Yes, on the face of it, this is a stupid question. Paizo wants to sell its version of 3.X and wants it tied to their campaign setting. I get that and that is obviously their right...
At the same time I KNOW that I'd rather the Pathfinder RPG be a fairly generic set of rules that fine-tune 3.5 and leave the flavor (differing racial ability mods and flavor text, for example) to various setting supplements.
I'm finding that Pathfinder's racial norms fall outside of what I'd want for my D&Desque game and feel that a lot of these changes come from the need to make the races Golarion-ready when it should be the other way around. The Pathfinder rules should rock so hard that people will want to go out and buy the campaign supplements in order to fine-tune their game.
First and foremost I'd hope that the Pathfinder rules are 3.5 compatible, able to be used with any D&D setting (Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Scarred Lands, etc) without too much tweaking.
Getting off of my soapbox...
First, it's not really tied to Golarian more than very loosely, no more so than the D&D core rules were tied to Greyhawk. The only real Golarian tie in I know of is the domains and dieties section.
So they have a choice, tie it to their world or make up some generic gods and tie it to that.... really, do you even need to ask that? Much like the D&D PHB was useful for Eberron, Greyhawk, and Forgotten Realms the PRPG core book will be usable for all three.
Edit: I'm not sure what you are talking about w/ regards to the races. I think the races are tied in quite will with their historic D&D roles.
|
care to explain where do you see that theraces are Golarion Flavored, instead of generic?
actually there are a lot of threads saying that they want them to be different or why did theystill get an hability for x or y when said charactercould have been living outside his race
and there is always the same answer... for subspecies and similar things look for the Campaign Setting, Pathfinder has Core Rules...
or are you talking about the gods for the clerics... who are easily exchanged for any settting gods, just add a new domain?
they feel pretty generic... maybe you talk about the 'forsaken' elves but its the same in all other games, just check the booksand see how the elves outside their culture feel odd?
so why do you think Pathfinder RPG is actually married to Golarion? if that would have been the case it would have not been encesary for me to order my Campaign Setting copy (i did because the world i saw in the Adventure Paths interested me so much that i wanted to know more)
|
|
First and foremost I'd hope that the Pathfinder rules are 3.5 compatible, able to be used with any D&D setting (Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Scarred Lands, etc) without too much tweaking.
They are. The only part of Golarion that are in the core rules are the gods themselves. Just like the Greyhawk gods are used in the 3e PHB, the Golarion gods are being used here.
|
|
Technically, PRPG Beta is less tied to Golarion than 3e was tied to Greyhawk, since all proper names have been removed from the spell titles.
Really, the only thing I see is the deities. In my playtest, we have two clerics, and I just had both of them use generic deity concepts. I.E., one worships Chance (with domains being Luck and Trickery) and the other worships Death (domains are Death and Repose).
The only other thing I can think of that you might be referring to are the tweaks made to the base races. Are the gnomes too fey for your games? Would you rather the elves were dumber, or the half-orcs uglier?
Edit: I'm not sure what you are talking about w/ regards to the races. I think the races are tied in quite will with their historic D&D roles.
The flavour text for some of the races has changed (Gnomes -- 50% more fey than ever before! Half-orcs -- now with extra rape!).
Edit: I'm not sure what you are talking about w/ regards to the races. I think the races are tied in quite will with their historic D&D roles.The flavour text for some of the races has changed (Gnomes -- 50% more fey than ever before! Half-orcs -- now with extra rape!).
Ahhh!
That makes sense. Again... flavor text has to come from somewhere. If you are using the Realms then use the Realms version of the gnomes not the Paizo ones.
Ah, the screams of anguish when the fluff was changed. Glad to see it was well founded during the edition wars.
Tthe thing is, Paizo *CAN'T* use the same Racial Fluff, it's copyrighted,
so they'd have their own version one way or another.
And I dont' really see the treatment of Gnomes as being THAT different (Beyond "perfect stat mods" for different classes), they always were Fey, it was just glossed over, beyond that they could speak Sylvan, but they were never anything but a 100% Fey race.
