|
You might not like the sound of it, but 4e is admirable in this sense: the reason why people play Eladrin Wizards is not because the game gives them a cookie for playing to type, but because Eladrin make great Wizards from a mechanic standpoint. 3.5 did this very badly in some cases: Elves had Wizard as their favored class even though absolutely none of their abilities made them any better at Wizarding.
I'm late to this thread but I had to chip-in on the above quote:
"admirable"? This just means that the munchkins are creating the character they think gives the best chance of 'winning the game'!
I don't think that the intention in 3.5e was to give Elves the wizard class as favoured because they made good wizards. It is to reflect the fact that in the default mythos, elves are associated with magic-heavy cultures. They may not be the most powerful of casters, but it permeates their society.
|
Let me admit that I like favored classes, and the way they are done in Beta. However, If I was the only one, or in a narrow minority, I would concede that it should go. The very fact that this one topic has spawned a half-dozen or so threads since the Beta release suggests enough interest to justify keeping it. To look at the flip side, removing it at the DM's option, and the possible effects that might have on a campaign are also worth mentioning in the final product.
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.
It's perfectly valid. Your stated issue with this is that it unfairly unbalances the game in favor of those who gain the ZOMGZ ONE WHOLE HIT POINT PER LEVEL.
In a 5-person party, if 4 people are playing favored classes and gaining the bonus, you claim that it's unfair to 5th player.
In a 5-person party, if 4 people take Toughness, the net result is the same as above, if not "worse".
Given that, at level-up, we sometimes roll low, we sometimes roll high, that FC bonus really isn't going to amount to a whole bunch.
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.
If the requirement to keep that extra feat was maintaining the FC for all 20 levels, then it's not really a big deal. The 1HP/level for FC doesn't require one to STAY in their FC, does it? It only gives them 1HP for each level of FC, right?
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*
Terrible? You still haven't explained how a measly 1HP/level is so unbalancing.
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.
So, by that logic, anything that wasn't part of the SRD, but introduced in the Alpha or Beta needs to be gotten rid of? Half of the rules of the whole system are arbitrary.
This bonus is no different than any other bonus given by taking any other class. It's open to everyone, and they can choose to take it or not. 1HP doesn't discourage you from dipping into another class.
@Brian Harris -- don't forget that you need not take 1 hp/level, and that the alternative (+1 skill point/level) is a 50% increase for quite a number of classes. Even so, it's not necessarily "unbalanced" at all. What it is, is artifical and clunky, a too-blatant rule that says "you're supposed to be this class if you're X race!"
As noted earlier, the new ability modifiers and racial features already provide a more organic, game-world-consistent incentive to play favored classes; the +1 hp or +1 skill point/level is a double-fix that's really not needed, and does nothing but provide still more benefits for people who play stereotypes.
What it is, is artifical and clunky, a too-blatant rule that says "you're supposed to be this class if you're X race!"
No. That was 2e, when some race/class combinations were forbidden.
This is a rather elegant rule that says "race X has a long history with and is good at classes Y, so they get a little something extra when they do take it. If they don't, it won't kill them."
As noted earlier, the new ability modifiers and racial features already provide a more organic, game-world-consistent incentive to play favored classes;
Yeah, those elves really get loaded with stuff to play rangers! Makes much more sense for them than, say, fighter (who can use the dex just as much, the int even more given their greater flexibility with styles so they can put stuff like combat expertise to good use AND are happy about extra skill points, and are just as severely punished by con).
Except, not.
There's lots of cases where the stats can work for a number of classes, some even better than the favoured ones (halflings make better sorcerers than bards, half-orcs are as good with clerics as with druids, dwarves are probably better druids than clerics because of the charisma....), but they don't quite fit into the picture.
the +1 hp or +1 skill point/level is a double-fix that's really not needed, and does nothing but provide still more benefits for people who play stereotypes.
Nothing wrong with playing stereotypes. Someone's got to. If the elven wizard and ranger weren't the norm, those rebels who like to play something completely different like a paladin/sorcerer coudln't play it and be extraordinary, because ordinary wouldn't exist.
The usual drow is supposed to be an evil, scheming bastard. Remember what happened there? Forgotten Realms Episode III: Attack of the Drizzt Clones. The extraordinary became the norm. Everyone cried about it. A lot of people to this day hate drow with a passion because of that flood of non-standard drow. They weren't extraordinary any more, because no one would play the ordinary.
The real question is, does the bonus of the extra skill point or hit point truly unbalance the game in favor of the player with the bonus?
At least with hit points, I can't accept that it does. The hit point discrepancy between Favored-Class Wizard and Non-Favored-Class Wizard isn't going to be next to nothing in the early levels, and quite probably not even the 20 points at level 20. It's really no different than playing a class with a different hit die. If it bothers you so much, pretend that the FC Wiz is a different class than the NFC Wiz.
As far as skill points, again, is it going to equal a huge discrepancy? Is the FC character at level 20 going to have an inordinate number of skill points MORE than another character? Sometimes, yes, sometimes no. It all depends on what everyone is playing.
If it's not unbalancing (and it's not), then leave it in the rules, and houserule it out.
I've got to be perfectly honest with you - anything that encourages folks to play the base races/base classes/favored classes is a plus to me. I'm getting sick and tired of the "I want to be different just to be different" mentality that a lot of people have.
Kinda reminds me of the knob that no longer is allowed to game with us, always playing some variant of a Drizz't clone (not necessarily an identical clone, but the same kind of retarded backstory, with the character attempting to be a master of everything in his race/class at level 1). He actually drove off someone we worked hard to get to play with us, by talking down to the guy, something to the tune of "Oh, you're playing an elf wizard? REAL original, buddy."
Playing elf wizard, human fighter, halfling rogue - these aren't "uncreative".
Playing a Half-Illithid Yuan-Ti Vampire Soulknife/Blackguard/Dread Necromancer isn't creative.
You're not creative because you play something outside of the base races/classes. You're creative in HOW you play.
The real question is, does the bonus of the extra skill point or hit point truly unbalance the game in favor of the player with the bonus?
