|
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)?
Yeah, Conan probably was a fighter, and probably dipping into a few levels of rogue.
Apologies all around for contributing to the threadjack.
Do we need favored classes? With core races- do we need them?
I'm trying to remember if I ever took a race's fav. class... I usually made a point to avoid doing so to be differant.
Do we need favored classes? With core races- do we need them?
I'm trying to remember if I ever took a race's fav. class... I usually made a point to avoid doing so to be differant.
Which takes us back to one of my main arguments for archetypes and encouraging them: Without establishing standards, you cannot have punks like you who like being different. ;-)
Do you think that Drizzt would have been so successful as a novel figure and master for billions of carbon copied characters if the average drow male wasn't depicted as evil, underground-dwelling, and totally submissive to drow females?
If everyone's special, no one is. If there's no beaten path, you cannot stray from it. If there's no normal, there's no abnormal.
Those who want to be different (not that I'm bashing that - played such characters myself) need something to be different from.
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)?Yeah, Conan probably was a fighter, and probably dipping into a few levels of rogue.
Apologies all around for contributing to the threadjack.
Or, as I was saying, did he multiclass two or three times?
My point with this was that, like many other elements of the rules, multi-classing if done for valid character reasons should not be "punished" or "penalized."
When I first perused the Pathfinder ruleset and noticed the addition of the +1 HP or +1 Skill Point for favored classes I thought it was awesome. I tend to play to type and so it worked out wonderfully. And then I thought to myself, what if I want to play something more exotic? What if I'd like to play Varghul the Verbose, Half-0rc Illusionist extraordinaire? Never mind that it's a horribly handicapped premise, I shouldn't be "punished" further for choosing to play this memorable off-type character.
Some people have said that to play against your type, missing out on the bonus, is not a punishment, but in a game of mostly (read: almost entirely) combat, it definitely is. 20 HP is no joke to the wizard whose HP have been increased by 40% (20th level Wizard Avg HP is 50).
When I first perused the Pathfinder ruleset and noticed the addition of the +1 HP or +1 Skill Point for favored classes I thought it was awesome. I tend to play to type and so it worked out wonderfully. And then I thought to myself, what if I want to play something more exotic? What if I'd like to play Varghul the Verbose, Half-0rc Illusionist extraordinaire? Never mind that it's a horribly handicapped premise, I shouldn't be "punished" further for choosing to play this memorable off-type character.
Some people have said that to play against your type, missing out on the bonus, is not a punishment, but in a game of mostly (read: almost entirely) combat, it definitely is. 20 HP is no joke to the wizard whose HP have been increased by 40% (20th level Wizard Avg HP is 50).
Actually, in a game-group that is more role-playing focused that 20 skill points can be just as punishing. :(
|
I say ditch favored classes and multi-class penalties all together.
What multiclass penalties (the xp penalty is gone, I thought, at least)? Or are you referring to the absence of the favoured class bonus (which can certainly be argued as a penalty but you already mentioned it in the 'favoured classes' part)?
|
|
What multiclass penalties (the xp penalty is gone, I thought, at least)? Or are you referring to the absence of the favoured class bonus (which can certainly be argued as a penalty but you already mentioned it in the 'favoured classes' part)?
On reflection, multiclassing isn't mentioned at all other than in passing, so I guess that the multiclass XP penalties may indeed remain or they are just in the air (given that they're not even mentioned when 'favoured class' is explained in the Designer Note on page 11 of the Beta).
|
|
Some people have said that to play against your type, missing out on the bonus, is not a punishment, but in a game of mostly (read: almost entirely) combat, it definitely is. 20 HP is no joke to the wizard whose HP have been increased by 40% (20th level Wizard Avg HP is 50).
In PFRPG the average rolled hp will be 70 for a 20th level wizard as they now have d6 HD. Still a 2/7 boost.
On the other hand, how often do wizards depend on their hit points?
"I want to be different, I want to be different! Quit picking on me because I'm different, I shouldn't suffer becuase I'm different!"
Here's the cake, eat it or have it your choice.
You want to ban it from your games... fine. You want to pressure your GM to ditch it, also fine. Most players however have lived with this from the days of Basic D+D and are quite happy with the trope. So it's time to stop trying to make a minority opinion a rule the majority must live with whether they want to or not.
I've been playing D&D since the Red Box... but I still think this is a mechanic that needs to be put out of its misery like Old Yeller.
|
|
I've been playing D&D since the Red Box... but I still think this is a mechanic that needs to be put out of its misery like Old Yeller.
