1. Dwarves make good fighters, druids, barbarians, monks, and rangers.
2. Elves make good archer-type rangers, wizards, sorcerers, rogues, and lightly-armored fighters.
3. Half-Orcs make good fighters, clerics, druids, barbarians, monks, paladins, and melee-type rangers.
4. Humans and Half-Elves make good everythings.
Thanks for the summary; it points out exactly what I don't understand. To pick a few examples:
1. Good at 5/11 classes, we pick one and bribe them to be that, OK. Obviously dwarven monks and rangers offend someone, so we make sure they're more likely to be fighters. And they inherently make bad clerics (Cha penalty), so I can definitely see the need for bribery there, to skew things back into the expected dwarves=clerics model.2. Good at 5/11 classes, we bribe them to be 2 of those, not the others. Is it bad to have elven rogues, for some reason?
4. Good at everything. We bribe them... why?
My real issue is that I still don't understand the logic. I know there's been a lot of talk about keeping people from multiclassing, but this actively encourages multiclassing out of a non-favored class and into a favored one, so that's not a viable reason. Most races are good at being maybe half of the classes, not so much the rest, and we create an arbitrary mechanism to funnel them into two choices... why? Because we want to make sure there aren't too many elven sorcerers? Because there's a problem with an overabundance of half-orc rangers? If I could understand any of the rationale of bribing certain races to be certain classes, I could probably be a lot more accepting of the whole thing. (Like, I mean, if we were in a situation where every half-orc was a wizard, and every wizard was a half-orc, and that defied people's expectations based on literature, etc., OK, I can see bribing them NOT to be one.)
There are two reasons for the "bribes":
Firstly, and most importantly, they serve to help guide new players into effective race/class combos. This is a fact that just about everyone skips over, but new players are vitally important to any RPG, and if new players get wiped out because they play characters that just don't work, mechanically (half-orc wizards, for example) out of sheer cluelessness, it can lead to them dropping the game.
Secondly, favored classes help to channel the population of the world along assumed cultural boundaries. Most dwarves with adventuring class levels, in Pathfinder, are either Fighters or Clerics. It helps create a continuity to the world if races have defined characteristics and tendencies like that, and that continuity is underlined if there are too many oddball characters.
Why bribes at all? Because, in fact, they DON'T punish players for taking oddball race/class combos. They may not REWARD it, but the character won't have reduced functionality (such as was the case with 3.5 favored classes). Favored classes with no mechanical backing would be useless wastes of text; thus, bribes, rather than punishments.
Favored classes with no mechanical backing would be useless wastes of text; thus, bribes, rather than punishments.
I would argue that favored classes are a waste of text regardless. In a DnD campaign, players are rolling Heros, which in and of themselves are already beyond the norm. Why should your heroic wizard be just another memeber of the High Mage Academy class of '08? If you want elven wizards to be common, then populate your NPCs as such.
Use of "incentives" to get players to fit your vanilla campaign ideas reeks of the same strategies lame DMs use to railroad PCs into following the plot.
As for new players, if the newbie wants to roll an Orc Wizard and it works out horribly, why is it better that his friend can tank at first level with his halfling rogue (due to the bonus HPs) All the new player would learn is that this wide an varied game really just wants you to conform to certain ideals.
Favored classes with no mechanical backing would be useless wastes of text; thus, bribes, rather than punishments.I would argue that favored classes are a waste of text regardless. In a DnD campaign, players are rolling Heros, which in and of themselves are already beyond the norm. Why should your heroic wizard be just another memeber of the High Mage Academy class of '08? If you want elven wizards to be common, then populate your NPCs as such.
Use of "incentives" to get players to fit your vanilla campaign ideas reeks of the same strategies lame DMs use to railroad PCs into following the plot.
As for new players, if the newbie wants to roll an Orc Wizard and it works out horribly, why is it better that his friend can tank at first level with his halfling rogue (due to the bonus HPs) All the new player would learn is that this wide an varied game really just wants you to conform to certain ideals.
I have never understood favored classes. There are certain things that some races are bad at, yes (Dwarf sorcerers), but that generally means that people don't play them. There shouldn't be any bonuses for favored classes.
I dislike the form of favored class as it is in now, if you are trying to promote a class for certain races I rather see the skill point bonus than the hitpoints, mostly because it is a way more visible difference making other players like they missed out.
Maybe it is better to expand options flavored to that race for favored classes instead, rather than simply make them more powerful, much like how substitution levels were introduced. either way you can pick wether you take it or not.
I like the races base abilities and stats to connect well with certain classes, so that it feels more like a natural choice, which is afterall what a favored class is about.
Thanks for the summary; it points out exactly what I don't understand. To pick a few examples:
1. Good at 5/11 classes, we pick one and bribe them to be that, OK. Obviously dwarven monks and rangers offend someone, so we make sure they're more likely to be fighters. And they inherently make bad clerics (Cha penalty), so I can definitely see the need for bribery there, to skew things back into the expected dwarves=clerics model.
2. Good at 5/11 classes, we bribe them to be 2 of those, not the others. Is it bad to have elven rogues, for some reason?
4. Good at everything. We bribe them... why?My real issue is that I still don't understand the logic. I know there's been a lot of talk about keeping people from multiclassing, but this actively encourages multiclassing out of a non-favored class and into a favored one, so that's not a viable reason. Most races are good at being maybe half of the classes, not so much the rest, and we create an arbitrary mechanism to funnel them into two choices... why? Because we want to make sure there aren't too many elven sorcerers? Because there's a problem with an overabundance of half-orc rangers? If I could understand any of the rationale of bribing certain races to be certain classes, I could probably be a lot more accepting of the whole thing. (Like, I mean, if we were in a situation where every half-orc was a wizard, and every wizard was a half-orc, and that defied people's expectations based on literature, etc., OK, I can see bribing them NOT to be one.)