It doesn't unbalance the whole game, but it does favor the player over others.
If it's not unbalancing (and it's not), then leave it in the rules, and houserule it out.
"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." -- Antoine de Saint-Exuper
I've got to be perfectly honest with you - anything that encourages folks to play the base races/base classes/favored classes is a plus to me. I'm getting sick and tired of the "I want to be different just to be different" mentality that a lot of people have.
Not everyone considers this a problem. If you want to encourage your players to stick with stereotypical race/class combos, then don't allow them to take anything outside of core, except for a case-by-case basis. I had to do this when everyone in my gaming circle decided goliaths were the coolest thing ever.
Playing a Half-Illithid Yuan-Ti Vampire Soulknife/Blackguard/Dread Necromancer isn't creative.
Not to pick, but that build wouldn't be powerful at all.
You're not creative because you play something outside of the base races/classes. You're creative in HOW you play.
I still firmly hold that the favored class rules stifle race/class choice. Let me make an example...
Suppose one is choosing between two universities to attend. University A offers a better degree and education, but man, University B has the most awesome weather ever, and the guy:girl ratio is sick! Now, if the government awarded one an extra $5000 grant just to set foot in University A, it would undoubtedly skew one's choice towards A, even though A is the most optimal choice to begin with.
Playing elf wizard, human fighter, halfling rogue - these aren't "uncreative".Playing a Half-Illithid Yuan-Ti Vampire Soulknife/Blackguard/Dread Necromancer isn't creative.
You're not creative because you play something outside of the base races/classes. You're creative in HOW you play.
Hear, hear!
Playing a weird combination like grey elf barbarian/pious templar as a claim on "original" always seemed the easy way to me. The Dark Side of original characters, for people who are too lazy to come up with something really original so they look up the "least likely combinations" like you find them in various sourcebooks and play them, instead of actually sitting down and thinking of original characteristics.
Plus, being "different" might be all the rage, but sticking to normal isn't a deadly sin or something.
A (3.5e) campaign I play in has a, to me, quite unusual class/race combination: a dwarven monk. But before you start the standing ovations for an original character: He's not. He plays him like the worst stereotype of dwarf, but with fists and weird weapons instead of axe (in fact, that's about the only thing that makes him different from the 100% genuine stereotype dwarf: Choice of weapons). The rest is all there: antisocial behaviour, annoying and ridiculous talk about "all women without beards are ugly", rampant racism, and so on.
The elven archer we had in the same campaign (talk about chaining yourself to the reservation) was about 1000 times more original (a shame the player had to leave the group)
There's lots of cases where the stats can work for a number of classes, some even better than the favoured ones (halflings make better sorcerers than bards, half-orcs are as good with clerics as with druids, dwarves are probably better druids than clerics because of the charisma....), but they don't quite fit into the picture.
Any of a race's favored classes would be a mechanically viable choice. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. I think elven rangers would be fine without the favored class bonus, as well as halfling bards, half-orc druids, etc. Besides, favored classes weren't decided based on mechanical considerations alone, much of it is fluff.
Nothing wrong with playing stereotypes. Someone's got to. If the elven wizard and ranger weren't the norm, those rebels who like to play something completely different like a paladin/sorcerer coudln't play it and be extraordinary, because ordinary wouldn't exist.
And I would argue that, if anything, the extraordinary should be rewarded, not the ordinary. And how do favored classes make dwarven fighters "ordinary" other than explicitly saying "Hey guys, this is ordinary!"? I've always thought and always will think that is ordinary.
The usual drow is supposed to be an evil, scheming bastard. Remember what happened there? Forgotten Realms Episode III: Attack of the Drizzt Clones. The extraordinary became the norm. Everyone cried about it. A lot of people to this day hate drow with a passion because...
I have absolutely nothing good to say about Drizz't, but why can't DMs just say "no" when people want to roll drow rangers with panthers (or whatever that was supposed to be) as companions? Do we really need a rule for it?
To avoid this turning into a series of individual discussions, can the designers please direct us to discuss the issues they are concerned with if any? At least let us know you're listening. =)
I hope no one takes my posts to be aggressive or offensive, as that is not my intention. I am extremely verbose on this matter more than any other because I feel very strongly about it, and will fight it to the bitter end (unless I am offered solid reasons for keeping the rule). So put away your greatsword and bring out the falchion! (That was horrible but I'm leaving it! xD)
Besides, favored classes weren't decided based on mechanical considerations alone, much of it is fluff.
I always like the rules to support the fluff.
And I would argue that, if anything, the extraordinary should be rewarded, not the ordinary.
No. Those who walk off the beaten path are in difficult terrain. You are at a disadvantage in difficult terrain. You don't get to run twice as fast.
It doesn't unbalance the whole game, but it does favor the player over others.
Favor? Hence, perhaps, the moniker "Favored Class" ?? Nobody is arguing that it's favoring that choice - the question remains, is it actually a factor that contributes to unbalancing the game?
Not everyone considers this a problem.
Conversely, not everyone considers this 1SP/1HP rule to be a problem.
If you want to encourage your players to stick with stereotypical race/class combos, then don't allow them to take anything outside of core, except for a case-by-case basis. I had to do this when everyone in my gaming circle decided goliaths were the coolest thing ever.
That's not really encouragement. On the one hand, I don't care what races/classes they play. On the other hand, it would be refreshing to actually see someone willingly play something core for once.
Not to pick, but that build wouldn't be powerful at all.
Power != creative.
You're not creative because you play something outside of the base races/classes. You're creative in HOW you play.
I still firmly hold that the favored class rules stifle race/class choice. Let me make an example...
Suppose one is choosing between two universities to attend. University A offers a better degree and education, but man, University B has the most awesome weather ever, and the guy:girl ratio is sick! Now, if the government awarded one an extra $5000 grant just to set foot in University A, it would undoubtedly skew one's choice towards A, even though A is the most optimal choice to begin with.
Depends on your motivation...
While I like the rule as a further encouragement to play a favored class, I'm curious how much affect it will have - I still think there's going to be a lot of people playing "non-standard" races/classes, just b$*#@ing and whining more when the "uncreative noob" pics a core race with favored class.
