feel. I know that tossing in that concept is a bit of flamebait, but you get the idea. I think that if you make the listed problem abilities into feats and it leaves a race lacking, it shouldn't be too hard to add an ability or a thematically similar ability in its place.
Arovyn
Races are not only about genetcis, there is alos culture.
in the different traits of each race, some are innate and others acquired. Feel free to remove these acquired traits if they don't match your character background : an elven fighter don't need Elven Magic, a dwarf wizard won't have Hatred, etc ...
In 3.5, I play an Elven Rogue who was orphan and raised in a non-elven environnement, then I considere he doesn't have any racial weapon proficiency.
|
Races are not only about genetcis, there is also culture.
In the different traits of each race, some are innate and others acquired. Feel free to remove these acquired traits if they don't match your character background : an elven fighter don't need Elven Magic, a dwarf wizard won't have Hatred, etc ...
In 3.5, I play an Elven Rogue who was orphan and raised in a non-elven environnement, then I considere he doesn't have any racial weapon proficiency.
This raises the new Character Trait system featured in Pathfinder Companion: Second Darkness.
Social Trait 1) Adopted
You were adopted and raised by someone not of your actual race, and raised in a society not your own. As a result, you picked up a Racial Trait from your adoptive parents and society, and may immediately select a Racial Trait from your adoptive parents' race.
I think Racial Traits need to be classified as Cultural or Genetic, and Adopted characters should only be able to choose a Cultural Racial Traits, not Genetic ones. There is no reason that a Halfling raised in Human society (probably quite common) could take the Human's Racial Trait: Medium, or a Human gaining an Half-Orc's Darkvision - perhaps if they were born of Human and Halfling (Three-Quarterling?), or Human and Half-Orc (Quarter-Orc?), but not simply being Adopted, as no genetics have passed between the races.
Or how about spending one of your two starting Character Traits on Adopted, taking the Human's Racial Trait: Bonus Feat, spending that Feat on Additional Traits to gain two additional Character Traits, now for a total of THREE starting Character Traits???!
The only thing preventing this spiralling into a never-ending loop is that you cannot take more than one Character Trait from the same category, so you couldn't take Adopted more than once to gain additional Bonus Feats from the Human's Racial Traits.
In a similar way that Class Abilities are classified as Spell-like (Sp), Supernatural (Su) or Extra-ordinary (Ex), why not classify Racial Traits as Cultural (Cu) or Genetic (Ge). This might allow Genetic Traits to be fixed, and Cultural Traits to be swapped out, thus addressing the OP's concerns.
|
|
Races are not only about genetcis, there is alos culture.
in the different traits of each race, some are innate and others acquired. Feel free to remove these acquired traits if they don't match your character background : an elven fighter don't need Elven Magic, a dwarf wizard won't have Hatred, etc ...
I like the idea of certain traits being innate. No matter how you look at it, dwarves are going to be short and stocky, and so abilities that play up on that concept, like never being slowed by weight, make sense. Gnomes don't think quite like anyone else, so being obsessive makes sense. Plenty of the other abilities races have make sense. Just ones that deal with some form of training or a racial hatred of another race do not make sense to me as racial traits. Racial magic only makes sense for those who embrace it. Elven Magic makes no sense for a Fighter since they will never have abilities that take advantage of it.
Cultural traits are where things can really get interesting. There are countless examples of human cultures and bonuses and abilities based on those. Those traits, though, need to go to everyone, not just humans. I'd love to see a Varisian halfling doing Harrowings and dancing. I'd like to see a Chelaxian elf making plans to expand the empire. I'd like to see a noble gnome from Taldar sitting in a salon with other nobles discussing on how to revitalize their country. But all of those things I mentioned have this human-only description to them.
So, what works better? Racial feats that represent racial training and a race's cultural feel? A racial trait system like in Second Darkness? Or perhaps a racial class that plays up on traits that that shouldn't be innate to everyone? All of them have pros and cons. My personal favorite? Honestly, it's a toss up. It's all in how well it's written.
Arovyn
|
This raises the new Character Trait system featured in Pathfinder Companion: Second Darkness.Social Trait 1) Adopted
You were adopted and raised by someone not of your actual race, and raised in a society not your own. As a result, you picked up a Racial Trait from your adoptive parents and society, and may immediately select a Racial Trait from your adoptive parents' race.I think Racial Traits need to be classified as Cultural or Genetic, and Adopted characters should only be able to choose a Cultural Racial Traits, not Genetic ones. There is no reason that a Halfling raised in Human society (probably quite common) could take the Human's Racial Trait: Medium, or a Human gaining an Half-Orc's Darkvision - perhaps if they were born of Human and Halfling (Three-Quarterling?), or Human and Half-Orc (Quarter-Orc?), but not simply being Adopted, as no genetics have passed between the races.
Or how about spending one of your two starting Character Traits on Adopted, taking the Human's Racial Trait: Bonus Feat, spending that Feat on Additional Traits to gain two additional Character Traits, now for a total of THREE starting Character Traits???!