I think the problem here is that, in my estimation, 3e had the philosophy right with respect to preferred classes. They were classes that could be used in multiclass combos without contributing to XP penalties. That's exactly what a preferred class should do - enable easier combinations that include professions helped along by cultural momentum.
You want to multiclass? As an elf, because you come from a culture with wizard momentum, where wizardry is fairly pervasive and you're exposed to it throughout your adolescence, picking up wizard levels is easy and won't detract from your other professional pursuits as much as it would if you were from some other culture.The problem was, it was associated with a fiddly penalty that was easy to avoid anyway by taking prestige classes and OH NOES players don't like penalties. So from a gamist perspective, it had limited appeal.
So what is to be done? Paizoians like the idea of favored classes based on cultural elements of the D&D races, and if alleviating penalties is unpalatable, they went with removing the penalty and adding a bonus. Now, philosophically, it doesn't work as well because it applies to single-class characters to whom it should never have applied in the first place. At least I would find it a bit more philosophically appealing if it were for skill points rather than hit points. At least with skill points you can justify saying that, since these professions in your culture are ubiquitous, you've had an easier time learning the basics. They're more likely to be involved in your general education and have thus be easier to learn or have taken less effort, allowing you more time to pick up other skills that are cross class.
That's the way I see it. I want something that makes it easier for characters to follow the default orientation of the race they pick. If I can't have it in the form of alleviating an obstacle, I'll take it as an unearned benefit.
One thing that sticks out to me is that the classes that "should" be a race’s “favoured classes” is a completely subjective decision. Why do half-orcs get druids as a favoured class, for example? it makes no sense to me - fighter or rogue seems to me to fit them better (based on the way they’ve been portrayed in previous works). Even the elven wizard as an archetype isn’t so obviously the only one: I see elves as people of enchanted song that create magic effects as a result of their inherent nature, whereas I see gnomes as the sort of folk who always have their nose in a book. Therefore IMO elves are the natural bards and gnomes should be the ones with favoured class wizard.
The point is that reasonable people can disagree on what a race’s archetype “is”. It’s very arbitrary. I think it’s also very likely to get houseruled: at least, I know I would houserule it if I were DM’ing, and I expect most of my friends would houserule extra favoured race choices if they were DM’ing and were given a reasonably sensible rationale.
So I think that Paiso should just take the rule for humans/half-elves (pick any class as your favoured class at level 1), extend it to every race, and just make it an incentive to stick with a single class (i.e. not to “dip”).
So I think that Paiso should just take the rule for humans/half-elves (pick any class as your favoured class at level 1), extend it to every race, and just make it an incentive to stick with a single class (i.e. not to “dip”).
Actually this sounds good to me, though I'd still give them an additional favored class as represented by the rules now
(though I agree on half-orcs druids being a little silly, where did that + 2 wis come from anyway), it still allows some multi-classing freedom.I'd extend the benefit to the highest level class a character has and one of his favored classes, this way prestige classes remain interesting choices it allows for the odd dwarven druid, though he would suffer a little if he decides to multi-class in a prestige class or anything else than a cleric or fighter he still has the freedom to take the druid to lvl 20 without any hindrance at all.
One thing that sticks out to me is that the classes that "should" be a race’s “favoured classes” is a completely subjective decision. Why do half-orcs get druids as a favoured class, for example? it makes no sense to me - fighter or rogue seems to me to fit them better (based on the way they’ve been portrayed in previous works). Even the elven wizard as an archetype isn’t so obviously the only one: I see elves as people of enchanted song that create magic effects as a result of their inherent nature, whereas I see gnomes as the sort of folk who always have their nose in a book. Therefore IMO elves are the natural bards and gnomes should be the ones with favoured class wizard.
The point is that reasonable people can disagree on what a race’s archetype “is”. It’s very arbitrary. I think it’s also very likely to get houseruled: at least, I know I would houserule it if I were DM’ing, and I expect most of my friends would houserule extra favoured race choices if they were DM’ing and were given a reasonably sensible rationale.
I do not think it's completely subjective at all, more like constrained subjective. The quibble above about elves and gnomes definitely keeps them in the arcane caster realm rather than shifting them over to barbarians or monks. But I would say that favored class should be easily mutable for individual campaign settings.
And of course it's arbitrary, as is the write-up for every race in the D&D game. They're all totally arbitrary. They're constructs of the writers' imaginations.
I'd extend the benefit to the highest level class a character has and one of his favored classes.
Hmmm - his "highest" class. So a Elf Wizard 6/Fighter 1 starts taking Eldritch Knight - and gets favored class on it when he hits 6th? 7th?
This would be rather hard to keep track of when creating characters at higher level. ("So he's a Druid 6/Barbarian 7/Nature Rager 8?" "Yeah, favored class Druid", "But he always took a level of barbarian first and got the favored class bonus for that?", "Yep", "So.. when did he take the Nature Rager class?", "umm").
I'd extend the benefit to the highest level class a character has and one of his favored classes.Hmmm - his "highest" class. So a Elf Wizard 6/Fighter 1 starts taking Eldritch Knight - and gets favored class on it when he hits 6th? 7th?
ok, other favored classes would not count ofcourse, so the elf would get bonus hp up to 6 for wizard, then 1 for fighter (because that is his highest class) then would miss 1 hp on his first level of EK, but would start gaining hp after that. so he would only lose 1 hp.
This would be rather hard to keep track of when creating characters at higher level. ("So he's a Druid 6/Barbarian 7/Nature Rager 8?" "Yeah, favored class Druid", "But he always took a level of barbarian first and got the favored class bonus for that?", "Yep", "So.. when did he take the Nature Rager class?", "umm").
you dont have to keep track assuming barbarian in your example is the 'racial' favored class he gets 7 hp and 8 more for nature rager because that is his highest level. or if none of these are his racial favored class only the 8 hp from nature rager.
ok first of all we can all complain about favored classes all we want.
