Do We Still Need To Bribe Players To Play Their Race's Favored Classes?


Ability Scores and Races

51 to 100 of 413 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Bill Dunn wrote:
Mogomra wrote:


It is. But why should the person that wants to play a single classed Dwarven Rogue end up with 20 HP less then the person that wants to play a Halfling Rogue?

He won't. He's got a +2 Con advantage on the halfling, all other stats being the same base. That'll work out to +20 hit points over any other non-dwarf character with the same base stats, and he doesn't even have to stay in a base favored class and eschew all sorts of minmaxing level dips and prestige class opportunities.

Except that +2 Con won't disappear if that Dwarf decides he doesn't want to grow up to be a Fighter or Cleric...


Bill Dunn wrote:
Mogomra wrote:


It is. But why should the person that wants to play a single classed Dwarven Rogue end up with 20 HP less then the person that wants to play a Halfling Rogue?

He won't. He's got a +2 Con advantage on the halfling, all other stats being the same base. That'll work out to +20 hit points over any other non-dwarf character with the same base stats, and he doesn't even have to stay in a base favored class and eschew all sorts of minmaxing level dips and prestige class opportunities.

That's... not really the same thing. And I think you're missing the point.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Brett Blackwell wrote:

John and Mike have the same education and career (let's say IT for example). John works for a company that focuses on this career and pays really well, but eveyone does the same thing. Mike, on the other hand, works for a company he likes but which has a different focus (like healthcare) so they pay only the national average.

So, from the "it's a penalty" crowd, I'm assuming Mike is being penalized and repressed becuase he doesn't get paid as well. I guess Mike needs to go running to John's employer and complain that they shouldn't pay as well because it isn't fair....

Your analogy is false. Mike is actually getting the same pay as John, just in a different form. (In effect John took the Hit Point Bonus and Mike took the Skill Point bonus.)

A better analogy would be,

  • Mike took a job with a major corporation (like he was expected to do), so got a bigger paycheck.
  • John chose not to leave town, so took a job with a smaller company, but for less pay.

So, yes, not getting the "bonus" for choosing to be anything else then the bland, boring steriotypical classes, is a penalty.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Bill Dunn wrote:
Mogomra wrote:


It is. But why should the person that wants to play a single classed Dwarven Rogue end up with 20 HP less then the person that wants to play a Halfling Rogue?

He won't. He's got a +2 Con advantage on the halfling, all other stats being the same base. That'll work out to +20 hit points over any other non-dwarf character with the same base stats, and he doesn't even have to stay in a base favored class and eschew all sorts of minmaxing level dips and prestige class opportunities.

This is an incorrect analysis.

For you see, if that Dwarven Rogue would have instead chosen to be, say a Cleric (since both have the same d8 hit die), he would have the +2 Con bonus and the 20 hit point in addition.

So, yes, the Dwarven rogue is being penalized - and ranther severly.

(Which is the same think that Suzaku said, but using a lot more words. :D)


Sueki Suezo wrote:
Sorry, folks. I know you want to maintain your traditional archetypes, but all these bonus HPs/Skill Points do is encourage people to make very vanilla characters...

Just for the record: Just because a character's an elven ranger, or a dwarven cleric, or a half-orc druid, or.... doesn't mean that he's vanilla. The race/class combination is only one part of a character's identity. And while I agree that it is a very important part, there are still enough others to make those characters more distinguished than many dwarf warlocks or elf frenzied berserkers out there.

The trick is to look at the big picture, and not use race/class as a crutch. Some people seem to think that if they play a weird race/class combination, they're rebels and truly original roleplayers, even though the character has the same ability scores, skills, feats, and character than the last dozen characters they have played.

To take the examples above, we have an outgoing elven ranger who treats the streats of absalom as his territory, well-liked by everyone because he's a great mediator in quarrels. And if someone won't see reaons, he draws his warhammer and his club and gives them a beating with his prodigious strength.

The dwarven cleric eschews metal armour, concentrates on blast spells and similar magics to hunt down and vanquish the foes of his divine patron, The Eternal Rose. An appreciator of the arts and a gifted painter himself, his Sunrise over the Orchard is known throughout Andoran.

The half-orc, on the other hand, really is vanilla.

Talking of vanilla: Vanilla's good. Vanilla works. Not every character really must be a unique snowflake. The extraordinary cannot be extraordinary if the ordinary doesn't vastly outnumber it. "Look at this adventurer, what a freak! He's a dwarf and became a fighter. You know, the thing every dwarf is supposed to do. No one does that, what is wrong with the guy?"

Sueki Suezo wrote:


When the absence of a reward results in a loss of 20 HP, I think it's a punishment.

The absence of every reward results in a loss, so if you want to use that argument, everything that doesn't work for everyone is a punishment.

