wow, in reading the PF beta I totally missed that favored class incentive.
What a stupid idea that is.
Why do we want to encourage people to min/max based on race? Players should pick a race because they want to be an elf or a dwarf or a halfling, not because they need to be a better fighter and they get free hp for picking dwarf.
Favored classes were a horrible idea in 3E to start with. Pathfinder should just drop them entirely, not make them more dominant.
Actually they didn't spawn in 3e, they have been around since the beginning. It was just done differently. In advanced for example some races could NOT take certain classes.
I remember that. The only "short race" that could be an arcane spell caster was a gnome illusionst (and only illusionist backwhen illusionist was its own class and had a separate spell list)
Dwarves were pretty much stuck, as fighters, thieves or clerics or multi classing as a combo of two of them and once you multi classed or dual classed, that was it.
there was no monk/pally/wiz/rog/arcane archer "builds" out there.
I remember at one point halfings got opened up to druids,but then that went away, and usually halflings were stuck with fighter or thf and nothing else.
Halforcs (almost always fighters) were stuck with fighter, theif,cleric or assassin
The ONLY assassins there were had to be human or half orc.
And ONLY half-orcs could be cleric/theif or cleric/assassins.
So that concept has actually gotten improved, not made worse.
Just a vote for in favor of the favored class cookie.
When I first read the rule I read it as +1 Hit point *OR* +1 skill point. Either way seems fair and not that big a deal.
Bonuses are the way to go to get people to play stereotyped classes. The +1 feat at first level did *wonders* for getting parties to be predominately human.
|
I like the favored class bonuses because they encourage players to develop the base classes, instead of looking for the earliest opportunities to add one or more prestige classes.
They can still do all the multi-classing or prestige classing that they like (even more so with XP penalties being eliminated), but the base classes become just a wee bit more appetizing. I think that a good thing.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
so far in Pathfinder I've made...
A Human Wizard (took the extra skill point)
A Half Orc Fighter (non-preferred)
A Half-elf Arcane Legionary (took the skill point)
A Halfling cleric of Shelyn (non-preferred)
A Tiefling Rogue (Took the HP)
Of them all, I'm most attached to the Legionary (bias, class is my own invention) and the cleric. So did I need to be 'bribed' to play with the concept? No.
|
I like the favored class bonuses because they encourage players to develop the base classes, instead of looking for the earliest opportunities to add one or more prestige classes.
They can still do all the multi-classing or prestige classing that they like (even more so with XP penalties being eliminated), but the base classes become just a wee bit more appetizing. I think that a good thing.
Only if they are taking favored races with their class. Otherwise, nothing.
Just a vote for in favor of the favored class cookie.
When I first read the rule I read it as +1 Hit point *OR* +1 skill point. Either way seems fair and not that big a deal.
Bonuses are the way to go to get people to play stereotyped classes. The +1 feat at first level did *wonders* for getting parties to be predominately human.
that Bonuses are the way to go to get people to play stereotyped classes is self evident,
can you explain why this is a good thing in the first place?.
how about that +1 to anyone who doesn't multiclass (including PrC)
unless they multiclass from the favoured class to Prestige Class
(tough luck for those PrCs you need to multiclass to qualify)
And I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, so great job with the comeback and all. . .So how about +1 HP, Save, and/or Skill point at 10th, 15, and 20th Class Level? Not such a spit in the face of someone that doesn't take a specific class, but is a little bit of a boon if you do, later on.+3 saves is far more of a "spit in the face" (come on, this isn't the Blizzard WoW general forums, can we please cut down on the idiotic wannabe-martyrs?) than +20 hit points. You're just arguing to argue.
I'll dumb it down to itsy-bitsy baby words for you then.
1) You claim that +20 hit points is a "spit in the face of someone that doesn't take a specific class".
2) +3 saves is far more powerful than +20 hit points.
3) Thus, your own suggestion of +3 saves is a "spit in the face of someone that doesn't take a specific class".
If people want to play a stereotyped class, that should be their choice. It shouldn't be something we force on them by making elven wizards better than the other choices.
Bonuses are the way to go to get people to play stereotyped classes. The +1 feat at first level did *wonders* for getting parties to be predominately human.
How is an Elven Wizard better than, say, a Human Wizard with his +2 stat dedicated to Intelligence (even disregarding the pick-a-class favored class humans get)? You're either down 1 hp/level relative to the human or down 1 skill point/level relative to the human, for the price of +2 dex and some miscellaneous small benefits.