In 1e most races were prevented from going above a certain level in all but ONE class (their favored class) like the half orc assassin (unlimited) the halfing rogue (unlimited) gnome illusionist (unlimited), dwarves and elves I dont remember, but I think they could just multi class into the duble digits.
But basically if you wanted to go over 8-11th level you had to take your "favored class" or be human!
So its much better than it was.
Nothing in this game keeps you from being a half-orc wizard, except yourself!
YOU have such a hard time with the idea that you wont have access to the VERY best, most optimized character possible IF you play a half-orc wizard! Thats's the problem.
The favored class represents the cultural norm, if you want to be creative, or go against the grain it will be harder for you. Do you think Goth kids in high school get the extra hit point or skill point?
Nope, why do they choose a social life that is harder, more isolated and cuts off access to things that could do if they were "normal"
Basically because they, like the half orc wizard, CHOOSE to be different. To each his own. Are there Goth kids who are cpatin of the football team? MAYBE, but im sure there's only one per generation, per state! and he had to try REALLY hard (harder than "normal" and "accepted" to get there)
As far as what should be accepatable favored classes?
I dont know why elves (who are inhereently "automatically" even, magical) wizards an not sorcerors?
Elves seem to me to be natural sorcerors and bards (spontaneous magic and singing, poetics)
Gnomes, the sacred cow, Wizards specializing in illusion, and, Bards.
Halfings, sacred cow rogue and well I supposed druid seems right.
Humans, flexible. any
Half-elves same.
Dwarves? I dont see why there arent more dwarven barbarians (berserkers), that seems to fit to me more, So I would say fighters and barbarians (berserkers) I think the barbarian class should always have been named berserker and not barbarian beause it's key feature is the rage, and not being bakward and uncivilized. but whatever.
Half-orcs...being shunned from both cvilizations of both races, I see ranger and barbarian for them. (but I say bring assassin back into core class ad give them that back! woot!)
dang it, now Ive gotta go make a half orc wizard, Dang you all!!!
I feel you Pendagast.
At this point where we are now getting to the "they don't favorite what I think they should favor" I'd like to bring up a probably lesser known feat from Unearthed Arcana (pg 100, sidebar). The Additional Favored Class feat allowed a character to add a second favored class under the 3.5 rules.
For the PFRPG I would not see a major issue with an Additional Favored Class feat. It would be of less direct value then Toughness but fits well for what some people are looking for I think. It would be better then Open Minded but that feat needs to be revised anyways to match up with Toughness. So it does balance mechanically, more or less.
The PFRPG already gives 3 more feats then 3.5, a good opening for things like an Additional Favored Class feat to further customize a character.
|
After reading Bill Dunn's post, I think I like the idea of just skill points as a bonus. It does make some sense, and it does help alleviate some of the skill point shortcomings of, oh, everyone but Bards, Rogues and Rangers.
I like skill points. In fact, I think I've only but my FC bonus in skill points for my Pathfinder characters to date.
For everyone else, would dropping the hit point option help alleviate some of the angst?
After reading Bill Dunn's post, I think I like the idea of just skill points as a bonus. It does make some sense, and it does help alleviate some of the skill point shortcomings of, oh, everyone but Bards, Rogues and Rangers.
I like skill points. In fact, I think I've only but my FC bonus in skill points for my Pathfinder characters to date.
For everyone else, would dropping the hit point option help alleviate some of the angst?
this is kindof a silly thread, as I posted above, you have been given the ability to be any class you want in any race you want and max out its levels (which wasnt the original case is the orginial game) yet you are complaining about it.
Whatever.
So I went and made that halforc wizard.
20 point buy:
Str 15 (with +2 from race)
dex 13
con 14
Int 14 (with -2 from race) OUCH
wis 9 (I "bought" a 7 to earn points then took the race +2)
Cha 13
Man did i EVER STRUGGLE to make this charater, I earased it no less than 5 times.
First, I figured Id just be a wizard.
Then got the goofy idea I might go for Mystic Theurge (why??? Because the favored class of druid was luring me, NO LIE and I figured Id be a minion master as I chose to be a conjurer for the wizard school)
so I built his stats around things I would need as a conjurer 8/druid 4 mystic theurge 8 (basically 16th level wizard casting ability) taking the druid nature bond to get the cleric earth domain and thereby having my acid dart scale for all 20 levels (not like that was a big deal, i just didnt want an animal...hah)
I also figured I might take the "animal" cleric domain so I could have the little furry for the tricks and scouting, but not loose him to death when he got hit by a nasty bugbear past the level he was "stuck" at (due to non scaling abilities of the mystic theurge)
THEN Finally,
I made him with the above stats with the idea that he will be a Eldritch knight (Conjurer 8/barbarian 2/Eldritch knight 10)
(baically getting to be a 17th level wizard caster)
So what is the end result? I ended up multi classing! WHY because of that Idea of the favored class (barbarian this time) CALLING me, coupled with the fact that I cant see a half-orc with the auto proficency in falchion (or great axe) as a wizard for his whole career.
Looking at arcane bond, I couldnt see upgrading my falchion without the ability to really USE it to much effect.
WEIRD huh?
Seeing as I set OUT with the intent to make a half-orc wizard?
I was actually thinking of making a halforc wizard this way:
Str 9( 7 gets 4 more points, +2 half orc race)
Dex 16
Con 10
Int 16 (-2 for half orc OUCH on points again!)
wis 9 (7 gets 4 more points ,+2 half orc race)
cha 11
This build gave me 28 points to spend on a 20 point build:
I thought I might make him some sniveling half-orc runt that was kicked out of orc society and went to go liv with goblins or something weird like that.
I thought it would make a good necromancer(sniveling weak and skeletal like) or maybe with the conjurer school couple with the 16 dex hed have a +5 to ac at 1st level, naked.
So it'd make a good AC wizard.