Favor? ... is it actually a factor that contributes to unbalancing the game?
I don't see how it's balanced. From a pure mechanical point of view, you're giving someone an arbitrary bonus for making one of few specific choices in character creation.
Not everyone considers this a problem.Conversely, not everyone considers this 1SP/1HP rule to be a problem.
Well, we can't exactly keep adding rules just because some think it isn't problematic. I still fail to see what this rule brings to the game aside from encouraging specific race/class combinations, which can be done in ways that have no impact on game balance.
The other half of Favored class people seem to be missing out is Incentive to Keep following the main class and not multi-classing.
I could write a dissertation on how this would be one of the worst ways to discourage multi-classing. The function of favored classes should not, and is not, to discourage multi-classing. If the designers want to attack multi-classing and prestige classes, then they can and should do so directly, or not release prestige classes at all (which they did). A much, much better way to keep PCs in their core classes is to make the core classes good enough to warrant staying in, which Pathfinder has done an excellent job of already. Seriously, who really wanted to stay in Sorceror for 19 dead levels? That's not fun at all.
Aside from the issue of encouragement, I would still like to stress that the favored class mechanic works against the primary design goal, backwards compatibility. It only adds to the work needed to be done in order to convert NPCs and PCs.
It is still an extraneous rule. Even if everyone in the world thought it would be great to encourage classic race/class combinations, it would still be better as a house rule.
I still fail to see what this rule brings to the game aside from encouraging specific race/class combinations, which can be done in ways that have no impact on game balance.
By cajoling?
I still fail to see what this rule brings to the game aside from encouraging specific race/class combinations, which can be done in ways that have no impact on game balance.
If it has no effect on game balance how is it going to encourage people to do something over something else?
Just as importantly why shouldn't these combinations be encouraged with something substantial from a mechanical perspective?
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.
Lord Of The Rings was originally published in 1954.
We've been beating this path for almost 55 years now.I think we know what's normal and what's not normal by now.
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.
The minority opinion of grognards? Perhaps. The minority opinion of newer players? Hardly. Is there really a good explanation as to why you can't play a Chaotic Monk or have a Dwarven Wizard that has just as many skill points in a game world where you fight dragons, the servants of the gods walk the earth, and you can dig up ray guns and fight robots in the ruins of a massive alien spacecraft?
We're hanging onto this rule out of sake of maintaining old traditions, not because it makes the game better. But the funny thing is that we've already been through this before.
Do you remember 2nd Edition AD&D? In 2nd Edition AD&D, non-humans had restrictions on the classes that they could take and the levels that they could attain in them. You could advance to 15th level as a Dwarven Fighter, but you could never reach 20th level like a human could. You could reach 19th level if you had exceptional ability scores, but that was as far as you could go. Only Humans could become Paladins. And only Humans and Half-Elves could become Bards, if I recall correctly. And Half-Orcs could really only be Rogues and Clerics. But unlike their human friends, the non-humans could gain levels in two or three classes at the same time, albeit at an overall loss of HP.
On the other hand, humans could level up as high as they liked in a particular class, abandon it, and level up another class. And once their level in the new class exceeded that of the old class, they could get all of the abilities of both classes. And the best part? Unlike demi-humans, they didn't roll two dice for HP, add them together, and then divide by two to get their HP - they got to keep ALL of their HP. But they couldn't level up two classes simultaneously, and some people that played Humans wondered why the heck they couldn't just do that instead. They also wondered why they didn't get ANYTHING cool like Sleep Immunity or Low-Light-Vision like their non-human friends did.
And guess what? To outside observers - people that weren't emotionally tied to the game or its rules - this system made no sense at all. And questions like "why can't a Dwarven Fighter be as good as a Human Fighter" and "why can't Humans take two classes at the same time" and "why on earth are Elves restricted from being Bards" and "why can't a Halfling take two classes like a Human can" were asked by these people. And the only answer that was forthcoming was "well, it's always been this way". And that's when the 2nd Edition race/class system was thrown on the trash heap and the 3.0 SRD race/class system was born.
And as you can imagine, some of the grognards were so disturbed by this development that they tore their beards and bellowed with rage and retreated to their caves to play 2nd Edition D&D for all eternity, for surely the D&D Apocalypse was nigh! But D&D didn't die. And Elven Wizards and Dwarven Fighters didn't fade away like a flock of endangered penguins. The entire foundation of old tropes and well-worn stereotypes upon which western fantasy literature and gaming was built upon didn't crumble under our feet overnight. This is because players are smart enough to know what "normal" is within the context of a fantasy campaign and don't usually deviate very far from that standard.
The only real problem is that the 3.0 designers didn't go far enough - they didn't eliminate the alignment restrictions for certain classes and they were loathe to entirely remove the arbitrary rules that served to siphoned players into traditional race/class combos like the Elven Wizard and the Dwarven Fighter. And alas, the Pathfinder RPG Favored Class rules are just as useless and arbitrary as the class/alignment restrictions that were enforced in 3.X, and 1st and 2nd Edition AD&D before that. But they're much more popular this time around because 1) they aren't as invasive as the old rules 2) they help powergamers min/max powerful race/class combos even further and 3) they appeal to the sentiments of grognards that are afraid that these rules are the only thing keeping their games from being overrun by characters that are like something out of a bad video game/anime series.
A combination of time and fresh perspective allowed us to eventually realize how goofy our old multiclassing/favored classes rules really were. I suspect that if you tried to impose the old 2nd Edition AD&D race/class restriction rules in your PRPG game, your gaming group would laugh you right out of the room. And I'd wager that while most gaming groups wouldn't have laughed in your face about it, they turned a blind eye to the 3.X multiclassing rules. The current PRPG Favored Class and Class Alignment rules are no different. They're not fair to all of the players and only discourage people from trying out non-stereotypical race/class combos. All this rule does is leave players scratching their heads wondering why the Elven Wizard gets 10 extra skill points at 10th level just for being an Elven Wizard while the Dwarven Wizard is out 10 ranks of Perception just because he's short and had a beard.