Seems to me that old standards like this should be houseruled out by DMs that don't like it, because it doesn't look important enough to me to break another backwards compatibility element (going right back to the origins of the game!) that has seemed to be enduringly popular. On the other hand, excising it from the rules is relatively easy (it's not like making a houserule for barbarian rage progression, say).
Seems to me that old standards like this should be houseruled out by DMs that don't like it, because it doesn't look important enough to me to break another backwards compatibility element (going right back to the origins of the game!) that has seemed to be enduringly popular. On the other hand, excising it from the rules is relatively easy (it's not like making a houserule for barbarian rage progression, say).
How does keeping favored classes maintain backward compatibility with 3.5? What essential parts of the game mechanics are affected by losing this concept? And why is this idea so important that we need to reinforce the primacy of this old rule by giving players extra hit points and skill points to entice them to stay in their traditional race/class roles?
I think the whole mechanic is uselessly dated. With the new 20th level cap abilities there is much less incentive to min/max by taking a little here and a little there. That was probably the original intent of favored classes anyway. To prevent people from getting 1 or 2 levels in 10 to 15 classes which would cause them to have insane saves. If you leave out favored classes there is still the fact that almost all the races bonuses match their favored classes anyway. You already have a very strong incentive to play to type already. What do you need more reinforcement for?
|
|
How does keeping favored classes maintain backward compatibility with 3.5? What essential parts of the game mechanics are affected by losing this concept? And why is this idea so important that we need to reinforce the primacy of this old rule by giving players extra hit points and skill points to entice them to stay in their traditional race/class roles?
I just meant the fact that there are advantages to taking certain classes for certain races which has been around for ever; it's not a huge deal (for backwards compatibility), but on the other hand, I don't get the sense that most players have a problem with it. Stat blocks will still be different with the new system over the old in any case.
I personally feel that the favored class mechanic limits player creativity and suppresses the freedoms inherent in tabletop gaming by reinforcing stereotypes and inadvertently punishing unique decisions.
Ultimately, we need to look at the mechanic from a mechanical perspective. I'm all for halfling rogues and half-orc barbarians, but they shouldn't be given special treatment over the scrappy halfling fighter or the half-orc monk.
Unfortunately, I get the feeling that the favored class mechanic persists because of new multiclass freedoms. With the 3.5 penalties for multiclassing gone in PF, the favored class rewards players who progress through a single class. However, the 20th level capstone abilities (perfect self, that weird bardic death song, etc.) already provide very strong incentives to avoid multiclassing.
Whatever the true reason for keeping favored classes is, I strongly believe that it's sticking around as a further incentive to single-class in a world free of multiclass penalties . . .
I personally feel that the favored class mechanic limits player creativity and suppresses the freedoms inherent in tabletop gaming by reinforcing stereotypes and inadvertently punishing unique decisions.
The favoured class mechanic rewards players who stick to the races' strong suits. It doesn't limit or enforce anything, and neither does it punish anything. It's choice and consequences.
No one holds a gun to your head and tells you to play a gnome bard or dwarf cleric. You don't get the extra HP/skill points, but that's not a punishment. It won't make the character unplayable, either. Far from it.
It won't be the most effective build possible, but then again, I'll take everything that makes powergamers stick to base classes. ;-P
I like the way it supports the background flavour: Elves make great rangers and wizards, dwarves make great clerics and fighters, and so on. The races really take to those roles, their societies support those classes very well.
Those who walk off the beaten path will have the satisfaction of doing so, but going's not quite as smooth there.
It also will mean that you'll see a lot of characters with many levels in those classes. That means that the favoured classes really will be favoured. They will really be the baseline others can deviate from.
And one more thing: Race/class combination isn't the only thing that determines how original the character is: I've seen dwarven monks that made me want to throw up for lack of originality (in fact, in one game I play in, there's just such a dwarf in it. He's a monk, something totally undwarflike, but he's still a member of the most favourite dwarven subrace: cliche-dwarf.) and elven wizards that screamed anything except elf (though in some cases that wasn't a good thing at all).
Unfortunately, I get the feeling that the favored class mechanic persists because of new multiclass freedoms. With the 3.5 penalties for multiclassing gone in PF, the favored class rewards players who progress through a single class. However, the 20th level capstone abilities (perfect self, that weird bardic death song, etc.) already provide very strong incentives to avoid multiclassing.
It's more than just encouraging people to stick to their class: It's encouraging people to stick to the race's favourite class(es).
The favoured class mechanic rewards players who stick to the races' strong suits. It doesn't limit or enforce anything, and neither does it punish anything. It's choice and consequences.