So let's get rid of the human's free martial weapon proficiency, because it punishes human fighters and other martial characters. The elven spell power thing punishes non-spellcasters, or those spellcasters who don't cast offensive spells, so that must go, too. And gnomes' improved illusion DCs. And generally everything that doesn't work for every class. Gnomes get a charisma bonus? That punishes those who never use charisma, let's get rid of it!

No, the argument that if a reward results in a loss if not granted, it's really a punishment and should be done away with doesn't make sense to me.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

KaeYoss wrote:
Sueki Suezo wrote:
Sorry, folks. I know you want to maintain your traditional archetypes, but all these bonus HPs/Skill Points do is encourage people to make very vanilla characters...

Just for the record: Just because a character's an elven ranger, or a dwarven cleric, or a half-orc druid, or.... doesn't mean that he's vanilla. The race/class combination is only one part of a character's identity. And while I agree that it is a very important part, there are still enough others to make those characters more distinguished than many dwarf warlocks or elf frenzied berserkers out there.

The trick is to look at the big picture, and not use race/class as a crutch. Some people seem to think that if they play a weird race/class combination, they're rebels and truly original roleplayers, even though the character has the same ability scores, skills, feats, and character than the last dozen characters they have played.

To take the examples above, we have an outgoing elven ranger who treats the streats of absalom as his territory, well-liked by everyone because he's a great mediator in quarrels. And if someone won't see reaons, he draws his warhammer and his club and gives them a beating with his prodigious strength.

The dwarven cleric eschews metal armour, concentrates on blast spells and similar magics to hunt down and vanquish the foes of his divine patron, The Eternal Rose. An appreciator of the arts and a gifted painter himself, his Sunrise over the Orchard is known throughout Andoran.

The half-orc, on the other hand, really is vanilla.

Talking of vanilla: Vanilla's good. Vanilla works. Not every character really must be a unique snowflake. The extraordinary cannot be extraordinary if the ordinary doesn't vastly outnumber it. "Look at this adventurer, what a freak! He's a dwarf and became a fighter. You know, the thing every dwarf is supposed to do. No one does that, what is wrong with the guy?"

Sueki Suezo wrote:


When the absence of a reward results in a loss of 20 HP, I...

Actually, there is an entire thread about the Human Weapon proficiency.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

KaeYoss wrote:
Talking of vanilla: Vanilla's good. Vanilla works. Not every character really must be a unique snowflake. The extraordinary cannot be extraordinary if the ordinary doesn't vastly outnumber it. "Look at this adventurer, what a freak! He's a dwarf and became a fighter. You know, the thing every dwarf is supposed to do. No one does that, what is wrong with the guy?"

Why is every dwarf supposed to be a fighter?


Sueki Suezo wrote:


That's... not really the same thing. And I think you're missing the point.

My point is: It's just 20 freaking hit points. I see variations like that and larger over a 20 level career just with variations in hit point rolls and Con scores. It's not that big a deal since it comes with the requirement that the PC not step outside of class to pick up little benefits here and there (something that dwarf can do and still have a hefty hp bonus over everyone else, base stats remaining otherwise the same).

So what's really the expected amount of extra hp a character will actually have due to this? How many characters will resist a few levels multiclassing around? How many games will actually make it to 20th level?
We may really be looking at a handful of hit points 10-12 or so in how things actually play out.

Face it, hp are a cheap commodity and fairly easily replenished. If one PC has more than another, it's not a big deal.


I would like to see the removal of favored class mechanic as well, but if that is not possible this mechanic is much better then the 3.5e one.

And if a nerf is needed just leave the +1 skill point per lvl option while removing +1 hp per level.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

-Archangel- wrote:

I would like to see the removal of favored class mechanic as well, but if that is not possible this mechanic is much better then the 3.5e one.

And if a nerf is needed just leave the +1 skill point per lvl option while removing +1 hp per level.

Actually, for some classes the +1 skill point per level is a MUCH better deal then the extra hit points. (Fighters for example)


Lord Fyre wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
Talking of vanilla: Vanilla's good. Vanilla works. Not every character really must be a unique snowflake. The extraordinary cannot be extraordinary if the ordinary doesn't vastly outnumber it. "Look at this adventurer, what a freak! He's a dwarf and became a fighter. You know, the thing every dwarf is supposed to do. No one does that, what is wrong with the guy?"
Why is every dwarf supposed to be a fighter?

The imaginary Golarion denizen I quoted was, of course, exaggerating. He only knows the stereotypes.

But generally, dwarves gravitate towards the fighter class. A lot of dwarves will be fighters - probably more than any two, maybe any three non-favoured classes combined (depending on the classes). They're the ordinary dwarf that enables the dwarven non-fighters to be extraordinary.