And besides, I'm still curious how Paizo is, and I QUOTE, "forcing" stereotyped class "on them" (people who play PFRPG).
How is an Elven Wizard better than, say, a Human Wizard with his +2 stat dedicated to Intelligence (even disregarding the pick-a-class favored class humans get)? You're either down 1 hp/level relative to the human or down 1 skill point/level relative to the human, for the price of +2 dex and some miscellaneous small benefits.
Those "small benefits" include Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration as bonus feats at 1st level...
|
|
1) You claim that +20 hit points is a "spit in the face of someone that doesn't take a specific class".
Yes, I do. Any questions?
2) +3 saves is far more powerful than +20 hit points.
3) Thus, your own suggestion of +3 saves is a "spit in the face of someone that doesn't take a specific class".
First off, you are both misenterpreting what I suggested, and misrepresenting what you are trying to say.
My suggestion was that, instead of getting +1 H.P. and/or S.P. at each level, they change it to and one of the following +1 H.P., Save, or S.P. at 10th, 15th, and 20th Level. Do you seriously think that is worse than a maxed out free skill, or +20 H.P.?|
|
How is an Elven Wizard better than, say, a Human Wizard with his +2 stat dedicated to Intelligence (even disregarding the pick-a-class favored class humans get)? You're either down 1 hp/level relative to the human or down 1 skill point/level relative to the human, for the price of +2 dex and some miscellaneous small benefits.
For this example, assume Wizard is not the Human's Favored Class.
An Elven Wizard gets their Elven racial traits which are balanced against the Human Wizard's Racial traits. That the Elf gets the "free" +1 H.P. and/S.P. each Wizard Level takes is not balanced out in any way against the Human, who, by definition of the word, is penulized.
Using Human is a bad example as they can chose their favored class. A human who is a Wizard is going to favor that class (they are 'gifted'). If their talents are else where then they likely aren't going to be pure 20 level Wizards.
A better example would be a Gnome Wizard and an Elf Wizard. Better sill how about a Gnome Ranger and Elf Ranger, where neither race has a significant racial advantage. Is it a problem then?
Better sill how about a Gnome Ranger and Elf Ranger, where neither race has a significant racial advantage. Is it a problem then?
Here's the real problem: for just a moment, let's compare an elf ranger and an elf wizard. Then the favored class bonus, or lack, cancels out. The elf wizard gets a boost to his prime stat, and the equivalent of 2 feats (spell penetration) that directly boost his primary class feature, and a +2 on class-specific uses of one of his class skills. The elf ranger gets -2 to one of his prime stats (Con), +2 to an irrelevant stat (Int), and nothing that affects any of his class features.
Now let's look at a half-orc, whose racial traits (+2 Str, +2 Wis, darkvision) make him a naturally good ranger, and (-2 Int) a naturally poor wizard. Never mind about his favored classes, for now.
OK, then, let's break it down. Do we need to bribe people to be elf rangers vs. elf wizards, or to be elf rangers vs. half-orc rangers? Absolutely: in either pairing, it's a poor choice without additional incentive.
Do we need to bribe people to be elf wizards vs. elf fighters, or to be elf wizards vs. half-orc wizards? No way; not on your life. In each pairing, you'd already be at a large disadvantage if you went the other way.
Those "small benefits" include Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration as bonus feats at 1st level...
Just for the record, Elves get a +2 to overcoming spell resistance, which is equal to Spell Penetration, not Greater.
Just for the record, Elves get a +2 to overcoming spell resistance, which is equal to Spell Penetration, not Greater.
Ah, I'd thought that Spell Penetration was nerfed the way Spell Focus had been. Either way, the point stands.
My suggestion was that, instead of getting +1 H.P. and/or S.P. at each level, they change it to and one of the following +1 H.P., Save, or S.P. at 10th, 15th, and 20th Level. Do you seriously think that is worse than a maxed out free skill, or +20 H.P.?
I know that's your suggestion, and, for the third time, +3 save is more powerful than +20 hit points. For the third time, you're suggesting nerfing favored classes by ... making them more powerful! What a brilliant and novel concept.
For this example, assume Wizard is not the Human's Favored Class.
An Elven Wizard gets their Elven racial traits which are balanced against the Human Wizard's Racial traits. That the Elf gets the "free" +1 H.P. and/S.P. each Wizard Level takes is not balanced out in any way against the Human, who, by definition of the word, is penulized (sic).