You might not like the sound of it, but 4e is admirable in this sense: the reason why people play Eladrin Wizards is not because the game gives them a cookie for playing to type, but because Eladrin make great Wizards from a mechanic standpoint. 3.5 did this very badly in some cases: Elves had Wizard as their favored class even though absolutely none of their abilities made them any better at Wizarding.I'm late to this thread but I had to chip-in on the above quote:
"admirable"? This just means that the munchkins are creating the character they think gives the best chance of 'winning the game'!
I don't think that the intention in 3.5e was to give Elves the wizard class as favoured because they made good wizards. It is to reflect the fact that in the default mythos, elves are associated with magic-heavy cultures. They may not be the most powerful of casters, but it permeates their society.
You misunderstand Ratpick's post. He's saying he admires D&D 4.0 because it DOESN'T give you extra stuff just for being an Eladrin Wizard. They don't say "good job buddy, you made an Elven Wizard, have a cookie and 20 extra HP/skill points". You just happen to have good racial abilities that have a great deal of synergy for that particular race/class combo.
This is exactly the opposite of what Pathfinder is doing right now.
It's perfectly valid. Your stated issue with this is that it unfairly unbalances the game in favor of those who gain the ZOMGZ ONE WHOLE HIT POINT PER LEVEL.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.
No matter how much you may wish it to be so, it's still not a valid argument. Claiming that taking the Toughness Feat is the same thing as gaining a free extra HP or Skill Point is not a valid statement. All players receive a certain number of Feats and are free to spend them however they wish. But if only part of the party is receiving extra HP or Skill Points, then it's not equitable to the remaining players. Just because the inequity seems like a small one doesn't mean that it's any less unfair.
Terrible? You still haven't explained how a measly 1HP/level is so unbalancing.
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*
It's not an equitable rule. It's a rule that allows some players to have 10 extra Skill Points in Perception at Level 10 just because they decided to roll a character that fits existing fantasy stereotypes. Elves already have enough going for them to make for good Wizards - we don't need to provide any further enticement at the expense of others.
Also - you may want to get your hyperbole detector checked. I think it may be busted.
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.
So, by that logic, anything that wasn't part of the SRD, but introduced in the Alpha or Beta needs to be gotten rid of? Half of the rules of the whole system are arbitrary.
You forgot two very important parts of my statement:
1) It's a bad rule.
2) It's an unfair rule.
And there have been many posts in this thread (and others) that have pointed out why this rule is bad and unfair.
My point in regards to this rule's sudden introduction was that this rule needs to be put down before it becomes accepted canon. That way we don't end up spending the next six years sitting around dancing around the issue before we finally realize that it kind of sucks, most people aren't using it, and it shouldn't have been included in the first place.
I've got to be perfectly honest with you - anything that encourages folks to play the base races/base classes/favored classes is a plus to me. I'm getting sick and tired of the "I want to be different just to be different" mentality that a lot of people have.
Kinda reminds me of the knob that no longer is allowed to game with us, always playing some variant of a Drizz't clone (not necessarily an identical clone, but the same kind of retarded backstory, with the character attempting to be a master of everything in his race/class at level 1). He actually drove off someone we worked hard to get to play with us, by talking down to the guy, something to the tune of "Oh, you're playing an elf wizard? REAL original, buddy."
Playing elf wizard, human fighter, halfling rogue - these aren't "uncreative".
Playing a Half-Illithid Yuan-Ti Vampire Soulknife/Blackguard/Dread Necromancer isn't creative.
You're not creative because you play something outside of the base races/classes. You're creative in HOW you play.
I'm sorry to hear that you had a bad player in your group. The Drizzt Clone is perhaps the most reviled fantasy trope that I can imagine. But why should players that make reasonable non-stereotypical characters get the shaft in the rules because of this happened? I suspect that as the rules currently stand, they will affect far more Dwarven Wizards and Elven Monks then they will Half-Illithid Yuan-Ti Vampire Soulknife/Blackguard/Dread Necromancers.
Unfortunately, your problem isn't going to be resolved by taking away HP from the guy that wants to play a Halfling Paladin. There is no rule anywhere in any game system that will make retarded players behave like normal, reasonable players. And keep in mind that not every retard is going to necessarily be Drow Elves wielding two scimitars. Those are just the ones that are easiest to spot...
I still fail to see what this rule brings to the game aside from encouraging specific race/class combinations, which can be done in ways that have no impact on game balance.By cajoling?
If you think that cajoling players will magically transform them from being asshats into being good players, then you are sadly mistaken. It seems like you and Brian are expecting a lot more from the Favored Class rule then it is capable of delivering. I'm sorry you don't care for how the Dwarven Monk in your gaming group is playing his character, but that's really something you should take up with that player directly. I don't think we should maintain bad rules just for the sake of trying to beat asshats over the head with them.
I think the title of this topic is wrong.
We don't need to bribe players to play their race favored class.
Favored classes are just flavor in the game world.
Maybe XP penalties are not the right think to add this flavor. But the actual system of bonus HP/skill points is actually worse I think. In 3.x, if you didn't play you race favored class, you didn't have any drawbacks.
Now you lose something for not playing your favored class. You lose bonus HP/skill points.
That's just not fair.
No matter how much you may wish it to be so, it's still not a valid argument. Claiming that taking the Toughness Feat is the same thing as gaining a free extra HP or Skill Point is not a valid statement. All players receive a certain number of Feats and are free to spend them however they wish. But if only part of the party is receiving extra HP or Skill Points, then it's not equitable to the remaining players. Just because the inequity seems like a small one doesn't mean that it's any less unfair.
Fighters get way more feats than other players now. That's not at parity with other classes. Is this now unfair?
It's not an equitable rule. It's a rule that allows some players to have 10 extra Skill Points in Perception at Level 10 just because they decided to roll a character that fits existing fantasy stereotypes. Elves already have enough going for them to make for good Wizards - we don't need to provide any further enticement at the expense of others.
Really? So, the skill points per level caps are gone, and I can dump every last skill point into one skill?
You forgot two very important parts of my statement:
1) It's a bad rule.