Of course it punishes players. It punishes players that want to make characters that don't stick to the old, staid, cookie-cutter fantasy stereotypes that Favored Classes embody by withholding HP and Skill Points from them. You can engage in semantics and claim that people aren't being penalized because nothing is technically being taken away, but they are in fact getting screwed over in a very real way.
No one holds a gun to your head and tells you to play a gnome bard or dwarf cleric. You don't get the extra HP/skill points, but that's not a punishment. It won't make the character unplayable, either. Far from it.
It doesn't seem like you're holding a gun to their head... until a PC dies in combat because they didn't have those extra HP that the bland characters get. And then the idea of giving people extra HP and Skill Points doesn't seem like a very good idea to anyone anymore - except for the folks that are locked into the same threadbare fantasy trope that are profiting from the rule, of course.
|
Of course it punishes players. It punishes players that want to make characters that don't stick to the old, staid, cookie-cutter fantasy stereotypes that Favored Classes embody by withholding HP and Skill Points from them. You can engage in semantics and claim that people aren't being penalized because nothing is technically being taken away, but they are in fact getting screwed over in a very real way.
Yet if you remove the mechanic altogether then the unfavored classes are still not getting the bonus hp/sp so would that still not be a penalty?
|
|
It doesn't seem like you're holding a gun to their head... until a PC dies in combat because they didn't have those extra HP that the bland characters get. And then the idea of giving people extra HP and Skill Points doesn't seem like a very good idea to anyone any more - except for the folks that are locked into the same threadbare fantasy trope that are profiting from the rule, of course.
Again if you remove the favoured class mechanic that still wont stop the unfavoured people dieing in that situation only difference is the people in the favoured class will as well.
Yet if you remove the mechanic altogether then the unfavored classes are still not getting the bonus hp/sp so would that still not be a penalty?
Then NO ONE is getting the bonus HP/Skill Points, and everything is on par again.
Favored Classes make for fine racial/cultural recommendations, but shouldn't be used as the basis to give goodies out to players.
You know, in advanced only humans had unlimited potential in all classes, the other races where limited to lower levels in specific classes (or multiclassed structures). The reasoning for this (at the time) was partially mechanically -- humans where the only race that didn't get any racial goodies at all.
I still don't see what the fuss is, if you want the bonus just play a human and get it where you want it. I still think whining about favored classes 'punishing' those that want to be different is like trying to have your cake and eat it too. You want different? Fine, you are different, you are "an unique and individual butterfly" now suffer like you should for going off the path, different isn't easy and shouldn't grant you anything other than satisfaction that you did something unique.
Otherwise quit trying to punish others becuase you can't have everything.
Yet if you remove the mechanic altogether then the unfavored classes are still not getting the bonus hp/sp so would that still not be a penalty?
Exactly. If no one can get those extra HP, and someone should die, then they're being punished by the same logic by which people who don't choose favoured classes get punished.
Of course it punishes players. It punishes players that want to make characters that don't stick to the old, staid, cookie-cutter fantasy stereotypes
By that same reasoning, racial traits punish those who don't want to stick to those stereotypes.
An elven fighter is punished twice over, at least: His spell penetration racial ability is wasted, along with his int bonus, and his con penalty means he's a frail fighter.
A dwarf sorcerer is also punished, because he doesn't have that spell penetration, and because he gets a cha penalty.
Come to think of it: Those who don't take the Touhness feat are punished, too! They might die in a fight which they would have survived with those extra HP! Toughness punishes those who go for more "interesting" feats rather than using the boring power feats.
Those who won't take spell penetration and spell focus feats will be punished because their spells will fail.
Everything that isn't granted equally to all races, classes, and characters equally is a punishment. Thus in your favourite game, characters are all the same.
D&D isn't your game. D&D does grant different powers to different races and classes, and D&D supports certain archetypes - and that's because the designers know that archetype doesn't equal stereotype. You can have an elven archer that's full of fresh ideas, just as you can have a dwarven wizard where everyone will be able to "divine" what he's going to say next, because it all comes straight from the textbook of Dwarven Steretyping for Experts.
If you're really against such archetypes, D&D isn't really for you. Even if you succeeded in getting this rule taken out of the rules (so others who would have liked it might never hear of it, because they'll only get the final rulebook, not knowing about the beta test - in effect, they're punished for your inflexibility. This would not be the case if you just houseruled it away, just like I houseruled the extra HP option away), there will still be ability bonuses and racial abilities that make races better in some classes than others. In D&D, non-humans like elves and dwarves aren't just humans with a different look.
They ARE punished for being different and that's cool. But it should be enough. Not playing to racial norms does put one foot in the grave in exchange for being different but that bonus to HP or skills throws the different guy headfirst into the grave.