Let's give an exact comparison, how about it? Between an Elven Wizard taking +1 hp per level and a Human Wizard without a favored class bonus.
Elf:
-1 Fortitude Save (due to -2 Constitution)
+2 Dexterity
Low-Light Vision
+2 Spot, Listen, Appraise to ID magic items
Secret Door detection
+2 to spell penetration
proficient with longbow, longsword, rapier, shortbow, and "elven" weapons
Human:
+1 skill point per level
Bonus feat
proficient with any one martial weapon
So, the Human has more skill points and isn't forced to take Spell Penetration as his bonus feat (let's face it, that's pretty much what the elven bonus is). He's got a higher Fortitude save, which is terribly important to wizards since anything with half a brain targets Fort save-or-dies at them. He has one less AC and Reflex Save, but those aren't terribly important to wizards since there are very few AC or Reflex save-or-dies. He's got lower totals in Perception (Spot, Listen) and Appraising magic items, but he's more likely to be able to afford to actually put ranks in them, so that's a wash. The elf gets more weapon proficiencies, but the human gets to pick his, which is almost always sufficient and can be more useful.
I would generally take a Human Wizard over an Elven one, even without the Human getting the benefit of favored classes. It's a stronger character.
it is possible to treat the highest level class for a player as a favored class too, discounting other (racial)favored classes for the purpose of determining this.
-this way a prestige class is still rewarded bonus points, unless you started out with a class not favored by your race.
for example a dwarf wizard/loremaster would not get a bonus when entering the prc at first, not until levels in loremaster exceed wizard level at least, whereas an elf would.
an elf fighter 1/ wizard 5/ eldritch knight X is possible only suffering a 1 hp penalty for the first level in eldritch knight.
-this system probably works fine, but it might seem a little complicated and the effect is pretty minor, it is more like giving players free hitpoints, while mildly discouraging complicated builds not involving a (racial)favored class.
The more I think about it, the more I feel like many races have a class that's favored by the racial traits (ability adjustments, bonuses, etc., like wizard for elves) and another that's favored artificially (because the rules declare it so, like ranger for elves). The "naturally" favored class shouldn't also get the additional benefits, but the "artificially" favored class should.
"Naturally" favored classes:
God, I couldnt make it all the way through this, so I skimmed most, and hustled to the end.
Part of the color of any fantasy setting are the different races. And in all of those settings, each race has excelled at something. That creates a "vanilla" feel to the race. That being true, each race ensures that it continues to excel in those areas. This is accomplished through training, support, whatever. But in all cases, there are exceptional individuals. If there weren't, we wouldn't have Bilbo and Frodo, Drizzt, Conan, etc etc.
The PFRPG has placed a mechanic that can benefit those who play within the flavor of their chosen race. As such, if you choose to be "vanilla" then you get the bonus, if you choose not to, then you don't. Either way, ITS YOUR CHOICE. Dont hate the game, hate the playa. To horribly alter a famous movie quote: "vanila is as vanilla does". Just because you are an elven wizard, dwarven fighter, etc. doesnt make you vanilla, just your character sheet is.
If you want the elven monk because of the cool backstory you wrote, have at it, and talk trash that he survived without the +20 hp or skill points, if you feel you must. What I am afraid I am seeing here isnt a lament for role playing. You CANNOT on the one hand claim you are a roleplayer not a rollplayer, and on the other claim you are being "shafted" because you dont get your +20 hp or sp. A roleplayer doesnt crunch the power numbers (or so I am told), he revels in the story that he has created.
Btw, not everyone WANTS to be creative, and they appreciate the love when they get it on top of their vanilla. So make it optional, I'll use it.
And the debate rages on.
I want some sort of favored class benefit that will allow the cultural "pull" of the race to offer tangible benefits to the character who follows the path of least resistance. And I want that "pull" to be potentially contrary to the natural stat bonuses of the race when it's appropriate to the campaign's take on the races.