And I think that if a fair amount of characters are members of their races' favoured classes, that's perfectly fine. In fact, I think that with some groups, playing the ordinary is extraordinary. Among a troupe of war mages, spirit shamans, artificers, thaumaturges, warlocks, and mountenks, of races like hellborn, aarakokra, warforged, and the like, a dwarven fighter will turn heads.


Lord Fyre wrote:


Actually, for some classes the +1 skill point per level is a MUCH better deal then the extra hit points. (Fighters for example)

I think it's generally a better idea as well. The idea I get from it is, having stuck to the cultural momentum and gone with the favored class, the PC had an easier time picking up skills in the profession.


KaeYoss wrote:
So let's get rid of the human's free martial weapon proficiency, because it punishes human fighters and other martial characters. The elven spell power thing punishes non-spellcasters, or those spellcasters who don't cast offensive spells, so that must go, too. And gnomes' improved illusion DCs. And generally everything that doesn't work for every class. Gnomes get a charisma bonus? That punishes those who never use charisma, let's get rid of it!

But it's not the same situation. You might be a human that gets a feat that isn't optimal, but you still get the feat. You may play a Gnomish Wizard that doesn't get Elven Spell Power, but you still get something else in return: improved illusion DCs. You can argue about which racial abilities are best for which classes, but everyone still gets something.

But the Elven Monk gets NOTHING at all in compensation for the 20 HP or skill points that his friends the Elven Ranger or the Dwarven Fighter get by dint of being racial stereotypes. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. It's a lot more like making a character that belongs to a race that gets a +2 CHA bonus but no other racial adjustments or abilities. Compared to the other guys, you're getting the short end of the stick.

Liberty's Edge

-Archangel- wrote:

I would like to see the removal of favored class mechanic as well, but if that is not possible this mechanic is much better then the 3.5e one.

And if a nerf is needed just leave the +1 skill point per lvl option while removing +1 hp per level.

I rather have the +1 hp oppose to the +1 skill point. Skill points are much more valuable then skill points (except maybe wizards).

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Suzaku wrote:
-Archangel- wrote:

I would like to see the removal of favored class mechanic as well, but if that is not possible this mechanic is much better then the 3.5e one.

And if a nerf is needed just leave the +1 skill point per lvl option while removing +1 hp per level.

I rather have the +1 hp oppose to the +1 skill point. Skill points are much more valuable then skill points (except maybe wizards).

Can you edit that? What you are saying is not clear.

Liberty's Edge

Suzaku wrote:
I rather have the +1 hp oppose to the +1 skill point. Skill points are much more valuable then skill points (except maybe wizards).

Whoops brain fart I meant to type

I would rather have the +1 hp oppose to the +1 skill point. Skill points/level are much more valuable then hp a +1 hp/level


Absolutely. It's part of the balance between the races for them to have favoured classes. I think there should be 3.5 multiclass penalties too.


I think the mechanic is all but useless, an I think that everyone should be able to chose one class as their favorite, and humans and half elves given something a little more to replace the lost in ability. Why should we be forced to conform to these traditional role if we are trying to make something unique. How man umteanth times do we need those elven wizards, halfing rogues, half orc barbarians, and dwarven fighters before it gets too old. What this system does here is punish the players for wanting to play something outside the box.


Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
I think the mechanic is all but useless, an I think that everyone should be able to chose one class as their favorite, and humans and half elves given something a little more to replace the lost in ability. Why should we be forced to conform to these traditional role if we are trying to make something unique. How man umteanth times do we need those elven wizards, halfing rogues, half orc barbarians, and dwarven fighters before it gets too old. What this system does here is punish the players for wanting to play something outside the box.

This is a good, legitimate point Sir Ineptus. What can be done without 'breaking things' however is another matter altogether.

Scarab Sages

Ok, A lot of people are saying that it's a bad mechanic. fine. I disagree, but that's just me. next step: Paizo has as good as said that they want certain archetypes in their setting and their game. how do people propose that they do this without a reward for playing certain combinations? because the moment that everyone can play whatever they want with impunity/reward, there are no more archetypes. certain combinations would be obvious, yes, like a race with a bonus to int would do better as a wizard then a fighter, but still. Personally, I think they should emphasize these distinctions, but then I'd get hit with cries of "balance issues" if I suggest that they double all the ability score bonuses and penalties.

So to summerize, love it or hate it (especially the hate it crowd) how would you enforce archetypes (which are unfortunately wanted in this case)?


Turin the Mad wrote:
Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
I think the mechanic is all but useless, an I think that everyone should be able to chose one class as their favorite, and humans and half elves given something a little more to replace the lost in ability. Why should we be forced to conform to these traditional role if we are trying to make something unique. How man umteanth times do we need those elven wizards, halfing rogues, half orc barbarians, and dwarven fighters before it gets too old. What this system does here is punish the players for wanting to play something outside the box.