Throw in mage armor and shield and you have a wizard with no items that has a 19 ac (effectively while naked)
take minor magic items like cloak of protection +2, bracers of armor+2 and a ring +2 and that thrid level wizard has an ac of 25.
Pretty funny and weird.
Anyway, because I want to test out arcane armor training and arcane strike and i like the idea of boosting up my own magic sword and being able to swing it, half orc raging edlrtich knight is the way im going to go.
But I would say that favored class should be easily mutable for individual campaign settings.
Yep, and they are. One sentence per race is all you need to do when you're giving your players the info. "Elves: As PFRPG, but favor Fighters and Druids instead of Rangers and Wizards", etc.
And of course it's arbitrary, as is the write-up for every race in the D&D game. They're all totally arbitrary. They're constructs of the writers' imaginations.
Precisely. They're there to provide a baseline culture for the races in the game, but in a way that's simple and easy to change around, unlike the other racial bonuses and penalties. It's far simpler to change an elf's favored classes to X and Y than it is to, for example, change their racial traits while keeping them balanced with other races.
Firstly, and most importantly, they serve to help guide new players into effective race/class combos. This is a fact that just about everyone skips over, but new players are vitally important to any RPG, and if new players get wiped out because they play characters that just don't work, mechanically (half-orc wizards, for example) out of sheer cluelessness, it can lead to them dropping the game.
I suspect that most new players would easily understand that a Half-Orc with a -2 INT isn't the optimum choice for a Wizard. And if they didn't, I suspect that their GM would be able to step in and clarify this fairly easily. I also think that most new players will understand that Elves are going to be better Wizards then other characters because of their bonuses to INT and Spell Penetration bonuses and so on. Giving freebies away is no substitute for actually being taught how to play the game, and it's not fair to the ones that want to play a non-trope characters.
Secondly, favored classes help to channel the population of the world along assumed cultural boundaries. Most dwarves with adventuring class levels, in Pathfinder, are either Fighters or Clerics. It helps create a continuity to the world if races have defined characteristics and tendencies like that, and that continuity is underlined if there are too many oddball characters.
The player characters are ALREADY oddball characters. Just reaching 3th level makes them quite unusual; getting to 9th level means that they are going to be more powerful then many of the authority figures that run the campaign world. The rest of the world will hold to its cultural trends just fine without the help of the PCs.
Oddball or not I like to keep some kind of mechanic in place to stick to the current racial preferences, for me personally it adds flavor to the races as a whole, from my perspective as a DM the occasional 'oddball' character is fun, but a whole party of oddballs conflicts with my sense of 'realism'.
Maybe there should be more than one possible option you can pick from, reflecting your groups style of play, just like there isn't a set rule for 'rolling scores'.
personally I like to give my players some slight encouragement towards their races traditional preferences, but I realize some groups have fun with parties consisting almost exclusively of oddball characters.
Oddball or not I like to keep some kind of mechanic in place to stick to the current racial preferences, for me personally it adds flavor to the races as a whole, from my perspective as a DM the occasional 'oddball' character is fun, but a whole party of oddballs conflicts with my sense of 'realism'.
Maybe there should be more than one possible option you can pick from, reflecting your groups style of play, just like there isn't a set rule for 'rolling scores'.
personally I like to give my players some slight encouragement towards their races traditional preferences, but I realize some groups have fun with parties consisting almost exclusively of oddball characters.
Others have mentioned it already, but such things are subjective, are they not? Especially with home-brew campaign settings. I ponder a "nature versus nurture" concept when it comes to fantasy worlds. What part makes them favor a class over another? Genetics, environment, or societal upbringing (in isolation, hence the proclivity to choose a career path).
If there is a "favored class" system, I think it should be more of a sidebar than slapped in with a race. Here's where the character's "people" come from, and how they typically behave. As such, they'll enforce certain skills and abilities, consciously or not, that bleed through to the character no matter what path they choose in life... provided they were a part of that society growing up.
Maybe, instead of a specific favored class (or two), perhaps a favored group of classes based on the level of civilization the races achieved in isolation. Maybe based on Physical, Divine, and Arcane lines. An orcish-blooded person might have come from a "Tribal" background, and would then be inclined to have "Barbarian, Druid, Sorcerer" favored classes, based on the lack of formal education, no writing system per se, and no fully established religious philosophy dedicated to concepts outside the natural world. An "Urbanized" race, one that has banded together since the dawn of time, and has since formed a network of cities and agricultural propensities, would have Fighter, Cleric, Wizard as favored classes, due to having long traditions of military academies, organized religions, and universities with dedicated arcane research traditions. Or maybe an in-between, one that has integrated into the natural world, but still strives to innovate, while not disrupting the flow of the world, maybe an "Steward" society, would have Ranger, Druid, Bard as favored classes. These are just my first thoughts on the matter.
Then I think the mere fact that the players are adventurers, and not your typical drudge in society to begin with, kind of allows for people to break from norms. Whether they were exiled form their people, or grew up on the mean streets, regardless of their racial background, would make the character favor a certain profession over another. What mechanic, however, do we use?
It can be a headache when you want players to be different, and for identity reasons, people want to be different from the norm. The guy sagas are chanted for centuries about. I know as a game-master it can be difficult balancing social continuities with player desires to be unique. I'm not sure a mechanic should be the way if you, as a GM, want your players to come from the backgrounds proscribed in your campaign setting. And players should realize that pushing the envelope too far would, realistically, result in something bad for the character if they do, in fact, go ahead with the idea for the half-illithid troll wererat character. You are that, but the people [likely justifiably so] FEAR such a thing, and that waving your arms and going, "I'm a good guy! I'm a good guy! Honest!" may result in the character's death at the hands of an angry mob of "normal" people.