So, yes, I want favored class benefits based on culture and not racial characteristics. I'd prefer the skill point over the hit points, frankly. I think it's more appropriate for a character following the pull of the race's culture to have an easier time being educated in the profession than just gaining durability.
|
|
"Naturally" favored classes:
Elf = Wizard (+2 Int, spell penetration)
Half-Orc = (+2 Wis, +2 Str) and barbarian (+2 Str, ferocity)
Gnome = Sorcerer (+2 Cha, spell focus)
Dwarf = none (+2 Wis is nice for cleric, but the -2 Cha hurts Pathfinder clerics a lot)
I'd would say that Half-Orcs favor Clerics better than Dwarves do, and even more than they themselves favor Druids (in anything but PF shear fluff). Druids need a little more Int, Darkvision loses it's usefulness when they can shapeshift after a few levels, and Clerics usually need more Str than Druids.
I'd would say that Half-Orcs favor Clerics better than Dwarves do, and even more than they themselves favor Druids (in anything but PF shear fluff). Druids need a little more Int, Darkvision loses it's usefulness when they can shapeshift after a few levels, and Clerics usually need more Str than Druids.
This is why the favored class shouldn't necessarily follow the race's natural bonuses, in part. While I might agree that a half-orc cleric is a bit more iconic than druid (since it dates back to 1e), druid fits at least as well for a race that also favors barbarian. Who cares whether or not the cleric might be a better fit by the stats? The important thing, for favored class, is the cultures the game wants to suggest for the various races.
|
|
This is why the favored class shouldn't necessarily follow the race's natural bonuses, in part. While I might agree that a half-orc cleric is a bit more iconic than druid (since it dates back to 1e), druid fits at least as well for a race that also favors barbarian. Who cares whether or not the cleric might be a better fit by the stats? The important thing, for favored class, is the cultures the game wants to suggest for the various races.
Initially my reply included how Half-Orcs are not all uncivilized, monsterous creatures any more the Half-Elves are prissy pointy eared humans that look down at the not so long lived races, but like about 5 other posts, it would not submit and just completely logged me out and close Paizo on me. Clerics are a better fit because they are not restricted to an area or nation in the same sense that Druids are. Clerics are more universal.
I do understand the "Shaman" aspect, but Cleric actually does this a little better than Druid. If the Shamans or the Orc/Half-Orcs where all Druids, than they are pretty much the same with abilities and features, while Clerics can be of different deities/totems/etc. . .and have different potentials and abilities, not to mention gets more buffs for the barbarian warriors than Druids, who normally get buffs for themselves or minions.
and the halflings don't have to be Rogue anymore.
Since when did halflings have to be rogues anyway?
I remember a halfling druid of mine who went the way of a martyr...
I hear newer players saying things like, "I want to play a bard, so aren't I supposed to be a halfling or a human?"
The "bonus" isn't perceived as a bonus because it's too good to pass up -- most particularly when racial traits ALREADY make one race a "no-brainer" (e.g., elven wizards). I made a dwarven rogue to buck the trend, to the tune of "don't you care about your character? Why would you throw away all those hit points or skills?" It makes me feel all emo, "Ooh! Look at me! I'm playing a non-favored class!"
|
|
I hear newer players saying things like, "I want to play a bard, so aren't I supposed to be a halfling or a human?"
The "bonus" isn't perceived as a bonus because it's too good to pass up -- most particularly when racial traits ALREADY make one race a "no-brainer" (e.g., elven wizards). I made a dwarven rogue to buck the trend, to the tune of "don't you care about your character? Why would you throw away all those hit points or skills?" It makes me feel all emo, "Ooh! Look at me! I'm playing a non-favored class!"
Dude, you better not EVER come over here being "all emo"...
;)
Dude, you better not EVER come over here being "all emo"...
Man, I'm not the one living in Montrose.
Or driving a SmartCar.
And neither HD nor I live in Montrose, technically we are on the edge of River Oaks. So there!!!!!!!! :-P
|
|
And neither HD nor I live in Montrose, technically we are on the edge of River Oaks. So there!!!!!!!! :-P
Well, China and I claim Montrose, actually. And we play favored race/class combos for the extra skill/hit points. And we STILL died in Chimera's cove (but then, we put all of our extras into skill points...)
Oh, well.
With low int (10) and Con (10) I find a human cleric NEEDS the skill point and hp bounuses...so quit crying about them, I'm keepin them!
So there!
And neither HD nor I live in Montrose, technically we are on the edge of River Oaks. So there!!!!!!!! :-PWell, China and I claim Montrose, actually. And we play favored race/class combos for the extra skill/hit points. And we STILL died in Chimera's cove (but then, we put all of our extras into skill points...)
Oh, well.