This is a good, legitimate point Sir Ineptus. What can be done without 'breaking things' however is another matter altogether.

Well humans have been having this ability sense the beginning right? SO I don't see how it could break things, rather than requiring a small boost to humans sense they will effectively be losing an ability.

Having one choice favorite class will help to limit needless multi-classing.

Do you have any direct concerns as to how doing this would be broken Turin?

P.S. I don't think that we can get rid of the mechanic entirely, as multiclassing would get crazy. The favorite class bonuses should continue so long as the character's classes are all with in 1 level of each other.


kessukoofah wrote:
Ok, A lot of people are saying that it's a bad mechanic. fine. I disagree, but that's just me. next step: Paizo has as good as said that they want certain archetypes in their setting and their game.

As good as said? That's not really the same thing as "said", is it?


Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
P.S. I don't think that we can get rid of the mechanic entirely, as multiclassing would get crazy. The favorite class bonuses should continue so long as the character's classes are all with in 1 level of each other.

Non-spellcasters are the ones that primarily multi-class. It is in the best interest of a spellcaster to maintain their spell progression so they can can high-DC 9th level spells that melt your face off at the end of the campaign. But non-spellcasting melee types often multiclass a bit before taking prestige classes so they can maximize their effectiveness and remain relevant to the game.

In short, I don't think that there's a "crazy multiclassing" problem.


kessukoofah wrote:

Ok, A lot of people are saying that it's a bad mechanic. fine. I disagree, but that's just me. next step: Paizo has as good as said that they want certain archetypes in their setting and their game. how do people propose that they do this without a reward for playing certain combinations? because the moment that everyone can play whatever they want with impunity/reward, there are no more archetypes. certain combinations would be obvious, yes, like a race with a bonus to int would do better as a wizard then a fighter, but still. Personally, I think they should emphasize these distinctions, but then I'd get hit with cries of "balance issues" if I suggest that they double all the ability score bonuses and penalties.

So to summerize, love it or hate it (especially the hate it crowd) how would you enforce archetypes (which are unfortunately wanted in this case)?

I do not think the favored class mechanism is in itself flawed. However, I cannot presently come up with an alternative method to encourage certain archetypes.

Although it could be argued that playing "whatever you want" can always happen - it's just a matter of what mechanical effects are to be dealt with.


kessukoofah wrote:
Ok, A lot of people are saying that it's a bad mechanic. fine. I disagree, but that's just me. next step: Paizo has as good as said that they want certain archetypes in their setting and their game. how do people propose that they do this without a reward for playing certain combinations? because the moment that everyone can play whatever they want with impunity/reward, there are no more archetypes. certain combinations would be obvious, yes, like a race with a bonus to int would do better as a wizard then a fighter, but still. Personally, I think they should emphasize these distinctions, but then I'd get hit with cries of "balance issues" if I suggest that they double all the ability score bonuses and penalties.

Racial traits and ability bonuses should reward players for using core classes, not an arbitrary mechanism that doesn't make much sense. Dwarves are rewarded for playing fighters because they have a good con, slow and steady, a good exotic weapon, and other fighter friendly bonuses. Elves are good wizards because their abilities and racial traits make them good wizards (spell penetration bonus to INT, etc).

Where this idea falls down is when the abilities and traits don't support the 'favored class'. But having an arbitrary HP/ skill bonus isn't going to fix that. Dwarves and Half Orcs don't need to be encourages by extra rules to be fighters because they are already good at it.

Elves on the other hand are not great rangers, their CON is low which means at best the favored class bonus keeps their HP average instead of low. They might make Ok archery rangers due to their dexterity but they get no help from their racial traits. People who want to play an 'elf' ranger are far better off with half elf, in particular since they can take favored class ranger also.

Even without the FC mechanism I can tell half orcs are going to be popular druids and clerics... the bonuses are just to well set up for those classes. I wouldn't be surprised to see a few dwarf druids also.


Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
I think that everyone should be able to chose one class as their favorite

Nah. It doesn't fit the underlying reason for favoured classes: That each race has a role or two they excel in, classical archetypes of that race.

If you let everyone choose one favoured class, it essentially becomes a bonus for not multiclassing.

Sueki Suezo wrote:


Non-spellcasters are the ones that primarily multi-class. It is in the best interest of a spellcaster to maintain their spell progression so they can can high-DC 9th level spells that melt your face off at the end of the campaign.

They're trying to fix that with the cap-stone abilities.

Sueki Suezo wrote:

As good as said? That's not really the same thing as "said", is it?

Okay, who let the Semantics Gnome out of its cage? Ugly creature's spreading hostility again. Quick, someone stun it with a hit to the head so we can lock it away again!