The only thing preventing this spiralling into a never-ending loop is that you cannot take more than one Character Trait from the same category, so you couldn't take Adopted more than once to gain additional Bonus Feats from the Human's Racial Traits.
In a similar way that Class Abilities are classified as Spell-like...
I actually asked about the "Adopted" trait before and the response I received is that there actually aren't any "Racial Traits" yet. It does not refer to the actual makeup of the race, but more on how they are raised. The first racial traits will be in the Elves of Golarion book.
|
|
In a similar way that Class Abilities are classified as Spell-like (Sp), Supernatural (Su) or Extra-ordinary (Ex), why not classify Racial Traits as Cultural (Cu) or Genetic (Ge). This might allow Genetic Traits to be fixed, and Cultural Traits to be swapped out, thus addressing the OP's concerns.
I think genetic may be getting a bit too modern in speech and feel. What I was trying to point out is that each race certainly has genetics and genetic traits. A better word to use would be innate. At least until fantasy races discover the wonder that is DNA and genetics. ;)
I do like the idea, though. I can see each race having about three or four innate traits beyond Size, Speed, Vision, and (Keen) Senses that all members should have. After that, the two trait system is not bad at all as you can then play up on cultural elements, like Hatred. But I still think traits that have a strong training feel to them (Defensive Training, Greed, and Stonecunning all come to mind) really should be feats since feats are the best expression of specialized training outside of class abilities.
Arovyn
|
|
I actually asked about the "Adopted" trait before and the response I received is that there actually aren't any "Racial Traits" yet. It does not refer to the actual makeup of the race, but more on how they are raised. The first racial traits will be in the Elves of Golarion book.
Then either Racial Traits as written in Chapter 3: Races, OR the new Character Traits system, needs to be re-named, as this is clearly ambiguous if this wasn't the intention of the designers. My players raised this question, and I'm sure others will too.
|
|
I think genetic may be getting a bit too modern in speech and feel. What I was trying to point out is that each race certainly has genetics and genetic traits. A better word to use would be innate. At least until fantasy races discover the wonder that is DNA and genetics. ;)
I'm good with "inate"
I do like the idea, though. I can see each race having about three or four innate traits beyond Size, Speed, Vision, and (Keen) Senses that all members should have. After that, the two trait system is not bad at all as you can then play up on cultural elements, like Hatred. But I still think traits that have a strong training feel to them (Defensive Training, Greed, and Stonecunning all come to mind) really should be feats since feats are the best expression of specialized training outside of class abilities.
So maybe Inate (in), Cultural (cu) and Trained (tr). Maybe there are other categories, but these seem like a good start.
Wow! This is a wonderful discussion with plenty ideas for solutions on dealing with the major problem of sterotyping character based on race irrespective of where they actually grew up, especially when they grew up in other races and/or cultures.
These are brilliant idea. I sure be looking into this a bit more for sure.
|
|
That's the whole point, and that's why the game should keep the -2 modifiers. Each races should have a few weaknesses. The entire point of a class-based system is to encourage certain archetypes, not to make every conceivable concept equally viable. To do that, you would have to rewrite the game as an entirely skills-based system.
No you don't. The game survives just fine without the -2. Archetypes are already encouraged by virtue of the +2/+2. There's no reason to re-write the game into a skills based system just because you remove a penalty. I see the penalty as just a way to enforce racial stereotypes, and I don't like the racial stereotypes. I like the concept of slightly better than most a lot more than race x should never be class y because there's rarely a good explanation as to why.
Arovyn
|
The entire point of a class-based system is to encourage certain archetypes, not to make every conceivable concept equally viable. To do that, you would have to rewrite the game as an entirely skills-based system.
I'm in your camp on this. What I find ironic is that systems like GURPS and Hero turn around and build templates to put classes and races back into the game to make them work.
|
|
Giving a penalty to an attribute really discourages players from taking a class when that class features that attribute as one of its keys.That's the whole point, and that's why the game should keep the -2 modifiers. Each races should have a few weaknesses. The entire point of a class-based system is to encourage certain archetypes, not to make every conceivable concept equally viable. To do that, you would have to rewrite the game as an entirely skills-based system.
I'm cool with +2 +2 -2 modifiers. If you don't like negatives, then give them +4 +4 +2 +2 +2 +0, but use a Low Fantasy 10 point buy - works out the same, but avoids calling anything a "negative", in fact everything's a positive!
I also think Dwarves should have stone-cunning, greed, hatred, regardless of these being cultural or trained traits, similarly for other races, at least for core. Short of saying "pick 3 racial traits from the list below", you have to give them something, and stereo-typed or not, players have come to expect these from the core races.
However, identifying traits as inate, cultural or trained then allows individual GMs to swap these out for similar traits for other campaign settings which may hold different assumptions, eg Halfling cannibals, or for those crazy Adopted characters raised by races other than their own.
I think identifying traits as (in),(cu),(tr) sets up a nice classification which could prove useful for other systems (Feats, Prestige Classes) to use in the future.