Too bad for us the gimped Monk held us back! :P
I personally like using favored class to get the extra +1 hp
I hear newer players saying things like, "I want to play a bard, so aren't I supposed to be a halfling or a human?"
The "bonus" isn't perceived as a bonus because it's too good to pass up -- most particularly when racial traits ALREADY make one race a "no-brainer" (e.g., elven wizards).
Elven Wizards are far from a no-brainer. Human wizards are equal or superior in nearly every way, even if you don't give humans the benefit of the favored class rule. As, I must point out, I fully outlined not that many posts above yours.
I would go so far as to say that there are very, very few no-brainer favored classes. Dwarven fighters are really close. So are human wizards/sorcerers, but I don't really count humans in this debate because they always get favored class bonuses, barring multiclassing.
Dwarf: Fighter is very close to a no-brainer; the only thing that keeps it from being one is that dwarves make lousy non-heavy-armor fighters (archers, swashbucklers, etc). Cleric, their other favored class, suffers a great deal from low Cha thanks to the new pathfinder turning rules.
Elves: Ranger and Wizard both suffer a lot from the Con penalty, and neither class can make great use of both Dex and Int if you're talking single-class.
Gnome: Their racial bonuses work out pretty well for both bards and sorcerers, but the 20 feet movement speed is a really major penalty in any combat situation. I don't count it off for dwarves because both their favored classes use heavy armor anyway, but gnomes feel the full effect of not being very mobile. Also, Halflings are equally as good at being both classes, which kind of negates gnomes being a "no-brainer".
Half-Orc: While there aren't any major disadvantages to playing a half-orc druid or barbarian, there are other sufficiently good choices for both (dwarf is one) to not qualify them as "no-brainers".
Halfling: See gnome, except the speed is an even bigger disadvantage to a rogue than it is to a sorcerer.
Elven Wizards are far from a no-brainer. Human wizards are equal or superior in nearly every way, even if you don't give humans the benefit of the favored class rule. As, I must point out, I fully outlined not that many posts above yours.
*cough*+2 untyped bonus to spell penetration rolls*cough*
Elven Wizards are far from a no-brainer. Human wizards are equal or superior in nearly every way, even if you don't give humans the benefit of the favored class rule. As, I must point out, I fully outlined not that many posts above yours.
And as I must point out, a person disagreeing with your conclusion isn't necessarily a person who didn't read your post. Sueki and I fall into the former category, not the latter.
Elven Wizards are far from a no-brainer. Human wizards are equal or superior in nearly every way, even if you don't give humans the benefit of the favored class rule. As, I must point out, I fully outlined not that many posts above yours.*cough*+2 untyped bonus to spell penetration rolls*cough*
*cough* free bonus feat that could be used for spell penetration *cough*
As, once more, I already covered.
Elven Wizards are far from a no-brainer. Human wizards are equal or superior in nearly every way, even if you don't give humans the benefit of the favored class rule. As, I must point out, I fully outlined not that many posts above yours.And as I must point out, a person disagreeing with your conclusion isn't necessarily a person who didn't read your post. Sueki and I fall into the former category, not the latter.
You didn't disagree with my conclusion, you completely ignored it. The only conclusions I could draw when I made a post that gave a detailed analysis of your conclusion and you don't respond to it while continuing to state your conclusion are:
1) You didn't read the post.
2) You read the post but couldn't come up with a successful defense against it so decided to ignore it.
The only conclusions I could draw when I made a post that gave a detailed analysis of your conclusion and you don't respond to it while continuing to state your conclusion are:
1) You didn't read the post.
2) You read the post but couldn't come up with a successful defense against it so decided to ignore it.
Or,
3) Felt that low-light vision, near-immortal life span, and "spidey sense" secret door detection are not as irrelevant as you claim, as I posted some time ago, and4) Assumed you read that post and decided that those features are less useful in your personal game, and therefore disagreed that they had merit, and
5) Accepted that disagreement does not imply stupidity, inferiority, or anything else other than disagreement.
Anyway, I agree that humans are superior to all the other races; that was an intentional design feature of 1e, reasons for which Gygax described at great length, and it has carried over all the way into Pathfinder. Pointing out that a human anything is better than an elven anything isn't showing anything new. Somehow proving that an elven wizard isn't better than a half-orc wizard would be impressive, and would prove your point. Or showing that elven racial traits are just as "ranger-friendly" as they are "wizard-friendly" would work for me (more than just, "well, you know, Con penalties are bad"). Or showing that a race with a Str penalty, small weapons, and racial bonus to Illusion DCs somehow makes a better barbarian than a sorcerer or wizard -- I'd likely be impressed with that argument as well.
