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


Ability Scores and Races

1 to 50 of 413 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Do we really need to bribe players with extra HP or Skill Points to try and encourage them to play traditional race/class combinations? All of the races have certain classes that they clearly excel in. It seems to me that there's already enough incentive for for players to have characters that play traditional race/class roles. I believe that giving them extra HP or Skill Points to these players simply penalizes other players that choose to go "outside the box" and build non-traditional characters.


Sueki Suezo wrote:
Do we really need to bribe players with extra HP or Skill Points to try and encourage them to play traditional race/class combinations? All of the races have certain classes that they clearly excel in. It seems to me that there's already enough incentive for for players to have characters that play traditional race/class roles. I believe that giving them extra HP or Skill Points to these players simply penalizes other players that choose to go "outside the box" and build non-traditional characters.

I do not see it as a bribe, I see it as a way of bringing the mechanics of the game together with the story-world of the game. The fact that certain races are naturally better at certain classes is an explanation for why certain races tend to be certain classes. By this, each race is given a bit more of its own distinct flavor. And those who rightly exercise their free choice to make their characters the race and class they want, instead of the favored class of their race, are not penalized, they just aren't given that particular (mechanical) reward.


Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
I do not see it as a bribe, I see it as a way of bringing the mechanics of the game together with the story-world of the game. The fact that certain races are naturally better at certain classes is an explanation for why certain races tend to be certain classes. By this, each race is given a bit more of its own distinct flavor. And those who rightly exercise their free choice to make their characters the race and class they want, instead of the favored class of their race, are not penalized, they just aren't given that particular (mechanical) reward.

It's a pretty potent mechanical award. That's 20 extra HP or Skill Points over the lifetime of a character. If you want to play an Elven Monk or a Dwarven Wizard, you're out 20 HP. And frankly, Elves and Dwarves already have enough racial abilities that encourage them to play Wizards and Fighters - really I don't think you need to slap an extra 20 HP on the table to "bring the mechanics of the game together with the story-world of the game".

All you're really doing is screwing over players that want to try and do something different by breaking with the same tired race/class tropes that we've been saddled with since... forever.


I agree the reward is substantial, I just don't think the absence of a reward is a punishment. If everyone were rewarded, it wouldn't be a reward. The "flavor" reason still seems solid to me. I'll be curious to hear others on this, but I feel like maybe I have seen this discussed before around here before.


Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
I agree the reward is substantial, I just don't think the absence of a reward is a punishment. If everyone were rewarded, it wouldn't be a reward. The "flavor" reason still seems solid to me. I'll be curious to hear others on this, but I feel like maybe I have seen this discussed before around here before.

When the absence of a reward results in a loss of 20 HP, I think it's a punishment. I guess we'll just have to see if the Pathfinder RPG designers agree...


Sueki Suezo wrote:


When the absence of a reward results in a loss of 20 HP, I think it's a punishment. I guess we'll just have to see if the Pathfinder RPG designers agree...

I cant agree here. You get em if ya play the favored class, it makes a point to having a favored class. If ya want to 20 points play that class, if not don't. It's a reward for playing to type and brings a resone why that type is so common.

punishment would be ok sorry not favored class you get 1 less hp then the book says per level. since your a drawf and wanting to play a wizard sorry. thats 1d6-1 or 2 skills -1 pick.

It's not

Liberty's Edge

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Sueki Suezo wrote:


When the absence of a reward results in a loss of 20 HP, I think it's a punishment. I guess we'll just have to see if the Pathfinder RPG designers agree...

I cant agree here. You get em if ya play the favored class, it makes a point to having a favored class. If ya want to 20 points play that class, if not don't. It's a reward for playing to type and brings a resone why that type is so common.

punishment would be ok sorry not favored class you get 1 less hp then the book says per level. since your a drawf and wanting to play a wizard sorry. thats 1d6-1 or 2 skills -1 pick.

It's not

More like Humans get +2skill per level or 1 skill per level + 1hp. Well that is if they don't multiclass...


Seeker wrote:
It's a reward for playing to type and brings a resone why that type is so common.