BTW, Have your players complained much about the floating +2 for Human & Half-Elfs?... Didn't think so :-)
|
|
Edit: I'm not sure what you are talking about w/ regards to the races. I think the races are tied in quite will with their historic D&D roles.The flavour text for some of the races has changed (Gnomes -- 50% more fey than ever before! Half-orcs -- now with extra rape!).
ok the gnomes just abit more fey to acklwledge their racial abilities...
but... err what extra rape? trully half orc have been always like that... could you mention one reason a human would mate an orc? (freaks of nature like Thrall from Warcraft are exception not the rule, and still he has not mated any human lass, nor i think he will do).
BTW, Have your players complained much about the floating +2 for Human & Half-Elfs?... Didn't think so :-)
actually i think they loved it :P
He may also be talking of the elf height. But as a long time realms player I find short elves odd. Or maybe the eras or the eyes I dont know thats mere fluff that can be changed per world. Almost every setting has its own take on the base races I dont see an issue. And half orcs and rape well it was always there if unspoken the non rape half orc is a rare breed in most worlds
|
There is always some form of "default" setting for a core book. In this case, it's Golarion. But I do agree that some races need to be built to be a lot more generic and lot less like the Golarion standard (*cough* gnomes *cough*). I don't see any reason to swap out the gods listed for clerics and paladins for something more generic. Truth be told, you could simply not list any gods at all and simply put in cosmology building 101 instead and teach how to create a deity and a pantheon with a couple of Golarion deities as examples.
Arovyn
but... err what extra rape? trully half orc have been always like that... could you mention one reason a human would mate an orc?
Why would elves mate with humans?
Why do birds sing?
Why do bells ring?
At any rate, Eberron has less rape-y half-orcs, so it's hardly unheard of.
|
And a little flavour has to be in there, even in a core book. The illustrations and descriptions need flavour, everything else would be plain dull. Would the rule book be totally flavour-less (for example, without any illustrations, description and gods; just lists and lists of rule stuff), it would only appeal to veteran gamers. No newbie would say "huh, that sounds/looks/tastes cool, I'd like to play THAT".
And as all of the previous posters argued, the Golarion fluff is limited to only a very small portion of the book in which it's inevitable. In my opinion, the changes to the racial modifiers are minor. I can't really understand the notion to say that these don't fit into the general perception of a certain race. I guess, even with the small changes, the races can be unmistakably recognized as elves, dwarves and so on. And, even if these minor changes don't appeal to you, I don't see a reason why not to stick to the original 3.5 modifiers. I don't think sticking to those would interfere with balance.
but... err what extra rape? trully half orc have been always like that... could you mention one reason a human would mate an orc?Why would elves mate with humans?
Why do birds sing?
Why do bells ring?
At any rate, Eberron has less rape-y half-orcs, so it's hardly unheard of.
eberron's orcs are not like normal fantasy orcs though. There more like live close to the land mystics not raid and pillage types. There in two groups the first type has humans living with them in paces the the 2nd type has em as slaves if at all.
At any rate, Eberron has less rape-y half-orcs, so it's hardly unheard of.eberron's orcs are not like normal fantasy orcs though. There more like live close to the land mystics not raid and pillage types. There in two groups the first type has humans living with them in paces the the 2nd type has em as slaves if at all.
Sure. I'm just saying that Pathfinder changed the default "fluff" to make the half-orc's origin more violent, whereas Eberron changed the "fluff" to make the half-orc's origin less violent.
Personally, I just ignore 90% of the fluff anyways, so I don't care. :-)
|
|
but... err what extra rape? trully half orc have been always like that... could you mention one reason a human would mate an orc?Why would elves mate with humans?
Why do birds sing?
Why do bells ring?
At any rate, Eberron has less rape-y half-orcs, so it's hardly unheard of.
read the half-elf for why would some elves mate with humans :P
and pathfinder is not the first reference to this, i am almost sure the ones in forgotten realms are as this ones...i have not read eberron ones... but aren't we talking about going for the less specific world related descriptions intead of the more related ones?
Deities will always will be a problem no matter the game system used when it comes to making a game system independent of a campaign setting. It is reading friendlier to use names for deities instead of god #1, god #2, god #3. Where god #1 has the following domains: blah, blah, blah..., god #2 has the following domains: blah, blah, blah..., etc.
Besides, the way I see the deities, they are just examples on how to create deities for your own campaign setting.
Deities will always will be a problem no matter the game system used when it comes to making a game system independent of a campaign setting.
I disagree. There are plenty of universal systems that somehow manage not to tie their magic systems to a pantheon…or even Vancian magic itself.