Sueki Suezo wrote:
Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
P.S. I don't think that we can get rid of the mechanic entirely, as multiclassing would get crazy. The favorite class bonuses should continue so long as the character's classes are all with in 1 level of each other.

Non-spellcasters are the ones that primarily multi-class. It is in the best interest of a spellcaster to maintain their spell progression so they can can high-DC 9th level spells that melt your face off at the end of the campaign. But non-spellcasting melee types often multiclass a bit before taking prestige classes so they can maximize their effectiveness and remain relevant to the game.

In short, I don't think that there's a "crazy multiclassing" problem.

I do like that the current favored class mechanism strongly discourages multiclassing to ramp up saving throw bonuses, cherry pick class features and other such tripe. Of course, the obvious solution - that is effective - has already been implemented (more or less) in the form of retooling the core classes to be very appealing to play all the way through.

One of my personal house rules is that, no matter what, "base" saving throw bonuses absolutely cap at +12. This was implemented expressly to nip "multiclassing for save bonuses FTW!" thinking.

EDIT: KaeYoss, what are "cap-stone abilities?"

Scarab Sages

Dennis da Ogre wrote:
stuff just now

Right, which is what I kinda said. the racial traits alone should be enough to encourage these archetypes. (Yes, I realize it's become aalmost a buzzword here, but i don't really have an alternative.) Personally I can see the why for both sides of this, and both sides have some points, but i'm gonna have to change my side and side with you guys on this now. After some careful consideration, even the old XP penalties for multiclassing make more sense then this in my head, and they were some of the clunkiest rules I've ever seen. at least this is a step in the right direction in that regard. theoretically, any child can grow up to become anything, regardless of race, so why should some be rewarded because they happen to be a differant race (and ya, I do see a distinction between a reward and a punishment).

I'm actually changing my tune now and hoping that they drop the mechanic. maybe just listing it under the class and it being "enforced" byt the already existing racial traits might be enough.

Though I have a feeling they're goign to have one anyway.

And for the person above who questioned my "as good as said" comment, I got told off on another thread for questioning the forest-elf connection and asking why they play to archetypes. as far as I'm concerned, that means that they have certain things flavour-wise that they want to keep and enforce.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Turin the Mad wrote:


EDIT: KaeYoss, what are "cap-stone abilities?"

Capstone abilities are the abilities each class gets at 20th level, such as the Monk's Purity of Body or the abilities of a Wizard's school or Sorcerer's bloodline.


Paul Watson wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:


EDIT: KaeYoss, what are "cap-stone abilities?"
Capstone abilities are the abilities each class gets at 20th level, such as the Monk's Purity of Body or the abilities of a Wizard's school or Sorcerer's bloodline.

Ah, I hadn't noticed the term used for that before. Many thanks!


kessukoofah wrote:
Dennis da Ogre wrote:
stuff just now

Right, which is what I kinda said. the racial traits alone should be enough to encourage these archetypes. (Yes, I realize it's become aalmost a buzzword here, but i don't really have an alternative.) Personally I can see the why for both sides of this, and both sides have some points, but i'm gonna have to change my side and side with you guys on this now. After some careful consideration, even the old XP penalties for multiclassing make more sense then this in my head, and they were some of the clunkiest rules I've ever seen. at least this is a step in the right direction in that regard. theoretically, any child can grow up to become anything, regardless of race, so why should some be rewarded because they happen to be a differant race (and ya, I do see a distinction between a reward and a punishment).

I'm actually changing my tune now and hoping that they drop the mechanic. maybe just listing it under the class and it being "enforced" byt the already existing racial traits might be enough.

Though I have a feeling they're goign to have one anyway.

And for the person above who questioned my "as good as said" comment, I got told off on another thread for questioning the forest-elf connection and asking why they play to archetypes. as far as I'm concerned, that means that they have certain things flavour-wise that they want to keep and enforce.

Intewestink, vewwwy intewestink. This is meant to be enunciated, not as a "you stink" comment, fyi.

It seems there are quite a few alternatives being offered for dealing with multiclassing, favored classes and the like.

I am presently at an impasse on the issue, although it is refreshing to see so many alternatives proposed (directly or indirectly).

As has oft been pointed out, a races' "given" bonuses often trend towards specific classes. Perhaps Paizo doesn't want things to be left too much to misinterpretation?


Dennis da Ogre wrote:
Racial traits and ability bonuses should reward players for using core classes, not an arbitrary mechanism that doesn't make much sense. Dwarves are rewarded for playing fighters because they have a good con, slow and steady, a good exotic weapon, and other fighter friendly bonuses. Elves are good wizards because their abilities and racial traits make them good wizards (spell penetration bonus to INT, etc).