Just throwing idea-seeds out there, and looking for inspiration. Thanks for your patience and discussion. :)
I suspect that most new players would easily understand that a Half-Orc with a -2 INT isn't the optimum choice for a Wizard. And if they didn't, I suspect that their GM would be able to step in and clarify this fairly easily. I also think that most new players will understand that Elves are going to be better Wizards then other characters because of their bonuses to INT and Spell Penetration bonuses and so on. Giving freebies away is no substitute for actually being taught how to play the game, and it's not fair to the ones that want to play a non-trope characters.
Having run a campaign at a FLGS specifically for new players, I can safely say that you dramatically overestimate the ability of the general populace to grasp the impact of such things immediately. It's obvious to us, who have been playing for decades. It's almost completely opaque to people who don't even know what the difference between Intelligence and Wisdom is. Yes, you could sit there and walk every player through the rules step-by-step (and, indeed, you need to), but they don't have eidetic memories. I've found that it's dramatically simpler to give them the rules in layers - just get them started with a simple character first, then explain skills when you hit a skill encounter, etc. Being able to explain to them that "Dwarven Fighters are extra-tough because Dwarves train at it from very young ages" (or whatever) gives them an immediate "oh, OK, I get it" lifeline. It's a huge advantage.
The player characters are ALREADY oddball characters. Just reaching 3th level makes them quite unusual; getting to 9th level means that they are going to be more powerful then many of the authority figures that run the campaign world. The rest of the world will hold to its cultural trends just fine without the help of the PCs.
This depends ENTIRELY on the campaign world. Forgotten Realms is the obvious example. Some campaign worlds are low-fantasy, where even warlords are 2nd level fighters. Some campaign worlds are high-fantasy, where even bartenders are retired 10th level fighters and keep +5 greatswords behind the bar to deal with brawlers.
There are two reasons for the "bribes":
Firstly, and most importantly, they serve to help guide new players into effective race/class combos. This is a fact that just about everyone skips over, but new players are vitally important to any RPG, and if new players get wiped out because they play characters that just don't work, mechanically (half-orc wizards, for example) out of sheer cluelessness, it can lead to them dropping the game.
Secondly, favored classes help to channel the population of the world along assumed cultural boundaries. Most dwarves with adventuring class levels, in Pathfinder, are either Fighters or Clerics. It helps create a continuity to the world if races have defined characteristics and tendencies like that, and that continuity is underlined if there are too many oddball characters.
Why bribes at all? Because, in fact, they DON'T punish players for taking oddball race/class combos. They may not REWARD it, but the character won't have reduced functionality (such as was the case with 3.5 favored classes). Favored classes with no mechanical backing would be useless wastes of text; thus, bribes, rather than punishments.
I can get with reason two, even though I don't agree, but reason one? I mean seriously?
First of all, I've never played with a group that didn't have at least ONE person that played before. Maybe other people have, but I haven't had that experience. There was usually more than one person that played before, and only one or two new people. So there's plenty of direction there about how the mechanics work.
Second of all, a vast majority of the people who are going to play today has seen Lord of the Rings or is heavily into the fantasy genre, where they are going to see the "dwarf fighter." Maybe not the elven wizard, but at least a dexterous elf that's good with a bow (still consistant). I don't know how an extra reward is going to push already STRONG preconceived notions any further.
Third, to counter your last point, a reward to X and no bonus to Y is the same as a penalty to Y and no bonus to X (x+1=y, y-1=x). Sure it doesn't seem like that at first, but it will be viewed like that over time. My half orc sorcerer never did get off the ground, but I loved the concept, it was going to be a blast to play. But my githyanki cleric is coming along nicely (ignoring LA helps ;) It's not even within the rules, should be a monk or something else, but it works for what I'm doing.
Is any of this really a big deal? No not really. The House Rule cures everything. Personally, there are plenty of ways to get bonuses and penalties a plenty throughout the game. I mean, you could be half sun elf, half drow, with a free action concentration check to shapeshift between the two (true story).
Personally, I found the favored class and multi-classing penalties to be ridiculous so I didn't use them. I don't think I'll be using this bonus either. If anything I'd use it across the board with a "your 1st class level is your favored class" philosophy. A little clunky to write but I think that works better.
To counter a point earlier, the world is the world, however the players are the players. They are supposed to make odd ball decisions and be different. They are, afterall, the ones that REALLY shape the world. Giving bonuses/rewards/bribes are not going to change your world, and except for a small hand full of people, aren't going to change your players.
PS - Well, maybe I'm bit delusional about that last bit about affecting player character making decisions. People LOVE bonuses. Most people I play with just want to be powerful, level, and "win the game." Oh well, I'll just try and have my fun in between.
Third, to counter your last point, a reward to X and no bonus to Y is the same as a penalty to Y and no bonus to X (x+1=y, y-1=x).
Incorrect. The absolute difference is the same, but the relative difference is another story. Compare a human wizard and a halfling wizard, both with 10 con. With a +1 per level from favored class bonus, the human ends up with 45 hit points at level 10 and the halfling ends up with 35. With -1 per level from taking a non-favored class, the human ends up with 35 at level 10 and the halfling ends up with 25.
In both cases, the human has 10 more health than the halfling, but in the first case the halfling has a decent chance to survive a fireball cast by the human (10d6 = 35 damage on average), while in the second case it will almost certainly be reduced to the negatives and has a very high chance to be killed outright.
THAT is the difference between a bonus and a penalty, and that is why bonuses to one combo are not the same as penalties to every other combo.
Third, to counter your last point, a reward to X and no bonus to Y is the same as a penalty to Y and no bonus to X (x+1=y, y-1=x).Incorrect. The absolute difference is the same, but the relative difference is another story. Compare a human wizard and a halfling wizard, both with 10 con. With a +1 per level from favored class bonus, the human ends up with 45 hit points at level 10 and the halfling ends up with 35. With -1 per level from taking a non-favored class, the human ends up with 35 at level 10 and the halfling ends up with 25.
