|
Preliminary note. This posting relates to matters touched on in this thread . However, it does so by way of example rather than in its own right.
Racial Builds – a rant and a recipe
The following posting is part of my attempt to sell those people to the Pathfinder Ruleset who aren’t convinced (as yet) that it is sufficiently backwards compatible to 3.5. I am one of those people, so are my players. So let me start off with a rant and then move on to how I think Paizo could sell themselves to us after all. Obviously what follows isn’t very worthwhile for people already sold on Pathfinder . It’s for those who who’ve been loyal (Adventure) Pathfinders so far but are hesitant over upcomig developments on their favourite product line. Because, yes, Adventure Paths will go Pathfinder RPG next summer.
To keep things neat and surveyable, I’m going to stick to races and classes, the two fundamental concepts in D&D character creation. Pathfinder tries to sell me on the idea that the current core classes and races are too weak, and (so) that they need re-balancing with the current level of power in “the game” (Beta Ruleset, p.51). Now that’s an interesting definite article sitting right there. I’m sorry, which “game” is that? Oh yes, it’s the 3.5 ruleset including every supplement WotC ever put on the market. Since Paizo “cannot change the other material”, they level up the new core.
I believe we are looking at a ridiculously flawed argument. The idea is, you see, to make the new core ruleset available to everyone, including people who don’t want to part with some of their overpowered splat supplements. But “everyone” clearly doesn’t, and can’t, include everyone. It may include people keen on playing cat folk crusaders or drow beguilers (beware: contrived examples), but it most definitely excludes all groups who have either never bothered to buy the ridiculously overpowered books these combos came from or who did buy them but houseruled away what they regarded as poorly playtested classes and races. It excludes these groups because, more likely than not, these groups have not retracted their reasoning - and why should they, all of a sudden?
Enter Paizo, the guys who tell us that those groups who thought Tome of Battle set the standard in “the game” are their new core audience. Excuse me? I believe that that core audience has safely moved on to a new edition, and as someone who’s regularly playing that edition I can safely assure you that it will accommodate us better than Pathfinder RPG ever will.
What it won’t do is convince me that this move constitues sticking to a tidied up version of a ruleset that still receives an equal share of my love. That would be because leveling up the core rules to match aforementioned supplements contravenes one of three declared design goals of the Beta Ruleset – compatibility to the majority of 3.5 supplements out there. And it doesn’t visibly aid the other two design goals - a point on which, more than any other, I welcome to stand corrected.
Let’s see what this means. First, increasing the power level doesn’t clearly Improve the Playability of the game as is. In fact, I think it makes it harder for players and (especially) DMs to get their head round what in their 3.5 library is cut out for Pathfinder play as is and what isn’t. Not that Paizo can avoid to (finally) take a (more detailed) stance on that, but there it is. And what’s more, leveling up the core classes and races doesn’t Open up Options. It definitely doesn’t open options which weren’t there already - for those eager to take them before, that is (see above). Rather, it invalidates all options which never approximated that ultimate peak in 3.5 power level. If I ever heard of an undemocratic vote in game design, I’m looking straight at one here.
Before I expand on this, let me iterate one point. It’s not that Paizo’s design decisions may not work out in the end in precisely the way they want to (who cares if it isn’t 3.5 compliant as long as it’s a jolly good game?). It’s much rather that currently Paizo are outstripping WotC in failing to communicate these decisions convincingly to their declared target audience. Talk of the power level of “the game” is one such case, the definite article being a wilful negation of diversity of power level in 3.5 supplements. Another would be the “standardized system for determining class Hit Dice”, in that HD are now tied to base attack bonus progression (p.51). Hello? What’s BAB got to do with HD? There are good reasons why (for instance) the ranger class, which enjoyed a huge increase in power level and (concomitantly) in player popularity in 3.5, received a decrease in HD. I mean, you seriously want to compare a paladin to a ranger and say they deserve the same HD because of their BAB progression? Paizo, you can do better than that at explaining stuff. Heck, you could actually cut the “behind the screen” designer comments if they come in this variety, because they make me believe you haven’t managed to come up with something better. Or worse, they almost make me believe you don’t fully know what you’re doing when fiddling with 3.5 core classes and all, which I don’t want to believe.