If Dennis and I are in concurrence in any given thread, then you KNOW it's a serious issue. LOL


Turin the Mad wrote:
One of my personal house rules is that, no matter what, "base" saving throw bonuses absolutely cap at +12. This was implemented expressly to nip "multiclassing for save bonuses FTW!" thinking.

That's a very good suggestion. It keeps saving throws from going insane without playing favorites with race/class combinations.


I still fail to see where people feel that the new mutliclassing rules are a "penalty" any more than a human fighter would be suffering from a "penalty" because he doesn't benefit from the free martial weapon proficiency. Or a Elven fighter because he doesn't benefit from the bonuses to spellcasting.

Both of these examples are not gaining a certain benefit because of their race/class combo, just like the favored class rules, but they are not having something taken away because of it.

I personally like the new favored class rules and would be very unhappy if they were cut for the idea that someone is being penalized when really it is just someone being rewarded for picking a certain race/combo.


Brett Blackwell wrote:
I still fail to see where people feel that the new mutliclassing rules are a "penalty" any more than a human fighter would be suffering from a "penalty" because he doesn't benefit from the free martial weapon proficiency. Or a Elven fighter because he doesn't benefit from the bonuses to spellcasting.

Who cares if it's called a penalty. It's an incentive to act in a particular way. I can't believe people are still bickering over terminology.

Brett Blackwell wrote:

Both of these examples are not gaining a certain benefit because of their race/class combo, just like the favored class rules, but they are not having something taken away because of it.

I personally like the new favored class rules and would be very unhappy if they were cut for the idea that someone is being penalized when really it is just someone being rewarded for picking a certain race/combo.

I think the idea's been beaten to death... I must be really bored to have dropped by this particular thread because I am fairly certain Jason's long since made up his mind about it. I seem to recall he said it would remain in a sidebar (like it is now) labeled as an optional rule (currently it's not identified as optional) along with the bonus HP system. As far as I'm concerned that's a great call. You can use it, I won't be.


It clearly discourages creative character design, and is not needed to encourage races to play classes they already excel at.

If you want to use favored class as a reason for preventing characters from having too many classes, that may be needed. Even when used for that reason, I would probably say that what you start 1st level as becomes your favored class.


Fergie wrote:

It clearly discourages creative character design, and is not needed to encourage races to play classes they already excel at.

It only discourages creative character design if you're grubbing for hit points (or skill points) and feel trapped by the compulsion to maximize them. Suffice to say, D&D certainly tolerates an alternative to that style of character building and does so very well.


Dennis da Ogre wrote:
Racial traits and ability bonuses should reward players for using core classes, not an arbitrary mechanism that doesn't make much sense. Dwarves are rewarded for playing fighters because they have a good con, slow and steady, a good exotic weapon, and other fighter friendly bonuses. Elves are good wizards because their abilities and racial traits make them good wizards (spell penetration bonus to INT, etc). Where this idea falls down is when the abilities and traits don't support the 'favored class'. But having an arbitrary HP/ skill bonus isn't going to fix that. Dwarves and Half Orcs don't need to be encourages by extra rules to be fighters because they are already good at it.

I was on the fence until I read this. Now I'm quite convinced. Excellent analysis of the problem, Ogre -- obviously you dodged the racial penalty to Int somehow!

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Fergie wrote:

It clearly discourages creative character design, and is not needed to encourage races to play classes they already excel at.

If you want to use favored class as a reason for preventing characters from having too many classes, that may be needed. Even when used for that reason, I would probably say that what you start 1st level as becomes your favored class.

Here is the thing about that though. Look at some of the most interresting characters from Fantasy.

Conan, for instance, started as a Barbarian (original culture), but became a Thief (in Zamora), then a Soldier (in the Turanian cavalry), then a Pirate (while with Belit), then a Nobleman (as King of Aquilonia).

So multiclassing, if done for good charater based reasons, is not always a bad thing.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Dennis da Ogre wrote:
Racial traits and ability bonuses should reward players for using core classes, not an arbitrary mechanism that doesn't make much sense. Dwarves are rewarded for playing fighters because they have a good con, slow and steady, a good exotic weapon, and other fighter friendly bonuses. Elves are good wizards because their abilities and racial traits make them good wizards (spell penetration bonus to INT, etc). Where this idea falls down is when the abilities and traits don't support the 'favored class'. But having an arbitrary HP/ skill bonus isn't going to fix that. Dwarves and Half Orcs don't need to be encourages by extra rules to be fighters because they are already good at it.
I was on the fence until I read this. Now I'm quite convinced. Excellent analysis of the problem, Ogre -- obviously you dodged the racial penalty to Int somehow!

Sometimes I don't know whether people on the internet are being sarcastic or not. Whether I dodged the racial bonus to INT or not I make up for it with a low WIS or crappy sense motive score ;)

One thing is clear to me, once PRPG is released the changes are going to have a significant impact on the race-class mix up.