2) It's an unfair rule.And there have been many posts in this thread (and others) that have pointed out why this rule is bad and unfair.
1) Not fact, opinion. I (and several others) don't share your belief.
2) Again, not fact, opinion. I (and several others) don't share your belief.There have also been many posts in this thread (and others) that have pointed out the flaws in the opinion that the rule is bad and unfair.
You insinuate that I'm ignoring them, while you're doing the same.
I'm sorry to hear that you had a bad player in your group. The Drizzt Clone is perhaps the most reviled fantasy trope that I can imagine. But why should players that make reasonable non-stereotypical characters get the shaft in the rules because of this happened? I suspect that as the rules currently stand, they will affect far more Dwarven Wizards and Elven Monks then they will Half-Illithid Yuan-Ti Vampire Soulknife/Blackguard/Dread Necromancers.
Ultimately, if the clone is the character that the player really wants to play, it's his character. That doesn't mean I'm not exasperated by it.
Further, the players that make "reasonable non-stereotypical characters" don't get shafted in the least. They get benefits to their non-standard multi-classed characters that the "standard fantasy archetypes" don't get.
The extra SP/HP is a nice nudge, but, ultimately, a lot of people are still going to go with non-standard stuff because the bonus, while nice, is NOT that big of a deal.
(Edited to remove unneeded quote tag)
Fighters get way more feats than other players now. That's not at parity with other classes. Is this now unfair?
No, it's not unfair. A Fighter may get more Feats then players that have other classes, but these other classes are balanced against the Fighter (and some would say are BETTER then the Fighter) because they get different yet good abilities that allow them to contribute meaningfully to the game.
And if you take two identical characters (in this case, Fighters) and put them side by side, they SHOULD have the same number of Feats (and other class resources) to spend. But as the Favored Class rules stand right now, Dwarven and Human Fighters are going get more HP or Skill Points simply because of their race selection. Other Fighters of other races aren't getting anything comparable - they just end up getting the shaft.
It's not an equitable rule. It's a rule that allows some players to have 10 extra Skill Points in Perception at Level 10 just because they decided to roll a character that fits existing fantasy stereotypes. Elves already have enough going for them to make for good Wizards - we don't need to provide any further enticement at the expense of others.Really? So, the skill points per level caps are gone, and I can dump every last skill point into one skill?
You're still getting an extra skill that your non-traditional peers aren't getting. And a lot of people have been complaining about how everyone and their brother seems to have Perception at max ranks now. I believe that the current Favored Class mechanics have a lot to do with that. People that have the correct race/class combination have the ability to easily pick up this handy survival skill without having to worry about gutting the rest of their skill points.
It also allows melee characters to use INT as an even bigger dump stat then it already is - they can take a two point hit on INT without having to worry about being dropped down to just one class skill.
And if you take two identical characters (in this case, Fighters) and put them side by side, they SHOULD have the same number of Feats (and other class resources) to spend. But as the Favored Class rules stand right now, Dwarven and Human Fighters are going get more HP or Skill Points simply because of their race selection. Other Fighters of other races aren't getting anything comparable - they just end up getting the shaft.
Dwarven Fighters are getting statboosts that Human Fighters aren't, simply because of their race selection. Humans are getting the shaft. See how that works? Dwarves are getting a bonus that Humans aren't. That doesn't mean humans are being penalized.
You're still getting an extra skill that your non-traditional peers aren't getting. And a lot of people have been complaining about how everyone and their brother seems to have Perception at max ranks now. I believe that the current Favored Class mechanics have a lot to do with that. People that have the correct race/class combination have the ability to easily pick up this handy survival skill without having to worry about gutting the rest of their skill points.
You still seem to be insinuating that all members of the party should have the same skills at the same level.
All members of the party don't need to exceed at Perception. What's the point?
Non-"standard" characters are going to have abilities that "standard" characters don't. Sometimes, these class-abilities will exceed other class-abilities, sometimes they won't.
Overall functional balance is a good thing. Nitpicking everything down to exact-ability/skill/stat-equality is NOT a good thing.
It also allows melee characters to use INT as an even bigger dump stat then it already is - they can take a two point hit on INT without having to worry about being...
Assuming melee characters ignore intelligence. Not all of them do so. Not everyone min-maxes (and I'm not using min-max in a derogatory sense. There's nothing wrong with min-maxing. I've done it before, I'll continue to do it when I desire to.), so not everyone is going to use a "dump-stat" as an actual dump-stat. Maybe some people like playing Half-Orc Barbarians with high INT and CHA, for whatever reason they have.
You keep arguing hyper-extremes. I'm not saying that an extreme example won't present itself, but even if it does, it doesn't actually mean that the extreme character is going to be "better" than the rest of the party.
You're still getting an extra skill that your non-traditional peers aren't getting. And a lot of people have been complaining about how everyone and their brother seems to have Perception at max ranks now. I believe that the current Favored Class mechanics have a lot to do with that. People that have the correct race/class combination have the ability to easily pick up this handy survival skill without having to worry about gutting the rest of their skill points.
I'd also like to address the Perception issue seperately (and perhaps it should be taken to a different thread, but...).
Is it possible that, in theory, combining Listen and Spot into Perception was a good idea, and in practice (given the max-ranks that you say "everyone and their brother" has), it's not?
There's an obvious argument that they're similar enough skills, sure, but an argument could be made that sensitive hearing (listen) and visual acuity/paying attention (spot) are two different skills that should be statted seperately, like they were in 3.5.
Don't get me wrong - I like the concept of combining them, but I never really had an issue with them being seperate in 3.5.
Further, the players that make "reasonable non-stereotypical characters" don't get shafted in the least. They get benefits to their non-standard multi-classed characters that the "standard fantasy archetypes" don't get.
How do they not get shafted? Player A has a Dwarven Fighter that gets 10 extra HP or Skill Points. Player B has an Elven Fighter that does not get these spell points. Why? Because Player A has a Gimli Clone. That's not a good reason to give someone extra points, and even if it doesn't seem like you're being unfair by very much, it's still not a just rule.