In both cases, the human has 10 more health than the halfling, but in the first case the halfling has a decent chance to survive a fireball cast by the human (10d6 = 35 damage on average), while in the second case it will almost certainly be reduced to the negatives and has a very high chance to be killed outright.
THAT is the difference between a bonus and a penalty, and that is why bonuses to one combo are not the same as penalties to every other combo.
well done refuting the first sentence, too bad you forgot the second one:
Sure it doesn't seem like that at first, but it will be viewed like that over time.
this lengthy debate shows that it didn't even take time to be viewed as a penalty.
No amount of math, logic and explaining how it "truly is" can fix this.
Ah, I see. So we should eliminate a good idea on the basis that stupid people can't get their minds around the difference between a bonus and a penalty? I guess we should eliminate the differences between races, too. After all, Dwarves getting +2 Con is a penalty to every other race except gnomes, right?
Oh, and Bards get that free skill point towards a Knowledge skill per level. That's sooooo unfair to all the other classes who have their knowledge skills penalized because they aren't a Bard.
Don't even get me started on Monks penalizing the number of attacks everyone else can make.
Ah, I see. So we should eliminate a good idea on the basis that stupid people can't get their minds around the difference between a bonus and a penalty? I guess we should eliminate the differences between races, too. After all, Dwarves getting +2 Con is a penalty to every other race except gnomes, right?
The difference is that a Dwarf might get a +2 CON, but the other races get something to compensate that is of equal value. On the other hand, those that do not take Favored Race/Class combos don't get squat.
The difference is that a Dwarf might get a +2 CON, but the other races get something to compensate that is of equal value. On the other hand, those that do not take Favored Race/Class combos don't get squat.
No. There is no difference. All races (save humans and half-elves, who use a different metric) get +2 to two different stats and -2 to a third. They also have a variety of other minor benefits. They also have two favored classes, which are ostensibly each of equal value.
You can't say that the stats balance out and deny that the favored classes balance out. They're exactly the same thing.
Seriously, why does no one b$!+# about Elven Spell Penetration that is useless for Fighters? It's exactly the same thing. If you don't make an spellcaster out of your elf, you're "penalized" (to borrow the ludicrous mis-statement being thrown around so often in this thread) by not getting something that elven spellcasters get.
How about the dwarven ability to wear heavy armor with no speed penalty? That's utterly useless to wizards, sorcerers, bards, and monks, so it's essentially a bonus to fighters, clerics, etc that isn't applied to the light armor classes. And yet no one complains about the other classes being penalized by it.
These kind of class-specific racial benefits have always been with the game. Hell, in first edition races WERE classes. You couldn't be a halfling fighter. You were a halfling and that was that. Only humans (and maybe half-elves, I forget what the rules were about them) got to choose classes.
The pathfinder version of favored classes brings about the same benefits that provided without restricting your options in any way, shape, or form. I don't see how anyone can logically object to it.
Ah, I see. So we should eliminate a good idea <snip>
sorry, I have not yet encountered a rigorous explanation for why it is a good idea in the first place, just repeated assertion of it as 'fact'.
.
... on the basis that stupid people can't get their minds around ...
what level of politeness can I demand to be enforced towards participants on this forum?
Seriously, why does no one b%#@% about Elven Spell Penetration that is useless for Fighters? It's exactly the same thing. If you don't make an spellcaster out of your elf, you're "penalized" (to borrow the ludicrous mis-statement being thrown around so often in this thread) by not getting something that elven spellcasters get.
so you are aruing:
"some combinations are already having it bad, so lets make it worse"?
as to the rest:
so first edition was bad in regards of choice, it got better till 3.5 (which only penalized multi-classing)
now you want to take a step backwards?
why? because you usually take the favoured class anyway and want those extra SP/HP?
Sure it doesn't seem like that at first, but it will be viewed like that over time.this lengthy debate shows that it didn't even take time to be viewed as a penalty.
No amount of math, logic and explaining how it "truly is" can fix this.
Personally, I don't think these sorts of perceptions are always relevant. It's simply not a penalty. Your PC is not in competition with the other PCs. He's in competition with NPC enemies. That's what matters, otherwise any difference between fellow PCs is fodder for being perceived as a penalty if your PC doesn't happen to be the one gaining a positive benefit.
So a PC might get a bonus for sticking with the race's cultural backdrop and not substantially deviating from it. It's not that big a deal.
As I've stated before, I think 3e was a bit more right about what a favored class should be. But since a lot of games out there don't actually deal with XPs and plenty of gamers, including on this board, get eye-rolly about the multiclassing XP penalty, I'm content with finding another way to encourage characters sticking with their heritage. I favor skill points over hit points, generally, because I think it fits better with what a favored class is - something easy for the PC to learn because of their culture. And an additional skill point models that fairly well.
The fact is that there is no other real penalty for multiclassing that we can easily get a grip on and ameliorate with respect to cultural dispositions. I don't think it's a good idea to promote, for example, an elven wizard's caster level when he picks up a level as a fighter simply because wizardry is easier for him. That's clearly too much to give.
Penalizing a multiclasser a skill point for every class he picks outside of his favored classes might be a better approach. But then you'd get all the complaints about applying penalties and how gamers hate that.
In the end, I think some form of benefit to single classing, or constrained multiclassing, is a good thing. There should be benefits to not cherry-picking classes for easy character building gains in order to balance out the cherry-picking. PF has already provided quite a few by adding higher level class benefits. Are those enough?
In addition, without favored class benefits, what benefit should be extended to the humans and half-elves to compensate for their cultural flexibilities no longer supported by a mechanical benefit?
The fact is that there is no other real penalty for multiclassing that we can easily get a grip on and ameliorate with respect to cultural dispositions.
...
There should be benefits to not cherry-picking classes for easy character building gains in order to balance out the cherry-picking.
the way it is now there is no real penalty for dip from the favoured class either, just 1 SP/HP per level multiclassing to harvest a few feats/class-skills/save bonus.