If nothing else Half-Orcs are back with a vengence (maybe overcompensated for the bum rap under 3.5) and maybe a few more Half Elves. Gnomes are still sort of stuck in the dark... I'm a monster *rawr*... hehehe :)


Dennis da Ogre wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
I was on the fence until I read this. Now I'm quite convinced. Excellent analysis of the problem, Ogre -- obviously you dodged the racial penalty to Int somehow!
Sometimes I don't know whether people on the internet are being sarcastic or not. Whether I dodged the racial bonus to INT or not I make up for it with a low WIS or crappy sense motive score ;)

No sarcasm. Your point was an excellent one: some races should be better at being certain classes, but the best way to reflect this is through their racial features (e.g., half orcs' ability bonuses & penalties make them good clerics, barbarians, and druids, but lousy wizards; dwarves' Con bonus, stability, and combat perks make them good fighters, etc.). Tacking on artificial hp or skill point bonuses on top of that seems rather forced and artificial.

Dark Archive

Really, I have a bit of a problem with this. For me the added bonuses to extra EXP or extra Skill Points, not to mention the added ability bonus for oh say halflings, don't seem like a bribe, but more of a push.

It's one of the major problems that I have with 4th edition is that it kind of blackmails the players into playing a stereotypical race/class set what with the added ability and skill bonuses, and if for any reason whatsoever you wish to play something that isn't a halfling rogue or eladrin wizard, then you're not playing the game right. Quite frankly it's just shy of madatory pregenerated characters.

Now in 3.5 Elves had wizards listed as thier favorite class though thier bonus ability was DEX, not INT. And if you wanted to play an class that the races isn't so inclind to play a lot, like the Cleric, then in 3.5 you weren't horribly punished for doing it.

Finally, something needs to be done in Pathfinder to keep the races from always having to be played sterotypically, and penalizing the players that break from there.


Dennis da Ogre wrote:
Gnomes are still sort of stuck in the dark... I'm a monster *rawr*... hehehe :)

Nah. They make excellent Bards and Sorcerers. A bonus to your illusion DCs on top of a charisma bonus? Nice. Now I also get a con bonus for more HP AND my penalty is in a stat that doesn't concern me that much? Woohoo, colour me green and pink and blue and brown, I'm gonna be a gnome and hex the heck out of you.

I AM THE BOOMSTICK!

Lord Fyre wrote:


Conan, for instance, started as a Barbarian (original culture), but became a Thief (in Zamora), then a Soldier (in the Turanian cavalry), then a Pirate (while with Belit), then a Nobleman (as King of Aquilonia).

So multiclassing, if done for good charater based reasons, is not always a bad thing.

Bad example.

First of all, while he may have come from a "barbarian" culture doesn't mean that he had barbarian levels. I grant you that he probably got a couple of rogue levels to be a better thief, but as a barbarian(or possibly fighter)/rogue, he has no problem with filling the role of soldier (so no multiclassing to warrior or something is required), and all he had to do to become a pirate was maybe take some ranks in profession (sailor) - again, perfectly doable as brb(ftr)/rog. Much easier than finding a non-core pirate class or being confined to his bunk until he qualified for the pirate PrC and take levels in. As for nobleman: No need for aristocrat levels here, you can just assume he got the title - note that not every nobleman or -woman in D&D is required to get aritocrat levels.


KaeYoss wrote:

Bad example.

First of all, while he may have come from a "barbarian" culture doesn't mean that he had barbarian levels. I grant you that he probably got a couple of rogue levels to be a better thief, but as a barbarian(or possibly fighter)/rogue, he has no problem with filling the role of soldier (so no multiclassing to warrior or something is required), and all he had to do to become a pirate was maybe take some ranks in profession (sailor) - again, perfectly doable as brb(ftr)/rog. Much easier than finding a non-core pirate class or being confined to his bunk until he qualified for the pirate PrC and take levels in. As for nobleman: No need for aristocrat levels here, you can just assume he got the title - note that not every nobleman or -woman in D&D is required to get aritocrat levels.

You're missing the point. It's not WHAT he multiclassed into, but the very fact that he multiclassed that is at the crux of this example. He's multiclassing for story reasons and is losing out on HP that other PCs are getting because of that. Yes, you might be able to achieve some of the same effects in this particular example by playing around with your skills, but players (especially new ones) aren't always going to be savvy enough to realize that. And some character development concepts are going to require multiclassing no matter how you slice it. Players are still getting screwed for having a "non-standard" character concept.


Sueki Suezo wrote:


You're missing the point.

Get a new line, this one's getting old and tiresome.