Deities will always will be a problem no matter the game system used when it comes to making a game system independent of a campaign setting.I disagree. There are plenty of universal systems that somehow manage not to tie their magic systems to a pantheon…or even Vancian magic itself.
You are not talking "Fantasy Hero" again are you? :D
Personally, I just ignore 90% of the fluff anyways, so I don't care. :-)
If the fluff fits, use it. That's the thing about fluff is it doesn't really matter, use it, discard it, do what you want.
I disagree. There are plenty of universal systems that somehow manage not to tie their magic systems to a pantheon…or even Vancian magic itself.
Meh, you are missing the point, this is a replacement for D&D. The gods are part of the system. How do you propose they could eliminate the gods and keep the cleric class play able from the get go? The only thing I can think of is "The player picks 2 domains when he creates a cleric". I suppose that works but considering the list of gods is 1 table that takes up 1/2 page, is this really a big deal?
You are not talking "Fantasy Hero" again are you? :D
Hero, G.U.R.P.S., Savage Worlds and True20 just to name a few.
Meh, you are missing the point, this is a replacement for D&D.
D&D is a genre on to itself. It is not generic fantasy.
|
|
Why do the core rules have to be married to Golarion?
Now, upon reading your perfectly legitimate question, my first thought was: "Is it?"
I don't see how the Beta ruleset is Golarion-specific. The explanation of the racial bonuses and maluses isn't world-specific to me. It's another take on the concepts than the original rules, for sure, but that's not Golarion specific, is it? Could you enlighten me? This is not snarky; this is a serious question.
Creative Director
|
Meh, you are missing the point, this is a replacement for D&D.D&D is a genre on to itself. It is not generic fantasy.
That's the thing, though... the Pathfinder RPG isn't trying to be a "generic fantasy" game. It's supposed to be an evolution of the 3.5 rules. We're not interested in deleting conventions like the Vancian magic or alignment or the core races, because the Pathfinder RPG is intended to be a game that'll let you run D&D type games. At the same time, though, just as the 3.5 SRD allowed folk to build games as diverse as Call of Cthulhu D20, Mutants & Masterminds, Dragonstar, and Spycraft... the hope is that we'll see similar 3rd party work continue with the Pathfidner RPG.
|
That's the thing, though... the Pathfinder RPG isn't trying to be a "generic fantasy" game. It's supposed to be an evolution of the 3.5 rules. We're not interested in deleting conventions like the Vancian magic or alignment or the core races, because the Pathfinder RPG is intended to be a game that'll let you run D&D type games. At the same time, though, just as the 3.5 SRD allowed folk to build games as diverse as Call of Cthulhu D20, Mutants & Masterminds, Dragonstar, and Spycraft... the hope is that we'll see similar 3rd party work continue with the Pathfidner RPG.
If Pathfinder RPG is supposed to be an evolution of D&D, not tied closer to Golarion than to other settings: Why call it Pathfinder RPG and not e.g. Paizo RPG????
I am pretty sure that even more people would try PFRPG, if the name wouldn't suggest such a close connection to Golarion/ the Pathfinder product line.
Kr,
Günther
|
|
That's the thing, though... the Pathfinder RPG isn't trying to be a "generic fantasy" game. It's supposed to be an evolution of the 3.5 rules. We're not interested in deleting conventions like the Vancian magic or alignment or the core races, because the Pathfinder RPG is intended to be a game that'll let you run D&D type games. At the same time, though, just as the 3.5 SRD allowed folk to build games as diverse as Call of Cthulhu D20, Mutants & Masterminds, Dragonstar, and Spycraft... the hope is that we'll see similar 3rd party work continue with the Pathfidner RPG.If Pathfinder RPG is supposed to be an evolution of D&D, not tied closer to Golarion than to other settings: Why call it Pathfinder RPG and not e.g. Paizo RPG????
I am pretty sure that even more people would try PFRPG, if the name wouldn't suggest such a close connection to Golarion/ the Pathfinder product line.
Kr,
Günther
I disagree -- I find 'Pathfinder RPG' to be more evocative than 'Paizo RPG'. Besides, the Pathfinder logo looks just so great, that I wouldn't want to see the game renamed! =)
Actually, come to think of it, *all* the art and graphic design in Paizo's products is top quality -- muc, much better than in 4E.
|
|
You are absolutely right in pointing out the extremely high quality of all Pathfinder products so far.