Even the former 'can't return to this class' have gone, which I like btw..
So a PC might get a bonus for sticking with the race's cultural backdrop and not substantially deviating from it. It's not that big a deal.
...
In addition, without favored class benefits, what benefit should be extended to the humans and half-elves to compensate for their cultural flexibilities no longer supported by a mechanical benefit?
but they already get the benefit of synergizing racial feats as Zurai so nicely pointed out, see my post above yours for the answer to that.
Humans get the bonus feat and racial skill point/level to account for versitality,I don't see why half elves get the same 'any fav class' benefit when half orcs don't: they are as half-human as the half-elves.
.
But since a lot of games out there don't actually deal with XPs
and for those who don't stick to the rules anyways you change them for everyone?
make it easy for the munchkins to grab a little by the rules so they don't feel as bad about grabbing a lot?.
Penalizing a multiclasser a skill point for every class he picks outside of his favored classes might be a better approach. But then you'd get all the complaints about applying penalties and how gamers hate that.
but at least that penalty would be for multi classing (which is appears to is consent among the designers to discourage) and not for Players that happen to have a fav race and fav class that don't match the stereotypes.
I don't see why half elves get the same 'any fav class' benefit when half orcs don't: they are as half-human as the half-elves.
Because half-elves tend to integrate into human and elven society, and thus have a wide variety of potential career paths. Half-orcs tend to be either totally outcast or part of orc tribes. They aren't very accepted in human society. It's a cultural thing, not genetics. Having human genes doesn't make you potentially good at everything; growing up in the default human culture does.
Yes, there are arguments about "should culture be part of racial traits" and "what if my world's culture doesn't follow the default cultures" inherent in that, but they're unfixable (aside from the ever-present house rule option) without completely changing the way races work in D&D, which isn't an option for Pathfinder.
I don't see why half elves get the same 'any fav class' benefit when half orcs don't: they are as half-human as the half-elves.Because half-elves tend to integrate into human and elven society, and thus have a wide variety of potential career paths. Half-orcs tend to be either totally outcast or part of orc tribes. They aren't very accepted in human society. It's a cultural thing, not genetics. Having human genes doesn't make you potentially good at everything; growing up in the default human culture does.
Yes, there are arguments about "should culture be part of racial traits" and "what if my world's culture doesn't follow the default cultures" inherent in that, but they're unfixable (aside from the ever-present house rule option) without completely changing the way races work in D&D, which isn't an option for Pathfinder.
short memory me
thanks for the reminder :-)
To be fair, I'd be completely in favor of changing the way races work in D&D to separate out genetics from cultural traits. I think there's a lot of untapped fun waiting to be had in approaching races from that point of view. Forgotten Realms does a little of this with regions, but it's a pretty clumsy system.
However, rewriting races isn't an option because it would screw up backwards compatibility pretty badly. Since I'm in favor of cultural impact from races and I can't have separate race and culture choices, I'll take the PFRPG version of favored classes (where you get a benefit for following your race's culture rather than a penalty for straying from it) as a good runner-up.
Oh, and by the way, I'm in the "I prefer +1 sp to +1 hp" camp. It definitely fits better. It's not that I think extra hit points are overpowered, it's just that skill points fit better conceptually.
But since a lot of games out there don't actually deal with XPsand for those who don't stick to the rules anyways you change them for everyone?
I think there's a good case to be made for making the game robust enough to work well even with house rules known to be very common.
Having run a campaign at a FLGS specifically for new players, I can safely say that you dramatically overestimate the ability of the general populace to grasp the impact of such things immediately.
Are you serious? If anything, I have found that the familiarity of new gamers with video games makes them much better students of RPG rulescraft then people that I knew back in the day.
No. There is no difference. All races (save humans and half-elves, who use a different metric) get +2 to two different stats and -2 to a third. They also have a variety of other minor benefits. They also have two favored classes, which are ostensibly each of equal value.
There is a difference. All of the classes get certain racial traits. You can argue as to whether or not these racial traits benefit all race/class combos (indeed, many would argue that these differences are sufficient to encourage people to take Favored Classes), but if you don't take your race's favored class, you don't get anything at all in the way of HP or Skill Points. Nada. Zip. Zero. Nothing.
There is a difference. All of the classes get certain racial traits. You can argue as to whether or not these racial traits benefit all race/class combos (indeed, many would argue that these differences are sufficient to encourage people to take Favored Classes), but if you don't take your race's favored class, you don't get anything at all in the way of HP or Skill Points. Nada. Zip. Zero. Nothing.
How is "+1 skill point per Wizard or Ranger Level" really any different than "+2 on spell penetration checks" in that regard? Both are racial traits. Both only give you anything at all if you have levels in a specific set of classes.
How is "+1 skill point per Wizard or Ranger Level" really any different than "+2 on spell penetration checks" in that regard? Both are racial traits. Both only give you anything at all if you have levels in a specific set of classes.
Because everyone can benefit from extra HP or Skill Points, and not everyone is currently getting these extra HP/Skill Points if they choose the "wrong" race/class combo.
How is "+1 skill point per Wizard or Ranger Level" really any different than "+2 on spell penetration checks" in that regard? Both are racial traits. Both only give you anything at all if you have levels in a specific set of classes.Because everyone can benefit from extra HP or Skill Points, and not everyone is currently getting these extra HP/Skill Points if they choose the "wrong" race/class combo.
And everyone could benefit from the spell penetration if they chose the right race/class combo. Again, what's the difference? It's a bonus that only applies if you take levels in a certain class.
And everyone could benefit from the spell penetration if they chose the right race/class combo. Again, what's the difference? It's a bonus that only applies if you take levels in a certain class.How is "+1 skill point per Wizard or Ranger Level" really any different than "+2 on spell penetration checks" in that regard? Both are racial traits. Both only give you anything at all if you have levels in a specific set of classes.Because everyone can benefit from extra HP or Skill Points, and not everyone is currently getting these extra HP/Skill Points if they choose the "wrong" race/class combo.