Ok, so much for the rant. Now for a recipe. I’m firmly convinced that the declared design goals are spot on. So let me propose a case in point of how I think re-vamping 3.5 would meet these goals in a spirit that avoids invalidating all but the four most powerful supplements in 3.5.
“Open up Options” – how do you do that? Well, taking a leaf out of Paizo’s book, let’s look at their redesigning the core races, all packed neatly into four pages. As far as I can see, there are only two significant alterations from our beloved 3.5. First, we get ability adjustments: everyone needs to be on a par with catfolk now (minus level adjustment, obviously), since otherwise people would - obviously - just go back to playing catfolk. Obviously! But we’ve covered that already. Second, each core race now comes with two favored classes. Now instead of falling into the same trap of giving players both of two beneficial options at once (being two +2 boosts to abilities), Paizo gets round to confronting players with a choice. At first level you opt for one of two favored classes. Bingo. That’s what options are, folks: they are choices. Choices that I make, not a bag of goodies the ruleset selects for me, in the vein hope that putting a carrot on a stick will eradicate memories of wrecked campaigns and party split-ups.
In fact, Paizo’s idea of having two options in favored class is a very clever analogue of a prominent 4E-ism, class builds. You see, in the shiny new game every core class comes in two varieties. Each variety is built around one of two core abilities. For instance, there are both Strength- and Charisma-based “builds” of the rogue and the paladin class, which consequently impact what you can do in the game and how well you can do it. In particular, some of your optional class features will rely more heavily on one ability than another.
I believe this sets the tenor for “racial builds” as well. Every (favored) class relies on one key ability; spell casters receive bonus spells from their respective key ability, to mention but a prominent instance. Therefore it makes sense to correlate favored classes with a boost in that class’s key ability. More precisely, it makes sense for a player’s choice in the former to directly impact his choice on the latter. There’s no reason why an Elven wizard should receive an Intelligence- as well as a Dexterity-Bonus +2, just as there’s no pressing reason why an Elven ranger should receive a high Intelligence-score as well as a high Dexterity. In fact, one thing which frustrated me in 3.5 was how no single race favored the ranger class before you turned to the Monsters Manual, even though standard Elves with their Dex-bonus were perfectly cut out for it. Well, kudos to Paizo for fixing that. All we need now is to keep in view what’s required for that fix to go through, and what isn’t. I already said it, so let me say it again. Dwarf clerics and fighters don’t need a boost in both Wisdom and Strength. They only need a boost in one of those, respectively. Fix that, and you’ll have silenced the crowd that shouts “power creep!” at those four well-worked pages on racial rules in the Beta version. Was that hard? Did that really upset what you had in mind when creating a streamlined 3.5 with more options? I’m all ears.
I conclude with a neat summary of the proposal, and (dare I say it) a slogan summarizing my rant: MORE OPTIONS, LESS FREEBIES. Because I want to make my own choices instead of the ruleset making them for me.
RACIAL BUILDSEvery race comes in one of two ‘builds’: the core build, which is 3.5/OGL compliant, and the variant build, which is not.
A racial build consists of two interlocking elements:
o Ability adjustments
o Your character’s favored class
All other racial traits are constant across core and variant builds of the same race.Your choice of race determines your negative ability adjustment and limits your options when taking a favored class.
o Dwarves (-2 Charisma): Fighter (core build) or Cleric (variant build).
o Elves (-2 Constitution): Wizard (core build) or Ranger (variant build).
o Gnomes (-2 Strength): Bard (core build) or Sorcerer (variant build).
o Half-Elves (no negative ability adjustment): Any. You don’t receive a +2 ability adjustment.
o Half-Orc (-2 Intelligence): Barbarian (core build) or Druid (variant build).
o Halfling (-2 Strength): Rogue (core build) or Bard (variant build).
o Human (no negative ability adjustment): Any. You don’t receive a +2 ability adjustment.Your choice of favored class determines your positive ability adjustment.