And given the fact that you lose out on some very potent 20th level capstone abilities and every class gets something of merit for every level of advancement, I'm not so sure that multiclassed characters are really going to gain benefits that outweigh single-class advancement.
Not that they were really gaining very much in the first place, mind you - the most powerful characters in 3.X were single-classed Clerics, Druids, and Wizards. Most non-spellcasters had to multiclass in order to gain the abilities necessary to meaningfully contribute to a party where two or three characters could pretty much clear most encounters by themselves. Multiclassing in 3.X has never been about power - it's either been about trying to match the power curve of the game, or trading in raw power for versatility.
Lord Of The Rings was originally published in 1954.
We've been beating this path for almost 55 years now.
I think we know what's normal and what's not normal by now.
And let all races go Zz'dtri? (See OotS #44)
Middle Earth is a great place. But we need those dwarf fighters in Golarion, not Arda.
If you think that cajoling players will magically transform them from being asshats into being good players, then you are sadly mistaken.
I'm arguing that cajoling doesn't work. It's my whole point.
Most non-spellcasters had to multiclass in order to gain the abilities necessary to meaningfully contribute to a party where two or three characters could pretty much clear most encounters by themselves. Multiclassing in 3.X has never been about power - it's either been about trying to match the power curve of the game, or trading in raw power for versatility.
And as several people have pointed out, there's been more than a few accounts of a straight Fighter 20 from 3.5 participating and meaningfully contributing to a party, rather than trying to match the power curve.
Not all classes should be able to stand toe-to-toe with all other classes. That's not how things work, in either the real world or the fantasy world.
Life ain't fair. Neither is fantasy.
Dwarven Fighters are getting statboosts that Human Fighters aren't, simply because of their race selection. Humans are getting the shaft. See how that works? Dwarves are getting a bonus that Humans aren't. That doesn't mean humans are being penalized.
No one is getting penalized in your example because both characters end up with a net +2 adjustment to their ability scores. They also have the ability to select Fighter as their Favored Class, so there isn't any imbalance in terms of HP/Skill Point gain either. But you advance these guys up to 10th level and compare them to an Elven Fighter, and someone ends up minus 10 HP/Skill Points.
Overall functional balance is a good thing. Nitpicking everything down to exact-ability/skill/stat-equality is NOT a good thing.
The problem is that by rationalizing that this arbitrary inequality is justified because of its relative insignificance, you create a "slippery slope" where people can use it to rationalize more significant racially based rules changes.
Let say for example that even if we retained the current Favored Class mechanic you and KaeYoss still ended up having to deal with "non-standard" characters in your game. Well, we've already ruled that its perfectly justifiable to give people things solely to maintain the stereotypes of the game - what is the logical conclusion of that line of thinking?
Do we start giving them even more HP/Skill Points? Do we start giving them extra feats? Do we go all the way back to the way 2nd Edition worked and start cordoning off specific classes for specific races and start imposing level caps? Where does it end?
Once again: I'm sorry that you have crazy players in your game, but setting up a situation where maintaining the sacred nature of fantasy tropes trumps all other considerations in terms of giving players racial abilities doesn't solve the problem. It just makes legitimate players angry and forces asshats to come up with new, ingenious methods to ruin your games (and they will succeed in this endeavour).
No one is getting penalized in your example because both characters end up with a net +2 adjustment to their ability scores. They also have the ability to select Fighter as their Favored Class, so there isn't any imbalance in terms of HP/Skill Point gain either. But you advance these guys up to 10th level and compare them to an Elven Fighter, and someone ends up minus 10 HP/Skill Points.
Yes, someone IS getting penalized (by your logic) in my example, because someone is getting something that someone else isn't. If you get a blue lolly and I get a red lolly, I got shafted, because I didn't get a blue lolly.
*SNIP*
Where does it end?
I'd say it ends at an extra HP/SP per level for Favored Class, because, oh, I don't know, that's where it ends in the rules?
Once again: I'm sorry that you have crazy players in your game
I didn't say I had crazy players. I said that it would be refreshing to see the classic archetypes show up once in a while, and that a bit of encouragement in that direction is nice.
It just makes legitimate players angry *SNIP*
Since I'm a legitimate player, and it doesn't make me angry, I'm going to have to call bullplop.
And as several people have pointed out, there's been more than a few accounts of a straight Fighter 20 from 3.5 participating and meaningfully contributing to a party, rather than trying to match the power curve.
I submit to you that either 1) the power curve of their party wasn't set particularly high or 2) they were loaded down with so many magical items that they looked like a Detect Magic X-Mas Tree. Pathfinder has done a good bit to close that gap thus far, but I suspect that we're not going to know where the Fighter really stands until we the final list of Feats.
Life ain't fair. Neither is fantasy.
No one plays games so they can suck. Everyone wants to contribute meaningfully to the game and to do something memorable and heroic. If you're happy with class power imbalances and the idea that certain kinds of characters stand around doing nothing while others get all of the glory, then so be it. But that's not the kind of game that I want to play, and I don't think that rules that promote imbalances - even small ones - should be left in play so you can try and use them to browbeat cretins that want to play Drizzt Clones or Naruto Clones or whatever.
And really - why is your DM letting in Half-Illithid Yuan-Ti Vampire Soulknife/Blackguard/Dread Necromancers in the first place? Maybe you should have a good long talk with him also.
|
My opinion on all of this is a) I like seeing the archetypes supported by things like the PRPG favored class +1 HP or +1 SP rule, and b) it's a lot easier for a published mechanic to be houseruled out than it is for someone who never sees the mechanic (as it's been left out) to houserule it in.
I can understand not agreeing that there should be any kind of favored class mechanic, but I'm baffled by how passionately some people have argued against what would be (in my opinion) the relatively minor difference between characters this rule would offer, even for 20-level characters who only take levels in their favored classes.
I think the Traits system could go a long way toward making both camps happy, if Racial Traits supported (even further than the inherent racial abilities) the possible favored class(es) for each race. Way back around the early Alpha days, I argued for Racial Feats to serve this exact purpose.