How can something that wasn't there before throw you headfirst into the grave? How did all those 3e characters survive for 8 years?
Talk about exaggerating.
Factor in that if the DM has a team of people using favored classes and one guy who's the oddball, not only is he not optimized but the dungeon is set up to be of moderate difficulty for players who have more HP than him for no real reason or also more skill ranks for no real reason. Tougher monsters for tougher heroes and higher DC's for higher skills. The dungeon CR becomes too much at higher levels for the oddball until he becomes that guy in the party who's effectively 1 or 2 levels weaker.
We're talking about 20 hp at level 20. 1 hp per level. Less than what you get for toughness.
Yes, that's right. We're talking about something that's not quite as good as one feat.
Keep talking about exaggerating
Also, the OP never said anything about making them the same. You're exaggerating to an obscene amount.
Being punished by not sticking to the stereotypes with 1 hp per level or 1 skill point per level.
Being punished by not sticking to the stereotypes with bonuses in abilities you have no use for, or penalties in abilities you could use only too well, or racial traits you cannot use.
Potato.
Potato.
|
|
How can something that wasn't there before throw you headfirst into the grave? How did all those 3e characters survive for 8 years?Talk about exaggerating.
I imagine that if a fair number of characters are taking the extra hp, monsters will get a little meaner. Thus, not taking it is a disadvantage. However, I am just not sure it's that big a deal.
|
I personally feel that the system actually encourages you to play according to type well enough without any need to reward playing to type.
For an example, what's pretty much the best race for Fighters? Taken into account ability scores and any abilities that may pertain to combat, I think Dwarves win simply by magnitude. The same goes for Clerics, as Dwarves gain the bonus to Wisdom and their racial abilities synergize well with the Cleric, whose supposed place is near the front line.
Now, what race makes the best Barbarians? Could it be Half-Orcs, with an ability that lets you attack once before dropping unconscious (which Barbarians spend a lot of time doing due to their not-so-spectacular ACs)? How about Druids? Half-Orcs again, due to the fact that Wild Shape is keyed to the character's own physical stats these days.
How about Wizards? What race provides a bonus to Intelligence and what effectively counts as free Spell Penetration? Elves? Really? I totally didn't see that one coming. How about Rangers? Elves again? Well, no, but at least they tried...
How about Bards? I wonder if there are any races in the game that grant a bonus to Charisma... oh, but there's two! Halflings and Gnomes, the former of which gives some bonuses to skills and the latter having some nice abilities that synergize with illusions, which feature rather prominently on the Bard's list. Odd, that.
Rogues? You still can't do better than Halfling if you want to play a truly sneaky git. Sorcerers? Gnomes have bonuses to illusion spells AND a Charisma bonus to boot.
To me it seems that the system already encourages players to play to type enough without the need for an artificial booster for being a stereotype. Because of this I think the new Favored Class rules only serve to add another flavor of suck to more esoteric character concepts.
We aren't talking about 3e.
Actually, he claimed that not getting the bonus would throw you headlong into the grave.
3e characters never got that bonus. None were thrown into the grave.
Yes, exactly. So why have both? Why have extra advantages besides the ones that already are there and actually make sense?
You know what? This argument actually makes sense.
I think it depends on how much of an advantage you should get for sticking to the things your race is good at.
Personally, I don't like the HP boost, as it doesn't make too much sense to me (though I think that if I thought about it, I'd come up with an explanation). Thus, I banned that part, and characters only get extra skill points.
FC Wizard should give you a bonus to your casting, not what's basically +2 Con.
FC Barbarian should give a bonus to rage points
FC Fighter, bonus feat or a higher AB
FC Ranger, Keener senses in the wild than other ill-suited rangers
All those things would blow up the favoured class rules, but the current ones are quite simple and easy to implement: Just an extra HP (which I, as I said, don't like that much) or extra skill point. The skill point does make sense: You're training in a class that comes naturally to you, one that your race and its culture support, so you'll get better training.
Though, the Half-orc having less reason to care about Int doesn't sit well with me personally. Especially when one of his Favored Classes is the archetypal "dumb" guy.
He's still dumb. He's not quite as unskilled as before, that's true, but the other applications for intelligence won't benefit from that: No better total skill modifiers in knowledge skills and the like, and no better wizard spellcasting!
I imagine that if a fair number of characters are taking the extra hp, monsters will get a little meaner. Thus, not taking it is a disadvantage. However, I am just not sure it's that big a deal.