I couldn't agree more. In the "good old days" (and yes, full disclosure, I'm one of those nostalgic fellows prone to reminiscing about misty black and white memories of the way we were.) requirements for classes and even things like wizarding specializations (Conjurer needed a 15 con, right?) and specialty priestin' kept such powerful-seeming additions to the game somewhat in check and made the specialist far less common than the "core" class (and I use the term "core" loosely here, natch?) it was based on.

Heck, even Paladins used to require minimum stats in addition to their strict alignment and ethos guidelines. Heavens forbid someone rolled multiple "18's" and chose to play a Cavalier. Cavaliers got ability bonuses as they leveled IIRC. But you still saw more "Joe-fighter types" (and my first fighter, in 4th grade was actually called Joe- a truly epic Dwarven name)than Paladins or Cav's.

In the era of the point buy (which I am all for) and the balance concept (which I have more mixed feelings about)we can simply choose to be Paladins and specialty priests (domains) and stand on the shoulders of giants (the players of earlier editions who we can at least be grateful to for relegating the Cavalier to the ash heap of history along with the Thief-Acrobat ["my class is a mix of a class and a skill"]) to attain unheard-of (and in many cases welcome) power by our character's epic levels.

Reward those who seek out the archetypes. The dwarven cleric-fighter (one of the only MC options available to dwarves in 1st) rides again, and gets some skill points or hp to boot.

Looking back I can see my fetish for parentheses clearly seems to have gotten the better of me. I'm feeling a little tangential today.


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


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

I just haven't seen this in my games either as player or gm. If you're seeing it in yours, perhaps it calls for particular measures rather than general ones?


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

I have not seen this in any game I have run. If your having an issue with it, then it may be your group and not the rule it's self


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

There are reasons vanilla is the most popular flavor of ice cream...


Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
Sueki Suezo wrote:
Sorry, folks. I know you want to maintain your traditional archetypes, but all these bonus HPs/Skill Points do is encourage people to make very vanilla characters...
I just haven't seen this in my games either as player or gm. If you're seeing it in yours, perhaps it calls for particular measures rather than general ones?

I agree with the above poster, and of course no disrespect intended to Sueki, but everyone has a different table that they play at.

I see a lovely mix of "Vanilla" and "Ben & Jerry's latest crazy flavor with 38 ingredients" at mine. Vanilla is not necessarily bad (in my opinion of course)especially when and if it is not the only choice.

I still occasionally think of that most Vanilla character ever of mine, Joe the Dwarven Fighter with a fond nostalgia.

Maybe somebody wants to play the archetypal warrior in plate and shield, maybe somebody wants to play a spiked chain wielding, dex based fighter in padded armor with a crazy undead graft or something.

Both desires are valid within the parameters of the game as it exists. I think having the option to reward someone for playing to type would help balance out issues people may have with "overpowered" builds or melanges of character classes designed to optimize the combat ability.

The world (and the game) needs it's "Joe-Fighter" types as much as it needs "Aleutyn the Necrotic Chain Master"s. Your game may not, but the game in general (again solely an opinion and meaning no disrespect to those disagreeing) does.

Scarab Sages

Bill Dunn wrote:
There are reasons vanilla is the most popular flavor of ice cream...

I have a theory it's actually Neopolitan, but the companies count it as vanilla as an attempt to keep that flavour going. oh, and it goes great with Baileys.

on topic, however, there is a really easy solution: remove the favored class mechanic from your table. The company wants to keep certain archtypes in their games, and the easiest way to do this is with a mechanic to encourage certain races to play certain classes. bear in mind that adventures aren't written, as far as i know, to have every party member be their favored class. in fact, not one of my players plays favored classes and they still have fun with the adventures. and not once have they complained of them being harder then they should be.

now, assuming the company wants to continue having certain archetypes in their game (including the stupid nature elves...gah!) then what do you suggest they do to tie certain races to certain classes? and if you then go on to say that said associations should be removed, be warned that you're just going to be told that certain things are just the way they are because the comapany wills it. as i was when i complained about the elves (why trees? why the nature bond???why can't they be super advanced urban alien symbiotes for a change? BAH!)

just my opinion, which i'm convinced pretty much everyone is going to ignore anyhow...