But in any case, it's far more productive, in my estimation, to continue discussion if we can agree to cut out the irrelevant commentary like "obviously you didn't bother to read my awesome posts that prove everything" or "obviously you couldn't successfully argue against my divine brilliance so instead you gave up and cowered like a dog," or that imply the same. In short, to be a lot less snide.
Or,
3) Felt that low-light vision, near-immortal life span, and "spidey sense" secret door detection are not as irrelevant as you claim, as I posted some time ago.
Not that all of those are particularly relevant for playing elven wizard over elven... anything else (particularly rogue). I hardly see any of those as particularly important for playing an elven wizard over a human one. Low-light comes closest, I suppose.
I don't see a near-immortal lifespan as particularly relevant for any race. That's far more a flavor concern than one with a lot of mechanical import these days. In the days when Haste aged you a year, it could be a big deal, but now?
I don't see a near-immortal lifespan as particularly relevant for any race. That's far more a flavor concern than one with a lot of mechanical import these days. In the days when Haste aged you a year, it could be a big deal, but now?
Yeah, I keep forgetting that the current model is to go from 1st to 20th level in a matter of weeks, game-time. I'm used to it being a major issue, because I tend to include an awful lot of down time and non-dungeon intrigue. Given the current "no xp for item creation," I can see elven wizards wanting to take a few centuries off to make items, selling half for cash and making more items with the proceeds, until they have like 20x their wealth by level... a scheme that, given item creation times, would put humans in the retirement home in no time. Yes, a sane DM should probably call shenanigans, but whether other people do so is out of my control. Strictly as written, though, the Beta rules make long life span potentially a major mechanical issue for people living in cities who have a few spare item creation feats (i.e., for wizards).
Depends totally on the campaign, which is why I'm OK with people assigning different relative values to these things.
In my experience, low-light vision can quickly become critical for wizards if you have a DM who tracks light conditions, and if you're using a light spell in dark places and monsters have darkvision -- it's the difference between seeing them as soon as they see you (at 60 ft. instead of 30 ft.), or seeing them when it's too late!
But, like I said, overall I can't argue against the fact that humans are just plain better than other races. Looking strictly at core nonhumans, though, few to none make naturally better wizards than elves, even with no hp/skill point incentive given.
Pointing out that a human anything is better than an elven anything isn't showing anything new.
Sure it does. It shows that "elven wizard" isn't a "no-brainer". You have two rock-solid choices: human and elf. Actually, half-elves are right up there, too. They have the exact same racials as elves minus the con penalty, dex bonus, and spell pen bonus and plus the bonus skill focus feat. Which is better depends on how much you value hit points and Fortitude saves as a wizard, I suppose.
Or showing that elven racial traits are just as "ranger-friendly" as they are "wizard-friendly" would work for me (more than just, "well, you know, Con penalties are bad").
OK, let's examine them.
+2 Dex: More ranger-friendly than wizard-friendly, since Rangers get Evasion and will either need the AC (melee ranger) or the ranged to-hit (archer ranger), none of which applies to Wizards.
+2 Int: More wizard-friendly, for obvious reasons.
-2 Con: Pretty much a tie. Worse for a melee ranger than an archer ranger, but rangers get good Fort saves so the -1 Fort aspect doesn't hurt them quite as much.
Low-light Vision: Tie. Slightly more useful for an archer-ranger who may need the extra vision range for sniper shots, but you could make the same argument for wizards with Long ranged spells.
Keen Senses: More ranger-friendly (opinion). Rangers are far more likely to have ranks in Perception than Wizards are, in my experience. Thus, the +2 bonuses will actually be on skills that are being used, and the secret door detection has a chance to actually work.
Elven Immunities: Tie.
Elven Magic: Definitely strongly favors the wizard. I don't think Rangers even get any SR-applicable spells in core, do they?
Weapon Familiarity: Favors the wizard, since rangers get all that anyway (except the curve blade, which is two-handed so not really a ranger weapon). Of course, the chance of the wizard actually making notable use out of the familiarity is low.
I'd say that's pretty even, personally. The stat points come out to a tie, as do Familiarity (IMO), Immunities, and Low-Light. Magic favors Wizards and Keen Senses favors Rangers. Depending on the game, which of those two is better will change.