I'm sure it isn't. I really doubt that the benefits for that will be taken into account for CR any more than the possible extra HP for toughness will be taken into account.
After all, they won't expect everyone to take their favoured classes.
And they won't expect everyone with favoured classes to go with the extra HP.
By that same reasoning, racial traits punish those who don't want to stick to those stereotypes.
An elven fighter is punished twice over, at least: His spell penetration racial ability is wasted, along with his int bonus, and his con penalty means he's a frail fighter.
A dwarf sorcerer is also punished, because he doesn't have that spell penetration, and because he gets a cha penalty.
Alas, you're comparing apples to oranges. Elves and Dwarves may not have racial abilities that perfectly sync with certain classes, but they still get racial abilities that are relevant to their race/class combo.
That Elven Fighter may not be putting that Spell Penetration to good use, but he wouldn't be gaining any benefit from it if he was a Ranger, would he? And he's not just taking a CON penalty - he's also gaining a DEX bonus. And an INT bonus. And the extra skills that come with them. And Elven Immunities. And Keen Senses. And so on and so forth.
Or do you believe that we really should all be only playing race/class combos that can squeeze every ounce of power from the synergy between a character's race and class? Are all Elves that aren't Wizards = suck?
And that Dwarven Sorcerer? He's taking a hit to his CHA, but he's getting a bonus to his CON. And his WIS, which will bolster his classe's already impressive Will saves. And he's also getting a +2 bonus to all of his saves against magic and poison.
But the point is: they both benefit in some way from their race/class combination. But if you choose a class that isn't your Favored Class, you don't get ANY bonus HP or Skill Points. None at all whatsoever. It's like if you decided to make a character that belonged to a Race that didn't get ANY racial abilities. No stat modifiers, no Darkvision, no nothing. Just some bland mook with some gold in his pocket and (hopefully) some really good ability scores.
Come to think of it: Those who don't take the Touhness feat are punished, too! They might die in a fight which they would have survived with those extra HP! Toughness punishes those who go for more "interesting" feats rather than using the boring power feats.
This argument isn't a valid one. Characters get many Feats over the course of their careers, and they are free to spend them however they wish. A character that takes a Feat that != Toughness is not penalized because they are still getting the same number of Feats as any other member of their race and class - they are simply spending them in a fashion that they deem to be more advantageous then if they took Toughness.
But you do bring up an interesting point: how comfortable would people be with the Favored Class rules if we weren't giving characters extra HP/Skill Points for taking their Favored Class, but instead decided to give them an extra Feat? Maybe then they would realize the inequity of the whole affair.
D&D isn't your game.
This is the part where you tell me I should be playing 4th Edition instead, right? Or maybe World Of Warcraft, perhaps? *yawn*
If you're really against such archetypes, D&D isn't really for you.
I'm not against Archetypes, but many of these old fantasy tropes have already wandered pretty deeply into Stereotype Kingdom. The Paizo team is doing a pretty good job of hunting them down and bringing them back to civilization, but handing out free candy to player in an attempt to reinforce those tropes doesn't really help the situation.
Even if you succeeded in getting this rule taken out of the rules (so others who would have liked it might never hear of it, because they'll only get the final rulebook, not knowing about the beta test - in effect, they're punished for your inflexibility.
Clearly I'm the bad guy because I want to see this terrible rule stricken from the books. How will I be able to sleep at night, knowing that I've deprived countless gamers of bad rules? If only I wasn't so inflexible! *shakes fist in air*
This would not be the case if you just houseruled it away, just like I houseruled the extra HP option away), there will still be ability bonuses and racial abilities that make races better in some classes than others.
It's a bad rule. It's an arbitrary rule. It's an unfair rule. It was introduced in the Alpha, was never a part of the 3.5 SRD, and needs to be put down like Old Yeller.
|
|
Clearly I'm the bad guy because I want to see this terrible rule stricken from the books. How will I be able to sleep at night, knowing that I've deprived countless gamers of bad rules? If only I wasn't so inflexible! *shakes fist in air*
One persons bad rule is another persons good one. the fact we have all been arguing about this one rule for a couple of pages is proof of that. It is somewhat arrogant to claim that you know what is or isn't best for everyone else.
One persons bad rule is another persons good one. the fact we have all been arguing about this one rule for a couple of pages is proof of that. It is somewhat arrogant to claim that you know what is or isn't best for everyone else.
You can call me whatever you like - it's a terrible rule, and until someone can present some evidence to the contrary, I'm not moving from my position.
it's a terrible rule, and until someone can present some evidence to the contrary, I'm not moving from my position.
We disagree, and you haven't yet convinced us that it is, in fact, terrible.