It's just that the very reason for this thread wouldn't exist if the RPG name could stress these qualities without (wrongly) implying that it is firmly connected to the Golarion setting.
Paizo RPG really isn't a very evocative name. ;-) Just a placeholder... I'd really love if many more gamers would choose the PFRPG to continue their longtime GH, FR, EB, Scarred Lands, Dragonlance... campaigns.
Cheers,
Günther
That's the thing, though... the Pathfinder RPG isn't trying to be a "generic fantasy" game.
Oh I know. I was arguing “Deities will always will be a problem no matter the game system used when it comes to making a game system independent of a campaign setting.”
I have no problem with your fluff being married to your mechanics. It has always been that way with D&D.
Chris, I'm curious about what you see in the racials that's so different. Flavor is irrelevant. Is there something about the stats that you don't like?
Chris, I'm curious about what you see in the racials that's so different. Flavor is irrelevant. Is there something about the stats that you don't like?
If I had to guess (and I don't), it might be the wise half-orc clerics, smart--no wait--charismatic halfling bards, charismatic gnome sorcerers, etc.
It could be something totally different, though.
I find the pretty loose ties to a more or less "generic/familiar D&D world", if such a bird exists, quite useful to contextualize the product as an independent system. The deviations are from the "3.5 standards", which are, in turn, a fluff and retconning process of its own.
Take the 3.0-3.5 Halfling. It has totally evolved from the Tolkienesque incarnation of OD&D to AD&D 2nd ed into a race of its own. Maybe it's me, but it seems that elements from the Krynn Kender were merged into the halfling (eliminating Kryynspecific mechanics) to produce a new being. The D&D default (Rock) gnome is also quite unusual from the average fantasy tale gnome (more closely related to Forest Gnomes). If PF presents a default gnome which has more fey ties, I don't think that's too disturbing.
Putting elves in a tall Tolkien-like territory is not my piece of cake; I just keep using the short elven physique (though I like the eyes). Nothing too serious to fix.
Stats-wise, I cannot find complaints. I think that giving 2 "good stats" to non-humans is a good way of keeping the door to homebrew adapting more open without changing the numeric factors of the rules, as different favored class can be introduced or removed to fit your own campaign world.
Maybe it's my old gamer spirit, but I like rules which don't exist in a void, but give a few hints of a "world out there", even if it's not the one I am using in my games. D&D Basic and Expert boxes, the 1st ed DMG and, of course, Runequest come to mind...
Chris, I'm curious about what you see in the racials that's so different. Flavor is irrelevant. Is there something about the stats that you don't like?
It's tough to describe so bear with me...
I get that Pathfinder's designers want to give each race 1 caster and 1 noncaster option for favored classes. I don't see why the stats NEED to directly correlate to the casting attribute of those classes.
This hasn't been necessary in any iteration of D&D and needn't factor so obviously into Pathfinder.
=====================================
D&D Examples:
Dwarves have always made great fighters BUT you don't see them getting a +2 to STR because CON has its benefits too.
High Elves (the "standard" D&D elves for years) made great wizards but didn't get an INT bonus. Players of elves still played wizards because they realized the the DEX bonus had its uses too.
Gnomes had been D&D's best illusionists for years but, as illusionists weren't base character class in 3.5, got changed to the "bardic" race of D&D. Rather than give them a CHA bonus, they got a bonus to CON.
====================================
These bonuses to non-key ability scores weren't seen as a nerf to the race but as decisions made on the basis of each race's "flavor".
Now it seems that character maximization drives ability score bonuses even if these bonuses (and penalties) don't necessarily gel with the long-standing fluff for each race.
Reading over the responses I understand why the gods of Golarion need to be plugged into the core rules... just as the Greyhawk gods were used in the PHB. I guess, overall, my key beef is with the racial changes and my puzzling over the reasons behind them.
As I wrote, I like Golarion and dig its flavor... I just don't want that flavor to overshadow the backward compatibility with 3.5. I'd much prefer more vanilla races to be presented within the Pathfinder PHB with variant races presented in the Pathfinder Campaign setting books or in sidebars.
Chris, this is totally off-topic, but I wanted to say thanks for your "Realm of Geeking" page - it's been an invaluable resource for me as a DM.