Or showing that a race with a Str penalty, small weapons, and racial bonus to Illusion DCs somehow makes a better barbarian than a sorcerer or wizard -- I'd likely be impressed with that argument as well.
Why would I want to show that it's a better barbarian? You're not making any sense. You seem to not understand my position, so let me state it clearly for you:
There are few, if any, "no brainer" choices for race/class combinations (A "no brainer" is defined as a choice that is clearly superior to all other choices). Thus, the favored class bonuses are a way to gently steer people towards race/class combinations that A) work fairly well together, and B) fit the culture of the races as defined in the PFRPG.
A look at it from a race point of view:
Dwarves make good fighters, druids, barbarians, monks, and rangers.
Elves make good archer-type rangers, wizards, sorcerers, rogues, and lightly-armored fighters.
Gnomes make good wizards, sorcerers, bards, and druids.
Half-Orcs make good fighters, clerics, druids, barbarians, monks, paladins, and melee-type rangers.
Halflings make good bards, archer-type rangers, rogues, and sorcerers.
Humans and Half-Elves make good everythings.
And now a look at it from a class point of view:
Dwarves, Half-Orcs, Humans, and Half-Elves make good Barbarians.
Gnomes, Halflings, Humans, and Half-Elves make good Bards.
Half-Orcs, Humans, and Half-Elves (and Dwarves if you don't care about turning) make good Clerics.
Dwarves, Gnomes, Half-Orcs, Humans, and Half-Elves make good Druids.
Dwarves, Elves, Half-Orcs, Humans, and Half-Elves make good Fighters.
Dwarves, Half-Orcs, Humans, and Half-Elves make good Monks.
Half-Orcs, Humans, and Half-Elves make good Paladins.
Dwarves, Elves, Half-Orcs, Halflings, Humans, and Half-Elves make good Rangers.
Elves, Halflings, Humans, and Half-Elves make good Rogues.
Elves, Gnomes, Halflings, Humans, and Half-Elves make good Sorcerers.
Elves, Gnomes, Humans, and Half-Elves make good Wizards.
As you can see, no matter whether you're more interested in playing a certain race or a certain class, you have several options (at least 3 in every case; most have 4 or more) to choose among. If you're only interested in playing a certain race/class combo to start with, than the entire debate is meritless.
But in any case, it's far more productive, in my estimation, to continue discussion if we can agree to cut out the irrelevant commentary like "obviously you didn't bother to read my awesome posts that prove everything" or "obviously you couldn't successfully argue against my divine brilliance so instead you gave up and cowered like a dog," or that imply the same. In short, to be a lot less snide.
Please cite one example of me saying "obviously you didn't bother to read my awesome posts that prove everything" or "obviously you couldn't successfully argue against my divine brilliance so instead you gave up and cowered like a dog". Or even anything remotely close to as hostile and derogatory as those, for that matter. Fact is, you're being far more snide in that paragraph than I have been in the whole thread combined. I've been sarcastic, true. I'm a sarcastic person. I've not been snide, however.
*cough*+2 untyped bonus to spell penetration rolls*cough**cough* free bonus feat that could be used for spell penetration *cough*
As, once more, I already covered.
Please. Remember, this is an racial spell penetration bonus. It stacks with the bonuses provided by the Spell Penetratiom and Greater Spell Penetration Feats. Everyone else will always be +2 behind the Elves on the Spell Penetration curve, and given the dearth of ways to increase your Spell Penetration, that's fairly significant. You can keep your Feat - I'll take the extra Spell Penetration, thanks.
Please. Remember, this is an racial spell penetration bonus. It stacks with the bonuses provided by the Spell Penetratiom and Greater Spell Penetration Feats. Everyone else will always be +2 behind the Elves on the Spell Penetration curve, and given the dearth of ways to increase your Spell Penetration, that's fairly significant. You can keep your Feat - I'll take the extra Spell Penetration, thanks.
+6 spell penetration is excessive. I can't think of anything that would require such an extreme effort, especially with spells like assay spell resistance around. Frankly, SR is overrated. Caster level is easy to inflate, there are feats that let you take 10 on caster level checks, there are spells that give bonuses to spell penetration, spells that reduce or eliminate spell resistance...
Wizards got along just fine before Pathfinder introduced the Elven Magic trait. If +4 or less was enough for the entirety of 3.0 and 3.5, I don't see how getting to +6 is such an all-important thing now.