Despite all those different occupations he had during those years, he didn't have to multiclass into 5 different classes. It can be done with two - maybe with a single class, if you pick up a few thieving skills but stick to barbarian. With the bonus skill point for your favourite class, you could pick up pick pocket.

I haven't read the conan stories, but unless he really delved into everything rogue, you don't really need the rogue class - if you only do one or two things rogues do, you can get by with a barbarian's skill points. If he, say, only picked pockets, he can get Sleight of Hand instead of, say, survival (which would atrophy in a city, anyway).

In the end, of course some concepts will work better with more than one class, and some will virtually require multiclassing. BUt I maintain that not getting the favoured class bonus for everything doesn't mean they're punished.

The bonuses for having levels in your favoured class are special treats, not something you can expect to have in all situations unless you do something really crazy. Thus, I feel that it's a reward, not a punishment.

And you're definetly not getting screwed. It's not as if that poor dwarven rogue is doomed because he can't get the extra HP per level, and neither is the half-orc fighter and his "missing" extra skill point.


Fergie wrote:

It clearly discourages creative character design, and is not needed to encourage races to play classes they already excel at.

If you want to use favored class as a reason for preventing characters from having too many classes, that may be needed. Even when used for that reason, I would probably say that what you start 1st level as becomes your favored class.

Agreed, but I think altering it to you chose your favorite class at 1st, would work in a more open way.

Wayfinders

I'm not a fan of favored classes. When I DM, I house-rule that demi-humans can multi-class the same way humans & half-elves do.

But if Pathfinder maintains favored classes, get rid of the bonus HP, which I view as just too much of an incentive to play the vanilla race-class combinations. Plus, there is no logical connection between undertaking a profession at which your race is gifted and heightened resistance to damage. On the other hand, the bonus skill point does have a logical connection, and doesn't strike me as too much of an incentive to play one's favored class.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
KaeYoss wrote:
Sueki Suezo wrote:


You're missing the point.

Get a new line, this one's getting old and tiresome.

Despite all those different occupations he had during those years, he didn't have to multiclass into 5 different classes. It can be done with two - maybe with a single class, if you pick up a few thieving skills but stick to barbarian. With the bonus skill point for your favourite class, you could pick up pick pocket.

I haven't read the conan stories, but unless he really delved into everything rogue, you don't really need the rogue class - if you only do one or two things rogues do, you can get by with a barbarian's skill points. If he, say, only picked pockets, he can get Sleight of Hand instead of, say, survival (which would atrophy in a city, anyway).

In the end, of course some concepts will work better with more than one class, and some will virtually require multiclassing. BUt I maintain that not getting the favoured class bonus for everything doesn't mean they're punished.

The bonuses for having levels in your favoured class are special treats, not something you can expect to have in all situations unless you do something really crazy. Thus, I feel that it's a reward, not a punishment.

And you're definetly not getting screwed. It's not as if that poor dwarven rogue is doomed because he can't get the extra HP per level, and neither is the half-orc fighter and his "missing" extra skill point.

I have read them. Conan was a straight-classed Barbarian all the way through. His thievery was of the burglary variety and mostly consisted of climb (barbarian skill) and finding traps (trap sense). He didn't deactivate them often, more threw other people into them.

Wayfinders

Paul Watson wrote:
I have read them. Conan was a straight-classed Barbarian all the way through.

I tend to disagree. Among other things, Conan really didn't "rage" in the way a D&D barbarian does. For example, when raging a D&D Bbn can't use Int-based skills, and that doesn't describe Conan who always was being clever. At times he wore heavy armor or focused on ranged attacks instead of melee. He used many skills that aren't class skills for a barbarian. He used Stealth frequently. He used Diplomacy plenty, like when dealing with the ladies. And in his latter years we was a king, and he was plenty smart about it, so he must've had ranks in Knowledge (nobility), (geography), etc.


James Hunnicutt wrote:
Paul Watson wrote:
I have read them. Conan was a straight-classed Barbarian all the way through.

I tend to disagree. Among other things, Conan really didn't "rage" in the way a D&D barbarian does. For example, when raging a D&D Bbn can't use Int-based skills, and that doesn't describe Conan who always was being clever. At times he wore heavy armor or focused on ranged attacks instead of melee. He used many skills that aren't class skills for a barbarian. He used Stealth frequently. He used Diplomacy plenty, like when dealing with the ladies. And in his latter years we was a king, and he was plenty smart about it, so he must've had ranks in Knowledge (nobility), (geography), etc.

So, you think his actual class was fighter? Maybe with a decent int score and maybe a couple of skill focuses to help with cross-class skills (since that offsets the cross-class penalty, and on later levels actually overcompensates)?

51 to 100 of 413 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Design Forums / Ability Scores and Races / Do We Still Need To Bribe Players To Play Their Race's Favored Classes? All Messageboards