Sczarni

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure, Companion, Lost Omens Subscriber
Sueki Suezo wrote:
Sorry, folks. I know you want to maintain your traditional archetypes, but all these bonus HPs/Skill Points do is encourage people to make very vanilla characters...

no it doesn't, it may encourage certain traditional archetypes of players to min/max into vanilla characters, but it in no way forces you to play a certain character. My gnomeish ranger with 7 Cha and 7 wis wouldn't be possible if it were..... (yes I realize that this eliminates all spell casting from him, but that is part of his backstory.)

Dark Archive

Personally, I think each character should be able to choose their favored class, as it allows more backstory options. Maybe your half-orc grew up in a more advanced tribe, and has fighter for a favored class. Maybe your dwarf is from a remote clan who worships the very earth (druid favored class). I guess I look at the favored class mechanic as something that should provide incentive to stick with a class you've already selected, rather than something that nudges you to select a specific class.


I full heatedly agree!!! Favorite Classes should be eliminated. Even though I play human almost every time, I still think this mechanic is old and worn-out and only penalizes those of us who do not play the same character the everyone else is for that race.

Jason I plead to you, remove this mechanic.


Why do people continue to think that not getting a reward or an incentive is a "loss" or a "penalty"?

Grand Lodge

I say ditch favored classes and multi-class penalties all together.

The races generally encourage a specific class combo as is. But not every dwarf is a fighter or a cleric.

Why penalize a player who wants to do something different?

Why not encourage diversity, imagination and experimentation?

Rewarding players to play the stereotypes discourages imagination, and roleplaying and leads to roLL playing.

Let the player decide and let that be good enough.

The Exchange

I agree with the OP. The races themselves already provide a lot of reasons to play to type. Dwarves are already the best race for Fighters and Clerics, giving them 20 extra hit points and skill points simply makes everyone who doesn't make their Fighter or Cleric a Dwarf or vice versa shafted. Similarly, within Pathfinder there are a dozen reasons why you should play an Elf Wizard and giving another benefit simply widens the breach between Elf Wizards and non-Elf Wizards.

You might not like the sound of it, but 4e is admirable in this sense: the reason why people play Eladrin Wizards is not because the game gives them a cookie for playing to type, but because Eladrin make great Wizards from a mechanic standpoint. 3.5 did this very badly in some cases: Elves had Wizard as their favored class even though absolutely none of their abilities made them any better at Wizarding. Similarly, to draw an example from a non-core source, while the Elan from Magic of Incarnum had Incarnate as their favored class the only synergy between the Elan and the Incarnate was a +1 bonus to Knowledge skill checks and Bardic Knowledge checks for each two soulmelds shaped by the Elan. Hardly impressive.

Pathfinder Roleplaying is in my opinion going the right way with its races: the races already provide many benefits for playing tried and true stereotypes. Giving any more benefits simply results in a situation where players who don't want to play Vanilla characters are getting shafted.


We're talking about PfRPG Beta, right? The favored classes are still in there, listed race-by-race.

And we are talking, at least ideally, about bringing together the game mechanic and the "fluff" of a race's propensities, so how would it be a "cookie"? The question then, would become, has this been achieved in Beta, and if not, how could it be improved?

The Exchange

Mairkurion {tm} wrote:

We're talking about PfRPG Beta, right? The favored classes are still in there, listed race-by-race.

And we are talking, at least ideally, about bringing together the game mechanic and the "fluff" of a race's propensities, so how would it be a "cookie"? The question then, would become, has this been achieved in Beta, and if not, how could it be improved?

The cookie I'm referring to is the added benefit of +1 hit point and +1 skill point for every level in a favored class you take.

Now, the truth is that certain classes mechanically fit certain concepts: Dwarves make great Fighters and Clerics, Half-Orcs are great Barbarians and Druids and Elves... well, at least they make good Wizards. Halflings and Gnomes are both good at being Bards. There already is a correlation between the abilities granted to the different races and their favored classes. The only thing that giving a further benefit for playing according to type achieves is bridging the gap between more eccentric character concepts and the vanilla concepts.