We can basically stop arguing this.
Some peopel like it, some people don't. That won't change.
it's a terrible rule, and until someone can present some evidence to the contrary, I'm not moving from my position.We disagree, and you haven't yet convinced us that it is, in fact, terrible.
We can basically stop arguing this.
Some peopel like it, some people don't. That won't change.
So why are we getting rid of the 3.5 favored class/multiclass penalty systems? Think about it. We always think of people not multiclassing to the point of getting multiclass XP penalties as being normal (they get 100% of the XP they were going to get) and people multiclassing to the point of getting XP penalties as being penalized (they get 80% of the XP they would otherwise have gotten (or even less)). But were they really being penalized? Why don't we think of them being the normal ones and getting 100% of the XP they should be getting and the characters that don't deviate from a single class as getting 125% of the XP they should get?
Nonmulticlassers get normal XP and multiclassers get less; we call it a penalty. Multiclassers get normal XP and nonmulticlassers get more; do we then say the penalty no longer exists? Because that's what's happening with Paizo's favored class system right now.
Put it another way. Dwarves are typically seen with heavy armor and a big axe or hammer. Elves typically get swords or bows. So why don't those two races automatically get an axe or a sword for free at character creation, in addition to what they otherwise get and without the other races getting something to their name? Because it's unfair.
This is why I advocate racial class feature substitution levels as being a good favored class system (and why I lament that it won't get included here). With certain race/class combos getting class feature substitutions based on their archetypes, the idea of a favored class is maintained in a more fair fashion. Everyone gets one something. An elf rogue gets to pick from a list of one (the default class). A halfling rogue gets to pick from a list of two (the default class or the class feature substitution), but in the end he still only gets one (and so long as the racial class feature is in line with the regular class feature), there isn't an unfair advantage. But instead we have either getting extra hp/skill points or the alternative (nothing). Extra hp/skill points is not equivalent to nothing.
Nonmulticlassers get normal XP and multiclassers get less; we call it a penalty. Multiclassers get normal XP and nonmulticlassers get more; do we then say the penalty no longer exists? Because that's what's happening with Paizo's favored class system right now.
Semantics.
I call the xp penalty a penalty because you needes more XP to level up.
I call the new bonuses bonuses because you get something above and beyond the standard.
If you go around and say a bonus is a penalty for those who don't get it, then this applies not just to this particular case, but everything:
Non-dwarves are penalised in their speed with heavier armour. They also get a con and wis penalty for not being dwarves. Most fighters, barbarians, paladins and rangers get a feat penalty for being humans, elves, and so on, because an elven wizard gets several free weapon proficiencies - basically worth several extra feats - but the fighter gets them only one even though he should have them twice.
Put it another way. Dwarves are typically seen with heavy armor and a big axe or hammer. Elves typically get swords or bows. So why don't those two races automatically get an axe or a sword for free at character creation, in addition to what they otherwise get and without the other races getting something to their name? Because it's unfair.
Actually, I don't even bother with standard gear and cost that much in my games. Unless they want really expensive stuff, players just get what they want, without the need to roll starting gold and buy gear for that.
But that's beside the point. We're talking about unfair:
Elves and Dwarves may not get free items (i.e. stuff whose worth will be completely irrelevant between 1 or 3 game sessions later), but they do get free abilities (i.e. something that will either be useful for most of your career, or never, depending on what you play): Elves may use swords and bows regardless of class, dwarves get the same with hammers and axes, and they can also treat racial exotic weapons as martial ones (something else that's only useful to some classes). Dwarves even get to wear heavier armour without being slowed down (any further than their race already does).
All that can be seen at least as unfair as favoured class rules. Unfair to the races who don't get such abilities, and unfair to those characters who play something that doesn't benefit from those extras (i.e. elven fighter, or dwarven almost everything, since very few concepts do benefit from all those extras)
We disagree, and you haven't yet convinced us that it is, in fact, terrible.
So far in playtesting, I think it's terrible because all half-orcs are either druids or barbarians, almost all elves are either rangers or wizards, and all dwarves are either clerics or fighters. I rolled up a dwarf rogue, just to buck the trend... and what do you know, I should have gone with human or halfling instead, to get that extra skill point. Personally, I think the incentive given is unnecessarily strong; I'd prefer to leave it at the existing racial stat mods and abilities.
Elves get +2 Int and +2 to defeat SR, making them natural wizards. There's really no reason in the world to add even more incentive.