Thanks much! Glad to be of service.
|
|
As I wrote, I like Golarion and dig its flavor... I just don't want that flavor to overshadow the backward compatibility with 3.5. I'd much prefer more vanilla races to be presented within the Pathfinder PHB with variant races presented in the Pathfinder Campaign setting books or in sidebars.
"Vanilla races?"
mmm i think the changes are correct, they make this races more attractive or at least as attractive than dozens of new races or monster races...
every time a player came wanting to be this "awesome" monster race i had to evaluate if it was counter productive to the game or not...
i don't think (as many others have pointed) that this changes are tied to Golarion, but to making a better game for every one
i for one have liked most of the changes on the races, and so i have seen on my players... even one that always did humans for the extra feat, now found a reason for making an elven wizard (and no, it wasnotthe favored class)
If I had to guess (and I don't), it might be the wise half-orc clerics, smart--no wait--charismatic halfling bards, charismatic gnome sorcerers, etc.It could be something totally different, though.
That's part of it. I'll try to be brief about this:
Dwarves: Good fighters and clerics. +2 CON and +2 WIS make sense because dwarves are tough in mind and body. In light of ditching the Half-Orc CHA penalty, I don't see why dwarves would keep such a penalty. I'd suggest (based on the maximum DEX of 17 in AD&D and upon the FR Shield Dwarf in 3.X) dropping the CHA penalty and shifting it to DEX.
Elves: All good, no complaints here. I'd prefer them short but that's easy to ignore.
Gnomes: I like the fey (forest gnomey) thing going on here. I understand that (due to backward compatibility) bards must be a favored class. Based on their ties to nature I'd make Druid the other favored class for gnomes... which ties in perfectly with the gnome iconic in Pathfinder. To keep them loosely linked to dwarves (they've always been linked to dwarves in varying degrees) I'd make their ability positive adjustments +2 CON and +2 WIS. Because of their small size they'd keep their -2 to STR.
Halflings: I prefer my halflings a little pudgy and lovers of creature comforts... but know that most don't agree with me on this score. In keeping with 3.X's more Kender-esque vision of halflings and Pathfinder's nomadic halflings, I'd keep rogues as a favored class (which still works for old-school halflings too). Their second favored class is a bit of a problem.
AD&D halflings made decent druids, which made sense because they lived in agrarian societies. With gnomes having druid as a 2nd favored class, I can understand why druids shouldn't also be the 2nd favored class of halflings... though it is a decent fit. If halflings have to have a second class, I guess that it should be bards. I'd keep the +2 to DEX and -2 to STR. I'd TOTALLY ditch the +2 to CHA because I just don't see halflings (or gnomes) as the most charismatic race in the game. Likeable?.?.? sure! But certainly not "natural leaders" and inspiring presences. In its place I'd give them a +2 to WIS because halflings have ALWAYS been described as surprisingly strong-willed and perceptive.
Half-Elves: +2 to any ability score. Favored Class: Any. No problems here.
Half-Orcs: +2 to any ability score... if it works for 1/2 elves it could work for 1/2 Orcs (especially in light of their losing their long-standing CHA penalty). Favored Class: Any... once aqain, based on the 1/2 elf.
Humans: All good.
|
|
Gnomes: I like the fey (forest gnomey) thing going on here. I understand that (due to backward compatibility) bards must be a favored class. Based on their ties to nature I'd make Druid the other favored class for gnomes... which ties in perfectly with the gnome iconic in Pathfinder. To keep them loosely linked to dwarves (they've always been linked to dwarves in varying degrees) I'd make their ability positive adjustments +2 CON and +2 WIS. Because of their small size they'd keep their -2 to STR.
Halflings: I prefer my halflings a little pudgy and lovers of creature comforts... but know that most don't agree with me on this score. In keeping with 3.X's more Kender-esque vision of halflings and Pathfinder's nomadic halflings, I'd keep rogues as a favored class (which still works for old-school halflings too). Their second favored class is a bit of a problem.