Here's the difference: everyone could benefit from the spell penetration if they chose the right race/class combo. Racial traits may vary in effectiveness based on your race/class combo, but everyone could use extra HP or Skill Points.
And the funny thing is that if you do opt to play a "non-standard" race/class combo, there is the possibility that you'll be getting whacked twice because 1) your racial abilities don't support the class very well and 2) you're not getting the extra HP that everyone else is.
Would I ever play a Half-Orc Wizard? No. Would other people? Yes. Do I want to gimp them any further then they've already gimped themselves from a rules perspective with their lack of synergetic racial traits? No. Do I support their desire to play this character because they think it would be a fun role-playing experience? Yes, and I'm not going to advocate denying them extra HP or Skill Points because of that.
Ah, so now we're back to the idiotic "not getting a bonus is the same as getting a penalty" argument.
It's not true. Stop lying to yourself. A Half-Orc Wizard is no worse off in Pathfinder than it is in 3.5. It is in no way being penalized.
Ah, so now we're back to the idiotic "not getting a bonus is the same as getting a penalty" argument.
It's not true. Stop lying to yourself. A Half-Orc Wizard is no worse off in Pathfinder than it is in 3.5. It is in no way being penalized.
Wouldn't he be worse off, though?
3.5: Half-orc wizard 20 (no multiclassing, no PrCing)
vs. Elf wizard 20 (again, no MCing, no PrCing)
Besides the preexisting racial tendencies in favor of the class or not, the elf wizard has had no penalties to his XP gain and nor has the half-orc wizard.
Pathfinder: Same setup.
This time, all other things being equal, the half-orc is behind 20 hp or 20 skill points or something in between, on top of the difference in racial tendencies.
At least in 3.5, if I was in a non-favored class and I stayed there, I wasn't coming off worse than the other guy. Now, I am.
And as has been said before, "x = y + 1" is the same thing as "y = x - 1". Not idiotic.
And as has been said before, "x = y + 1" is the same thing as "y = x - 1". Not idiotic.
Not idiotic if you're actually talking about mathematics. A stellarly bad argument considering the PCs are not in competition playing a zero-sum game with each other. Paying Paul, in the case of giving out a benefit for a favored class, does not actually steal from Peter a whit.
As for new players, if the newbie wants to roll an Orc Wizard and it works out horribly, why is it better that his friend can tank at first level with his halfling rogue (due to the bonus HPs) All the new player would learn is that this wide an varied game really just wants you to conform to certain ideals.
You think that one hp is going to let a rogue tank? At first level?? Seriously???
Get a grip, this argument is self-induced hysteria.
I feel you Pendagast.
At this point where we are now getting to the "they don't favorite what I think they should favor" I'd like to bring up a probably lesser known feat from Unearthed Arcana (pg 100, sidebar). The Additional Favored Class feat allowed a character to add a second favored class under the 3.5 rules.
For the PFRPG I would not see a major issue with an Additional Favored Class feat. It would be of less direct value then Toughness but fits well for what some people are looking for I think. It would be better then Open Minded but that feat needs to be revised anyways to match up with Toughness. So it does balance mechanically, more or less.
The PFRPG already gives 3 more feats then 3.5, a good opening for things like an Additional Favored Class feat to further customize a character.
I agree.
But, that is a poorchoice in feat selection for the bonus it provides compared to others in the PFRPG. Which imo only reinforces the point that favored class bonus isnt that big a deal if it doesnt even measure up to comparable feats. It is less then a feat. Less then one feat in total power but yet it spawns seven pages and counting of debate. All it really does at the highest (20) level is either 20 hp (not a lot by that level at all) or one extra skill mastered (20 ranks in one more skill then your buddy of same class/diff race). That's ... pretty small compared to the rest of the abilities a character will have at 20.
To be fair, I'd be completely in favor of changing the way races work in D&D to separate out genetics from cultural traits. I think there's a lot of untapped fun waiting to be had in approaching races from that point of view. Forgotten Realms does a little of this with regions, but it's a pretty clumsy system.
However, rewriting races isn't an option because it would screw up backwards compatibility pretty badly. Since I'm in favor of cultural impact from races and I can't have separate race and culture choices, I'll take the PFRPG version of favored classes (where you get a benefit for following your race's culture rather than a penalty for straying from it) as a good runner-up.
I like the way C&C did half-elves. When creating a character as a half-elf you decide whether the human or elf side was dominate. These then parse out the racial bonus. The half-elf human dominate gets more of the human traits with diluted elven ones, and vice versa.
Not idiotic if you're actually talking about mathematics. A stellarly bad argument considering the PCs are not in competition playing a zero-sum game with each other. Paying Paul, in the case of giving out a benefit for a favored class, does not actually steal from Peter a whit.
And as has been said before, "x = y + 1" is the same thing as "y = x - 1". Not idiotic.
Maybe in their games it does. Maybe they have frequent in-party fights to settle things such as which way to turn in a forked coridor.
And as has been said before, "x = y + 1" is the same thing as "y = x - 1". Not idiotic.
Yes, x=y+1 is the same as x-1=y. However, we're not dealing with y+1, here. It isn't at all true when you're dealing with a more complex equation such as "can my 10th level wizard survive that 10d6 fireball headed his way?". Assuming 10 con, he can (35 hp vs 35 average damage) if he doesn't get a +1 bonus to his hp - but he cannot (25 hp vs 35 average damage) if he gets a -1 penalty.
The argument is idiotic. You're trying, and failing miserably, to apply a principle that only works in a vacuum to a situation with literally thousands of variables. Not getting a bonus is not the same as getting a penalty, and I'll keep saying it until people stop slamming their heads into the brick wall of facts.