There's a difference between not getting something and getting something else instead and not getting something, you're done. That's why elves not getting good Con and getting increased Spell Resistance breaking abilities or whatever is okay. Conversely, the multiclasser is not getting skill points/hp and instead, he gets what? The privilege of multiclassing? I think that should be a given automatic. You should be able to spend x effort, gain y XP, and spend them on z class levels, and it should not matter whether you spent them all on levels in one class or another or these three over here. Multiclassing, by default, should be no better, no worse than single-classing or remaining in favored classes.
|
So why are we getting rid of the 3.5 favored class/multiclass penalty systems? Think about it. We always think of people not multiclassing to the point of getting multiclass XP penalties as being normal (they get 100% of the XP they were going to get) and people multiclassing to the point of getting XP penalties as being penalized (they get 80% of the XP they would otherwise have gotten (or even less)). But were they really being penalized? Why don't we think of them being the normal ones and getting 100% of the XP they should be getting and the characters that don't deviate from a single class as getting 125% of the XP they should get?Nonmulticlassers get normal XP and multiclassers get less; we call it a penalty. Multiclassers get normal XP and nonmulticlassers get more; do we then say the penalty no longer exists? Because that's what's happening with Paizo's favored class system right now.
Because the 3.5 system was a HARSH penalty if you ask me. Yea we can say that no matter what, with any system in place that deals with favored classes, there are going to be some sort of penalty if we keep them. Howevere there is a degree in severity to keep in mind. For instance, depending on his much someone multiclassed because they wanted to play a halfling yet also wanted to customize their character to fit their idea (I say CUSTOMIZE and not cherry pick since one might have a general story and theme they're going for while the other is just trying to power game) they could get penalized by getting their lvl MUCH slower then the rest of the party.
Given enough time, that same halfling could fall a lvl or two behind due to this XP penalty.
In the pathfinder system, that same halfling might miss out on a few HP buffs or skill points they would have got extra from choosing their favored/natural class. I see a few skill points or HP as a LOT less severe then being shy a whole lvl or two down the road.
Thats why they're getting rid of it (or at least why I'm happy they've chosen this route).
Now do I think they should get rid of favored classes all together? I honestly don't know. I see both sides of the coin and can't decide honestly. As it stands, its kind of nice to always have the favored class in the mix somehow. Its just one of those nice flavors twisted into a Pathfinder appeal I liked.
However, whether you want to argue this is D&D 3.5 expanded or its own game, Pathfinder, I wonder if they are trying too hard to keep things familiar when some things should just be dumped. Don't know if this is one of them, but for now I'm compelled just to give my players the extra +1 skill point when they choose their favored class.
It's not very harsh. The benefits can be likened to the power of a Feat. Not even quite that much - toughness grants you 3 extra HP at 1st level. And you get this one in installments - only levels in your FC are rewarded. Levels in other classes aren't, but they won't result in total loss of the feat, either.
|
|
It's not very harsh. The benefits can be likened to the power of a Feat. Not even quite that much - toughness grants you 3 extra HP at 1st level. And you get this one in installments - only levels in your FC are rewarded. Levels in other classes aren't, but they won't result in total loss of the feat, either.
That depends on your class now doesn't it? For a fighter they might have sacked 10 hp just on ONE lvl alone. Plus they don't have that extra +1 to hit. Maybe it was also a feat lvl too, so thats gotta wait even though there is some hard stuff ahead and you could REALLY use that improved crit for those yuan ti.
Heck maybe you're mostly a wizard and you were finally going to hit that sweet spot of lvl 3 spells and get fireball but find yourself shy of all your friends.
To me, a lvl diff between one player and the rest can be a bit of a downer for that player.
Heck most my group likes to multiclass a LITTLE but given the situation most have to play a balancing act they'd rather not play to AVOID xp penalty.
Shakespeare said it best I think with that whole line about "A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet." Well you can look at this penalty more in the lines of a BENEFIT for those who choose their Favored Class ... but it still smells like crap to me.
That depends on your class now doesn't it? For a fighter they might have sacked 10 hp just on ONE lvl alone.
What? Favoured class gives you either one skill point or one hit point per level in that class. How do you get 10 hp?
|
|
What? Favoured class gives you either one skill point or one hit point per level in that class. How do you get 10 hp?
That depends on your class now doesn't it? For a fighter they might have sacked 10 hp just on ONE lvl alone.
Sorry I think we got our wires crossed for a moment. What I was saying was harsh was the 3rd editions method of xp penalty where you got hit for actual XP from deviating from your favored class. As it stands now with Pathfinder I'm saying I LIKE what the did with the favored class.
Ah. Makes sense now.