AD&D halflings made decent druids, which made sense because they lived in agrarian societies. With gnomes having druid as a 2nd favored class, I can understand why druids shouldn't also be the 2nd favored class of halflings... though it is a decent fit. If halflings have to have a second class, I guess that it should be bards. I'd keep the +2 to DEX and -2 to STR. I'd TOTALLY ditch the +2 to CHA...
mm actually i agree in this 2
gnomes are very close tonature,having their favored class being druid will show what is already a natural connection...
halfling... i have never liked their comfortable beings... actually i have never liked them... but that is another issue... neither i see why should be "natural leaders" that is what high charisma says to me, either they are so damnable cute that they are likeable or its because humans and elves see them as children... anyway i hereaby repeat...
when one player said he was goign to be a halfling bard (he later explained he intended to be a politician) i was all for the idea of putting him in a cage and attach a pole to use him as "canary in the mine"
i loved that image that appeared in one of the dragon magazines :D
|
|
That's part of it. I'll try to be brief about this:
Dwarves: Good fighters and clerics. +2 CON and +2 WIS make sense because dwarves are tough in mind and body. In light of ditching the Half-Orc CHA penalty, I don't see why dwarves would keep such a penalty. I'd suggest (based on the maximum DEX of 17 in AD&D and upon the FR Shield Dwarf in 3.X) dropping the CHA penalty and shifting it to DEX.
Um, I always hated that -1 to DEX back in AD&D, and I think it truly undermines the Dwarves as fighters. First of all, Half-orcs get +2 to STR, and humans and half-elves can also choose to put +2 to STR -- and none of these races get any penalties to DEX. I just don't see getting +2 to CON (effectively +1 HP per level and +1 to your Fort Save) being nearly as useful. Besides, dwarves are supposed to be "gruff'n'tuff", so that -2 to CHA is certainly justified.
Gnomes: I like the fey (forest gnomey) thing going on here. I understand that (due to backward compatibility) bards must be a favored class. Based on their ties to nature I'd make Druid the other favored class for gnomes... which ties in perfectly with the gnome iconic in Pathfinder. To keep them loosely linked to dwarves (they've always been linked to dwarves in varying degrees) I'd make their ability positive adjustments +2 CON and +2 WIS. Because of their small size they'd keep their -2 to STR.
I can understand your logic here, but I fear that bonuses to WIS and CON make Gnomes feel mechanically too much like Dwarves. I do agree with you on Druid being a good second class for Gnomes. However, the key question here is:
Will Pathfinder RPG represent Gnomes as nature-loving Fey, or as "urban pranksters"?
In the former case, it could be argued that +2 to CON and WIS, *or* +2 INT and +2 WIS, is the way to go, with Druid and Illusionist as Favored Classes. In the latter case, it would be more logical to give them +2 to CHA and +2 to either INT or CON, with Bard and Sorcerer as Favoured Classes.
Halflings: I prefer my halflings a little pudgy and lovers of creature comforts... but know that most don't agree with me on this score. In keeping with 3.X's more Kender-esque vision of halflings and Pathfinder's nomadic halflings, I'd keep rogues as a favored class (which still works for old-school halflings too). Their second favored class is a bit of a problem.
AD&D halflings made decent druids, which made sense because they lived in agrarian societies. With gnomes having druid as a 2nd favored class, I can understand why druids shouldn't also be the 2nd favored class of halflings... though it is a decent fit. If halflings have to have a second class, I guess that it should be bards. I'd keep the +2 to DEX and -2 to STR. I'd TOTALLY ditch the +2 to CHA...
Yeah, that second Favoured Class is a tough one for halflings, but I would go for the Ranger, personally, since Halflings are tied to nature and have a lust for adventure and exploration. In the sense that halflings are best suited to be rogues, +2 to DEX and +2 to CHA is justified. I don't hate the idea of the bard as a second Favoured Class, but it would make halflings the best choice for the bard class, too, so I'm not sure if I like it?
Um, I always hated that -1 to DEX back in AD&D, and I think it truly undermines the Dwarves as fighters. First of all, Half-orcs get +2 to STR, and humans and half-elves can also choose to put +2 to STR -- and none of these races get any penalties to DEX. I just don't see getting +2 to CON (effectively +1 HP per level and +1 to your Fort Save) being nearly as useful. Besides, dwarves are supposed to be "gruff'n'tuff", so that -2 to CHA is certainly justified.
Dwarves aren't graceful fighters, they're more like tenacious little tanks... hardy as hell and able to hold the line and stand their ground.