On the one hand, I'm eager to see something like this in other Races of Golarion supplements in the Pathfinder Chronicles line, though on the other I'd rather wait until they could be published as PRGP supplements rather than for D&D 3.5 - I hope the Elves book gets a redo for the Pathfinder rules, once those are final.
I submit to you that either 1) the power curve of their party wasn't set particularly high or 2) they were loaded down with so many magical items that they looked like a Detect Magic X-Mas Tree. Pathfinder has done a good bit to close that gap thus far, but I suspect that we're not going to know where the Fighter really stands until we the final list of Feats.
Actually, PFRPG has made the Christmas Tree worse. Further, what's it matter if your gear is magic or not? It doesn't really seem to me like you "solve" the problem by putting the power inherently into the class and stripping it from the gear.
Edited to add: Isn't this, also, a classic fantasy theme?
No one plays games so they can suck. Everyone wants to contribute meaningfully to the game and to do something memorable and heroic. If you're happy with class power imbalances and the idea that certain kinds of characters stand around doing nothing while others get all of the glory, then so be it.
I can't once think of that happening with a competent DM.
And really - why is your DM letting in Half-Illithid Yuan-Ti Vampire Soulknife/Blackguard/Dread Necromancers in the first place? Maybe you should have a good long talk with him also.
He's not. I was using that as an example of your implied claim that only multiclassers are creative and original.
No one is getting penalized in your example because both characters end up with a net +2 adjustment to their ability scores. They also have the ability to select Fighter as their Favored Class, so there isn't any imbalance in terms of HP/Skill Point gain either. But you advance these guys up to 10th level and compare them to an Elven Fighter, and someone ends up minus 10 HP/Skill Points.Yes, someone IS getting penalized (by your logic) in my example, because someone is getting something that someone else isn't. If you get a blue lolly and I get a red lolly, I got shafted, because I didn't get a blue lolly.
Let my try to convey this point via your "lolly analogy":
If we're going to go back to the Fighter comparison - the Dwarven and Human Fighters that are getting 10 extra HP/Skill Points at level 10 are getting two lollys, while the Elven Fighter is getting only one.
I'd say it ends at an extra HP/SP per level for Favored Class, because, oh, I don't know, that's where it ends in the rules?
That's where it ends as the rules currently stand. But by leaving such a rule in the final version of the PRPG, you're clearly indicating that reinforcing fantasy tropes is more important then promoting equality amongst players, and that can lead to all kinds of future imbalances in the name of pursuing such an objective. Hence the "slippery slope".
Once again: I'm sorry that you have crazy players in your gameI didn't say I had crazy players. I said that it would be refreshing to see the classic archetypes show up once in a while, and that a bit of encouragement in that direction is nice.
You and KaeYoss have both made statements that would seem to indicate that you have some fairly eccentric or downright moronic players (read: Drizzt Clones) on your hands. I don't know exactly how you guys roll, but I can't walk five steps in most gaming groups without running into a Dwarven Fighter, an Elven Wizard, or a Halfling Rogue. I don't think that these tropes aren't anywhere near dead and buried, and they sure don't need any additional assistance to maintain their durability.
Let my try to convey this point via your "lolly analogy":
If we're going to go back to the Fighter comparison - the Dwarven and Human Fighters that are getting 10 extra HP/Skill Points at level 10 are getting two lollys, while the Elven Fighter is getting only one.
And I don't agree. I think your lolly is different, but not appreciably bigger or smaller, and not that you have an extra lolly.
I see a big table of lollys, and a nice gentleman telling me that I can have any lolly I want, but I can only have one. Some lollys are different colors, some are different shapes. Some are longer, where as some are wider.
I can have any one of those I want. If I pick the twisty-blue one, and you pick the square red one, you got something I didn't, and I got something you didn't. But if you wanted a twisty-blue one, there's plenty on the table.
Edited: The table also has a section highlighting the "Original" lollies, the ones made when the business first started giving out lollies. These ones have a bit of frosted sugar on them to make them look a little neater, but, overall, it's still a lolly on par with the rest.
That's where it ends as the rules currently stand. But by leaving such a rule in the final version of the PRPG, you're clearly indicating that reinforcing fantasy tropes is more important then promoting equality amongst players, and that can lead to all kinds of future imbalances in the name of pursuing such an objective. Hence the "slippery slope".
Reinforcing those tropes was a stated design goal, and plenty of us don't believe that it negatively affects equality, or even that equality should be a primary design goal.
(Edited: Typo)
I see a big table of lollys, and a nice gentleman telling me that I can have any lolly I want, but I can only have one. Some lollys are different colors, some are different shapes. Some are longer, where as some are wider. I can have any one of those I want. If I pick the twisty-blue one, and you pick the square red one, you got something I didn't, and I got something you didn't.
To continue the analogy, you pick the twisty-blue one, and not the twisty-red one or the square blue one, and the nice man pops up and says "Congratulations! You get a Reece's cup, too, for picking the right combination of colors and shapes! Sueki picked the square red one, so no Reece's cup for him; red lillipops must be round to get the bonus candy!"
I see a big table of lollys, and a nice gentleman telling me that I can have any lolly I want, but I can only have one. Some lollys are different colors, some are different shapes. Some are longer, where as some are wider. I can have any one of those I want. If I pick the twisty-blue one, and you pick the square red one, you got something I didn't, and I got something you didn't.To continue the analogy, you pick the twisty-blue one, and not the twisty-red one or the square blue one, and the nice man pops up and says "Congratulations! You get a Reece's cup, too, for picking the right combination of colors and shapes! Sueki picked the square red one, so no Reece's cup for him; red lillipops must be round to get the bonus candy!"
Except that's not happening in *MY* fantasy world. Yours? Perhaps. But not mine.
Except that's not happening in *MY* fantasy world. Yours? Perhaps. But not mine.
Yes, occasionally I have someone who wants to play a dwarven bard. He's already crippled by a -2 Cha modifier; that modifier means that a dwarven bard is never going to happen unless the player in question has such a strong character concept that he's willing to endure the penalty to his primary stat. Why add insult to injury by giving his fighter buddy a bunch of extra skill points?