For an example: even without the favored class rules a Dwarf Wizard is suboptimal, as it is worse than the best possible Wizard (an Elf). With the favored class rules added in my character is now suboptimal on two levels: not only is he not getting the cool racial benefits the Elf has that synergize well with Wizards, the Elf Wizard is also getting a free pat on the back from the universe for conforming to ethnic stereotypes.

The races are already attractive enough for the character concepts associated with said races. The races at the moment provide many nice carrots for pursuing their favoured classes and giving them an extra carrot would be the same as flogging all the other race/class combinations to death with the stick.

Sczarni

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure, Companion, Lost Omens Subscriber
Ratpick wrote:


For an example: even without the favored class rules a Dwarf Wizard is suboptimal, as it is worse than the best possible Wizard (an Elf).

yet people still play elf fighters and want to play dwarf wizards...

Spoiler:
I just said the above so that I can put in the PS of 'but that depends on your play style, as me playing a dwarf fighter against me playing an elf wizard, the fighter will win 9/10 of the time. So in my case,at least, your example is false


Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
Sueki Suezo wrote:
Sorry, folks. I know you want to maintain your traditional archetypes, but all these bonus HPs/Skill Points do is encourage people to make very vanilla characters...
I just haven't seen this in my games either as player or gm. If you're seeing it in yours, perhaps it calls for particular measures rather than general ones?

I haven't seen it in my games yet. But if this rule stays as-is in the final release, you'll start seeing it a lot more across the spectrum of Pathfinder players.


Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
We're talking about PfRPG Beta, right? The favored classes are still in there, listed race-by-race.

It's perfectly fine to have Favored Classes. Some classes are going to have a special resonance with certain races or cultures. But I suggest that we uncouple game mechanics from this concept once and for all.


Agreed. These incentives are not necessary.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Sueki Suezo wrote:
Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
We're talking about PfRPG Beta, right? The favored classes are still in there, listed race-by-race.
It's perfectly fine to have Favored Classes. Some classes are going to have a special resonance with certain races or cultures. But I suggest that we uncouple game mechanics from this concept once and for all.

I also want to agree. Pushing steriotypes too hard makes for less interresting characters/backgrounds.

(Yes, this is kind of a Scared Cow. But then I would ask . . . "How do you like your steak?")


Personally, I like the new favored class rules and so does my gaming group. We like the benefits provided to encourage stereotypes in the characters.

Honestly, I just can't wrap my head around the idea that not getting these benefits is a "penalty" of any sort. I know this is a stretch, but bear with me....

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

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

Of course, this really just brings up my irritation with the current push to make everything balanced. Life isn't balanced and I don't need everything in my games to be balanced. Amazingly, we've had plenty of players in our group that have been happy playing fighters, monks, and rogues when others were playing the "unbalanced" classes like cleric, wizard, and druid.


Sueki Suezo wrote:
Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
We're talking about PfRPG Beta, right? The favored classes are still in there, listed race-by-race.
It's perfectly fine to have Favored Classes. Some classes are going to have a special resonance with certain races or cultures. But I suggest that we uncouple game mechanics from this concept once and for all.

I understand your suggestion, I just do not like it. Here is why: First, the move from 3.5 to PfRPG takes us from a disincentive to multi-class in anything other than the favored class, to an incentive for the favored class. It is also an incentive that is more immediate than the accumulation of xp. Second, offering an actual incentive instead of just having a theoretical favored class ties game mechanic to fantasy flavor--it explains a detail in the gaming world. (Why are elves wizards more often than other races? Why are the best wizards often elves?) Just as I didn't see the old disincentive (yes, an actual penalty or loss, instead of lack of incentive) stop people from playing what they wanted to play, I haven't seen the new rules stopping people either. What I do feel like I have seen the new rules do is support a sense of "world" in the game. That is why I would hate to see it go.

Spoiler:
(Is this vanilla? Well, I don't think it is going to stop people committed to role-playing their concepts and narrow down the number of flavors to one. But, to extend the metaphor as others already have, there is a reason vanilla is popular...and I mean the real vanilla, not the artifical flavoring. Still, even if it is the most popular, it has hardly shut down the variety, and I expect the same will be true in character classing.)