A -2 to DEX wouldn't hurt any more than a -2 to CON does for Elves or a -2 to STR does for a halfling or gnome finesse or ranged-weapon fighters.Once again, ability scores should (hopefully) be based on what makes sense with regards to the racial descriptions more so than with an eye towards creating maximized characters.
I can understand your logic here, but I fear that bonuses to WIS and CON make Gnomes feel mechanically too much like Dwarves. I do agree with you on Druid being a good second class for Gnomes. However, the key question here is:
Will Pathfinder RPG represent Gnomes as nature-loving Fey, or as "urban pranksters"?
Exactly what I was going for. Gnomes were presented in AD&D as more fey/woodland-based cousin to dwarves and their ability scores should reflect that.
I really hope that the PFRPG goes for the nature-loving, guerrilla warfare vs. kobolds version of gnomes over the prankster gnomes.
Yeah, that second Favoured Class is a tough one for halflings, but I would go for the Ranger, personally, since Halflings are tied to nature and have a lust for adventure and exploration. In the sense that halflings are best suited to be rogues, +2 to DEX and +2 to CHA is justified. I don't hate the idea of the bard as a second Favoured Class, but it would make halflings the best choice for the bard class, too, so I'm not sure if I like it?
Since Pathfinder is going for one caster class and one non-caster class for each race, and I didn't want to upset the apple cart, I went for Bard. Bards were historically (and in AD&D) trained by druids and, as such, should have ties to nature. Perhaps a slight tweak to the class could play up on this druidic link... hmmm.
Half-Orcs getting just +2 to STR would be how I'd do them... and I would probably add some "extra" ability to make them stand out from humans and half-elves (both thematically and mechanically). That +2 to WIS doesn't just make sense to me...
A flat +2 to STR would work for me too. My biggest beef was with 1/2 Orcs not getting a CHA penalty while dwarves do. If doesn't make sense to me based on the history of the game and with the racial descriptions.
|
|
A flat +2 to STR would work for me too. My biggest beef was with 1/2 Orcs not getting a CHA penalty while dwarves do. If doesn't make sense to me based on the history of the game and with the racial descriptions.
yeah but the half orcs are already suffering of a -2 Int... and i think its right to keep 2 +2 and just one -2 to all races
in 3.x the half-orc received -2 int and -2cha, and only +2 to str... it was the only race that gave this bonus in strenght modifier... but it say to me "this game is about hack and slash, only, so ifyou want to get a benefit on strenght you need to be penalized the double than the rest"
i reallyhated this feeling (never did a half-orc, possibly never will) i felt the game was mas about combat thatn roleplaying... and while combat is a (constant) part of the game... its also NOT what me and most of my players look for in RPGs
A flat +2 to STR would work for me too. My biggest beef was with 1/2 Orcs not getting a CHA penalty while dwarves do. If doesn't make sense to me based on the history of the game and with the racial descriptions.yeah but the half orcs are already suffering of a -2 Int... and i think its right to keep 2 +2 and just one -2 to all races
in 3.x the half-orc received -2 int and -2cha, and only +2 to str... it was the only race that gave this bonus in strenght modifier... but it say to me "this game is about hack and slash, only, so ifyou want to get a benefit on strenght you need to be penalized the double than the rest"
i reallyhated this feeling (never did a half-orc, possibly never will) i felt the game was mas about combat thatn roleplaying... and while combat is a (constant) part of the game... its also NOT what me and most of my players look for in RPGs
I meant that 1/2 Orcs should get a +2 to STR with NO other ability adjustment. That way, they'd be like Humans and 1/2 Elves in that they'd get a single +2 modifier to 1 ability score.
The other races would keep the +2/+2/-2.
|
|
I meant that 1/2 Orcs should get a +2 to STR with NO other ability adjustment. That way, they'd be like Humans and 1/2 Elves in that they'd get a single +2 modifier to 1 ability score.
The other races would keep the +2/+2/-2.
mmm could be
but while humans and half-elves offer flexibility, and the other races offer an specialty with something extra, half-orcs would be lead to only fighting classes, which most already have a bad will saving throwi am of the idea of leaving the races stats as they already are.
The Pathfinder races are very much in accord with what D&D races are like. There is some racial power creep (as there is power creep in other aspects of the game), but this is done in a way that actually enhances congruence between racial mechanics and racial flavor.