I don't mind the rule that much, but in all honesty I have to admit that I see no sense to it.
The only thing that this rule provokes is producing a whole bunch of stereotypical characters and an even smaller number of "interesting" concepts who feel discouraged because not getting a benefit.
I was once pro on this rule but the more I think about the less I like it.
OPTION:
Create several feats takable at 1st level only, like:
ELVEN MAGE TRAINING (prereq: be an Elven Wizard)
Get some bonus spells or something.
DWARVEN KAER GUARD (pq: Dwarven Fighter)
Get the special training bonuses against goblinoids and giants
(instead giving all dwarves this bonuses!)
This way, there is still a benefit for certain combinations in the option of special feats no one else could take but those who don't follow this certain paths aren't directly *lacking-the-word* anti-benefited.
We can keep on arguing about this and insulting each other's players all week.
We'll just agree to disagree.
It's a fact that there's a lot people on both sides.
And since it's easier to just say "I'm not using this rule" and keeping it in than keeping it out and forcing people to dig for the rules, I say it just stays in.
|
The only thing that this rule provokes is producing a whole bunch of stereotypical characters and an even smaller number of "interesting" concepts who feel discouraged because not getting a benefit.
I was once pro on this rule but the more I think about the less I like it.
OPTION:
Create several feats takable at 1st level only, like:
ELVEN MAGE TRAINING (prereq: be an Elven Wizard)
Get some bonus spells or something.DWARVEN KAER GUARD (pq: Dwarven Fighter)
Get the special training bonuses against goblinoids and giants
(instead giving all dwarves this bonuses!)This way, there is still a benefit for certain combinations in the option of special feats no one else could take but those who don't follow this certain paths aren't directly *lacking-the-word* anti-benefited.
All well and good but were is extra space for these feats (At least 7 if it's only one for each race) Going to come from? Also if you just turn all the races special abilities into feats then your penalising them by forcing them to spend feats in order to get there racial abilities. How can you argue one thing penalises certain builds yet propose another system that simply penalises another group of builds
... it's a lot easier for a published mechanic to be houseruled out than it is for someone who never sees the mechanic (as it's been left out) to houserule it in.
This is a valid concern for DMs that (would) like the rule, but we have already seen the beta to include alternative house rules for hit points. If the design team decided to remove favored class rules from core, I have full confidence that it will at least make a sidebar.
However, as far as houseruling goes, it is completely backwards to houserule "out". The core rules should be as lean as possible because it makes the game easier to balance, and there are fewer rules to contend with.
Lolly Analogy
Here is another way to consider this abstractly.
Let us continue with the following assumptions and talk about game balance in terms of symbols.
1. Favored Class is removed as an intrinsic racial feature from all races and made a meta-rule.
2. All races are balanced against eachother, and all classes are balanced against eachother so that any race/class combination is theoretically balanced. *Note that this is not quite the case in reality, but it is surely an ultimate goal of the rules to achieve this.
Suppose there are race/class combinations R1+C1 and R2+C2. We can say that R1+C1 = R2+C2, or more generally, that Ra+Cb = Rx+Cy for any a, b, x, y. (Valid because of assumption 2)
Here is where we introduce the favored class meta-rule. Since C1 is a favored class of R1, the R1/C1 combination gets +F, where +F denotes the bonus from favored class rules. Now the equation looks like R1+C1+F = R2+C2. The resulting equation is obviously not equivalent if we already concluded that R1+C1 = R2+C2. This is how the favored class rule compromises game balance. There is no mechanical justification for the rule and therefore mechanically arbitrary. Is it really fair that Rx+Cy+F where x = 3 and y = 8, 10?
While I agree that the favored class rules don't make a very large impact on game balance, it still disrupts it.
For those that say "since dwarves get +2 Constitution they get +1 HP so they get something extra that other classes do not get", consider a similar case as above, except replace Assumption 1 with:
1. All races lose their ability score modifiers and is instead a meta-rule.
It would follow that R1+C1 = R2+C2. When the ability score meta-rule is applied, the equation turns into R1+A(R1)+C1 = R2+A(R2)+C2, where A(Rx) are the ability scores of race x. Since every race has ability score modifiers, as long as A(R1) is balanced with A(R2) the game remains balanced.
OPTION:
Create several feats takable at 1st level only, like:
...
This is a great idea, but I think the example is off a little. If the feat required that you one are of the current race/class combinations and you get the favored class bonus (choice of 1 HP or 1 skill point every level), I think it would be an excellent option and a great middle ground. However, if we made it a feat, we should throw in an extra 3 HP so it is decidedly better Toughness, since the choice to get an extra skill point is there.
I could converge on something similar to this... what does the pro-FC side say to this?
As a very interesting tidbit that isn't a part of this topic, if we adopted this rule and forced the human bonus feat to be this feat, it may level the playing field between humans and the other races. I have no intention for this to be discussed at length though, it's just a thought. =D
The core rules should be as lean as possible because it makes the game easier to balance, and there are fewer rules to contend with.
Leanness only goes so far. I could argue that getting rid of all classes makes the system leaner. D&D isn't a rules light system.
I'm against Favored Classes...
because, when there are new Base-Classes there is no race who has it as an Favored Class.
Except when there is: "A kenku's favoured classes are ninja and shugenja" could totally happen..
And that +1HP or +1Skill is something I wouldn't use, so my vote is to erase that rule.
Yeah. I don't like dwarves. Erase them from the game, too.
the thing I 'liked' about the 3.5 system was that I could multi-class into a favoured class without penalty,
now I already can get a de facto penalty simply by not taking a favored class.
so count me amongst those who would like to k.i.s.s. this good-by.
.
at max I'd suggest a one time bonus feat when taking the first level of the appointed favoured class.
or give then a +x bonus on one of the saves they would otherwise suck
i.e.: Half Orc Barbarian
good Fort save
bad Will save - but Orc has a Racial +2 on Wisdom
bad Ref save <- give a +x Favoured Class Bonus here
I'd suggest x=1 whith 1-10 levels in the Fav. Class
and x=2 with 11+ levels in the Fav. Class