It is possible that others have this as a major problem, either because of the kind of gamers they are, or the kind of world that they like to have their players in as being very different from the one envisioned by Paizo. It seems to me that in such cases, it would be relatively easy for those who feel that way to just give all of the PCs the same incentive and level the playing field.

EDIT: Good point, Sutekh. It actually makes the single flavor metaphor a little silly.

Scarab Sages

PFRPG gives at least two options for favored class (humans and half-elves have even more). That means you are not shoe-horned into just one little box.

You are, on the other hand, strongly encouraged to stay in a core class and play that through your career by the mechanic.

As a DM, I like that.

Everytime someone comes in to my level 10 game with a Rogue 2/Fighter 2/Assassin 4/Dreadnought 2, I had a PC in my group without an identity; a bundle of great abilities with no core narrative to motivate or challenge the character. As a result, I have had to house rule in a limit on prestige classes to 1) only those I approve specifically for the campaign and 2) only 1 per PC before Epic levels. This helps but it does nothing to keep folks from dipping through four base classes on their way to the one prestige class. Now I have rogue 2/spellthief 4/kensai 4 running around.

PFRPG helps me keep it plausible to have a Rogue 10. That is nice.

It makes my players develop their characters more and rewards them for giving their PCs a career in a core class, a class with a clear concept and a mechanic and niche that is easy to design adventures for.

So from this DM, I say keep it. It helps with the core objective of making the core classes central to a campaign (without prohibiting warlocks and spellthieves and all the rest.)

Scarab Sages

I would like to see favored classes eliminated - otherwise certain race/class combinations are penalized (in effect).


Brett Blackwell wrote:

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

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

But the thing that you're forgetting is that although Mike may be getting paid less, he has other benefits that make up for the lack of pay. Mike is going to have better insurance coverage. His prescriptions are going to be dirt cheap. He's going to have more vacation time then John. He's going to know all the best doctors and hospitals in town, and if he doesn't, he can get a hold of this information relatively quickly from other people in the company. He may even know some of the top doctors and medical authorities in his area on a first name basis.

You know what the Elven Monk gets when his friend the Elven Mage gets 20 extra HP? Nothing. Not really the same situation at all.


Lord Fyre wrote:

I also want to agree. Pushing steriotypes too hard makes for less interresting characters/backgrounds.

(Yes, this is kind of a Scared Cow. But then I would ask . . . "How do you like your steak?")

It's time for us to call Dennis Leary on this one. :)


Sueki Suezo wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:

I also want to agree. Pushing steriotypes too hard makes for less interresting characters/backgrounds.

(Yes, this is kind of a Scared Cow. But then I would ask . . . "How do you like your steak?")

It's time for us to call Dennis Leary on this one. :)

Moo?

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

Well, PRPG did allow two favored classes per race, right? That certainly broadens things.

One thing I like about it is that it rewards sticking with one class instead of class-dipping. That could always be accomplished in another way, however.

I'm kind of neutral on this one. I'd be fine if this were replaced with a rule that allowed a character to announce any favoured class and maintain it. But, I'm not put out with the restrictions that exist.


Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
I understand your suggestion, I just do not like it. Here is why: First, the move from 3.5 to PfRPG takes us from a disincentive to multi-class in anything other than the favored class, to an incentive for the favored class. It is also an incentive that is more immediate than the accumulation of xp.

Why was this even an issue in the first place? The only people that were multi-classing anyway were non-casters. If you're a Caster, you want an unbroken line of class levels so you can have tons of crazy high level spells to burninate things with.

Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
Second, offering an actual incentive instead of just having a theoretical favored class ties game mechanic to fantasy flavor--it explains a detail in the gaming world.

You mean like getting a +2 to your Spell Penetration checks? Or perhaps being able to move 20 ft. per round regardless of your encumbrance? A bonus to the DCs of Illusion spells you cast? Wait a second...


Sutekh the Destroyer wrote:
Everytime someone comes in to my level 10 game with a Rogue 2/Fighter 2/Assassin 4/Dreadnought 2, I had a PC in my group without an identity; a bundle of great abilities with no core narrative to motivate or challenge the character.

A character without a narrative isn't something that can be blamed on class combinations - you have to lay responsibility for that at the feet of the players themselves.