For everyone that wants the favored class rules to stay, I ask what you believe the reason for the rule's existence. I think if we go through and show that there is no sound reason to include the rule, then we can at least admit that it should be seriously reconsidered by the developers.
I imagine that a big one is to encourage traditional race/class combinations. The fact that certain races already favor their favored classes without the bonus eliminates this reason for the rule being included.
In exchange, I give three reason why this rule should not be included:
1) It throws off the mechanical balance between race/class combinations.
Compare any character with the favored class bonus to any other character with the same class but without the favored class bonus. If you can find any case where the character without the favored bonus is more powerful, please show this in a post.
What's more, this test can be done even without the favored class bonus, and one would still be hard pressed to find such a case. If anything, the rules should aim to close this gap, not widen it.
2) It discourages many race/class combinations.
While this may not be true for you, it is true for many people that play the game.
3) It creates unnecessary complexity in the game.
As I see it, this rule works in direct opposition to creating a simple and robust rule set. With all the simplifications that exist from 3.5 to 4.P, why is there is this hangnail here? I believe this rule is dismissable just on the grounds that it creates instead of eliminates complexity.
To answer your points:
1)Elf (FC Ranger) Ranger against Human Ranger (FC anything but ranger)
If the elf goes for the extra HP, all he achieves is offset is con penatly. The human doesn't have to offset that Con penalty, and his fort save is better to boot.
The human will probably put his bonus to dex, so the two classes are equal here.
The elf's Into bonus isn't that useful in that case, with the main benefit being the extra skill point - which humans get, anyway.
Not having to contend with a con penalty, the ranger can put those extra points into strength or wisdom, and can use his extra feat for any number of things that make him more effective.
2) We're talking about the quivalent of a feat here. If that discourages people, it's not because the game rules are broken. Not every character needs to be min-maxed to the hilt.
3) It's 3p, if anything, not 4.P.
And it's not that complex really: Choose a FC. If you have levels in that class, you get +1 hp or +1 skill point, your choice.
And eliminating complexity at all costs is not a design goal here. It shouldn't be. After all, all those new abilities most classes get make those classes more complex. But I'm quite happy that they do. For me, this kind of complexity is what draws me to the game.
In the case of elven ranger and human ranger (no bonus), it's reducible to the human's bonus feat vs. all elven racial abilities (ability scores can essentially cancel themselves).
I think getting all elven racial abilities would be a pretty strong feat honestly. If one can consider this an even trade it may say something about humans as a race, but this is probably one of the best examples you can come to (considering many other combinations).
We're talking about the quivalent of a feat here. If that discourages people, it's not because the game rules are broken. Not every character needs to be min-maxed to the hilt.
It's not about min/maxing characters. If anything, I am arguing to decrease the power given to characters. I dislike favored classes because of balance and the integrity of the rules.
And eliminating complexity at all costs is not a design goal here.
There is an element of rules simplification, but I think you're right that it hasn't been stated as a design goal. I'd be interested to know if this was a minor goal of some sort.
But, speaking of design goals, the favored class bonus doesn't do much in the way of backwards compatibility. One of the most tedious and easily forgotten things to do to convert characters is distribute the bonus (from a DM's point of view). This contributes to the unnecessary complexity.
I'm joining in late on this discussion but I want to say from a DM's point of view I personally like and encourage the classic cookie cutter race/class combo's.
The last game I ran was a second ed(just cause we hated the idea of 4th that much we wanted real old school) and the players screamed and thought the world was coming to an end when I informed them that none of their silly little forest gnomes were going to go beyond 12th lvl in their class no matter how much exp. they earned, they would never cast 7th and 9th lvl spells and they could never, ever find a wizard that would cast a wish for them to do so(I did offer to have the mage turn them human)they threatened to quite and became almost childish because they thought it was unfair to the gnomes and giving racial preference to humans and that 2nd ed was set up to be human centric. I then pointed out the rules, pointed out that at 1st lvl because of their racial ability's( -4AC to all medium + creatures)they had a -11AC which was impossible for my monsters to hit until much higher lvl. they didn't care all they wanted was the good with out the bad.
I see this current discussion in a similar light. Your characters are not being harmed by being a dwarven whatever but if you follow the traditional fantasy setting and play along with the flavor of the world then you get a LITTLE extra something. As a DM that has to come up with some pretty inventive ways to get 3 forest gnomes and 2 elves and a half elf interested in helping a bunch of humans and trying to get them interested in what the module says they are supposed to do I appreciate all the help I can get. If I hear in character speak one more time"why dont we just let the humans die and go back home to the forest" I am going to portal them to maztica or the jungles of chult and have dinos and huge giant spiders eat them.