Sutekh the Destroyer wrote:
PFRPG helps me keep it plausible to have a Rogue 10. That is nice.

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


Reading what I said in context is an incentive for me to continue replying. Willfully doing otherwise, I am pretty sure shows continuing to do so is non-productive.


I personally don't see it as an issue. I am currently playing a Gnome Cleric in one campaign and I have to say, while the extra hit points or skill points would be nice, I really don't miss them at all. It's only a penalty if something is taken away from you. If it's given, it's just a bonus.


Why should dwarves have stonecunning, greed, and heartiness? Ouch, I'm penalized for not being a dwarf. Let's make all races the same.


Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
Why do people continue to think that not getting a reward or an incentive is a "loss" or a "penalty"?

'Cause it is. There is no mechanical difference between giving one player a bonus or another a penalty. The delta between them is the same.

One of the overriding considerations of game design is balance. Without it, you don't have equity between the players. Which ain't fun.

Favored classes are and have always been a crappy design. They actively *discourage* creative choices.


Lets just make everyone Human, 10 in all stats, no armor, clubs for weapons and no spells or skills and a flat hit point value of 5. There, I have balanced the game! :P


Major Noobstyle wrote:
Lets just make everyone Human, 10 in all stats, no armor, clubs for weapons and no spells or skills and a flat hit point value of 5. There, I have balanced the game! :P

I'm not asking for all of the races to be equal. I just don't want to see characters playing Demi-Humans lose out on 20 extra HP over their career because they want to do something different from the norm. I don't want to have a Legolas Tariff imposed on me because I want to play an Elven Barbarian or a Dwarven Wizard.


Just this of the bonuses as the races 'perfection' of the class, while others that they are not so good at are not perfected yet. That makes sense to me for explaining it. It doesn't mean you can't be a exceptional member of that class, your just not as good at it as some other races that may have spent centuries perfecting it.

Sczarni

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure, Companion, Lost Omens Subscriber
Sueki Suezo wrote:
I don't want to have a Legolas Tariff imposed on me because I want to play an Elven Barbarian or a Dwarven Wizard.

[sarcasm]But elves don't know how to train Barbarians, silly - so said barb would have to reinvent the wheel that the half orc has been trained in since birth..[/sarcasm]

Liberty's Edge

Major Noobstyle wrote:
Just this of the bonuses as the races 'perfection' of the class, while others that they are not so good at are not perfected yet. That makes sense to me for explaining it. It doesn't mean you can't be a exceptional member of that class, your just not as good at it as some other races that may have spent centuries perfecting it.

Then Human and Half-Elfs have perfected every class and every class to come...


Suzaku wrote:
Major Noobstyle wrote:
Just this of the bonuses as the races 'perfection' of the class, while others that they are not so good at are not perfected yet. That makes sense to me for explaining it. It doesn't mean you can't be a exceptional member of that class, your just not as good at it as some other races that may have spent centuries perfecting it.
Then Human and Half-Elfs have perfected every class and every class to come...

there first one ya. That was always the way 3e said anyhow. Humans are adaptable and take on many roles with ease.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Robert Head wrote:


'Cause it is. There is no mechanical difference between giving one player a bonus or another a penalty. The delta between them is the same.

One of the overriding considerations of game design is balance. Without it, you don't have equity between the players. Which ain't fun.

Favored classes are and have always been a crappy design. They actively *discourage* creative choices.

The difference between different players is, in any game in which the PCs are cooperating rather than competing, not all that important. Certainly not enough to say that lack of some bonus is a penalty.

The important difference is between the party and what the party encounters.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Mogomra wrote:


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

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

Scarab Sages

Major Noobstyle wrote:
Lets just make everyone Human, 10 in all stats, no armor, clubs for weapons and no spells or skills and a flat hit point value of 5. There, I have balanced the game! :P

huh...I know this was a tongue-in-cheek jest, but that sounds scarily like an Iron Heroes game I played not too long ago...didn't enjoy it much...

1 to 50 of 413 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Design Forums / Ability Scores and Races / Do We Still Need To Bribe Players To Play Their Race's Favored Classes? All Messageboards