o Barbarian -> Strength +2
o Bard -> Charisma +2
o Cleric -> Wisdom +2
o Druid -> Wisdom +2
o Fighter -> Constitution +2
o Ranger -> Dexterity +2
o Rogue -> Dexterity +2
o Sorcerer -> Charisma +2
o Wizard -> Intelligence +2
Brief Comments:
1. The core builds of Elves and Gnomes (as offered here) are not fully 3.5/OGL compliant.2. Since classes tie to key abilities, no core class feature should tie a class into a non-key ability (cf. the Wizard’s “Arcane School” abilities being boosted by Charisma, p.194). Again, that’s a 4E-ism derived from “class builds”, but a very sound one at that. We want people’s choice of racial builds to be felt in the game.
I think the ship has already sailed on this one. Your idea is pretty decent but then I'm not a fan of the whole boost to base stats in general. What it has done for me is more or less force me to switch our game to point buy. The 15 point buy combined with the new base stat boosts is actually pretty decent. This is a little frustrating because I was always a big fan of rolling abilities but IMO the new rules are just too easy to abuse with rolled attributes.
From some casual comments by Jason I think the d4 HD is going to make a return. Favored class and extra HP at first level are likely to be optional rules. I'm not sure about the ranger's HD, I kind of like it at 10 but I don't think the ranger is a very strong class.
Overall I suggest before you make pass judgment on the product you wait and see what the final book is going to look like. While many of the changes are being adopted some are being rolled back.
PS: Burying an idea under pounds of sarcasm, hyperbole, and mockery makes for tough reading and makes it far less likely anyone at Paizo will ever read it.
|
|
Clarification.
Players get the +2 stat boost once they pick the favored class as their favored class . Players don't need to take levels in their favored class for the stat boost to come in.
Example.
A player wishing to play a Dwarven Bard can pick either racial build, meaning he will get a +2 boost to either CON or WIS.
I think the ship has already sailed on this one.
Ah, good to know! As for your PS, fair enough. Still, I think my post, as written, is fairly self-conscious of the rant/non-rant division. I'm not burying my idea under mockery, I'm presenting it as an afterthought to a question I find far more pressing:
How does the power creep relate to Jason's three declared design goals?
Guess what. If I get a good answer to that, I'll retract every bad vibe I voiced in my posting. Simple as that. And I didn't mock design choices per se (such as the ranger's HD) but the underlying reasoning behind them as offered in the book. But maybe you're right, and I simply threw a fit since this reminds me of, you know, 4E marketing.
I'd alter this slightly to keep the racial flavor more in line with what it was in D&D and AD&D. The exception is that I'd change the gnome's variant build to a druid-build, to make it more in line with the Pathfinder iconic druid. Besides, Pathfinder gnomes seem to be more like forest gnomes than rock gnomes:
RACIAL BUILDS
Every race comes in one of two ‘builds’: the core build, which is 3.5/OGL compliant, and the variant build, which is not.
A racial build consists of two interlocking elements:
o Ability adjustments
o Your character’s favored class
All other racial traits are constant across core and variant builds of the same race.
Your choice of race determines your negative ability adjustment and limits your options when taking a favored class.
o Dwarves (-2 Charisma): Fighter (core build) or Cleric (variant build).
o Elves (-2 Constitution): Wizard (core build) or Ranger (variant build).
o Gnomes (-2 Strength): Bard (core build) or Druid(variant build).
o Half-Elves (no negative ability adjustment): Any. You don’t receive a +2 ability adjustment.
o Half-Orc (-2 Charisma): Barbarian (core build) or Druid (variant build).
o Halfling (-2 Strength): Rogue (core build) or Bard (variant build).
o Human (no negative ability adjustment): Any. You don’t receive a +2 ability adjustment.
Your choice of favored class determines your positive ability adjustment.
o Barbarian -> Strength +2
o Bard -> Charisma +2
o Cleric -> Wisdom +2
o Druid -> Wisdom +2
o Fighter -> Constitution +2
o Ranger -> Dexterity +2
o Rogue -> Dexterity +2
o Sorcerer -> Charisma +2
o Wizard -> Intelligence +2
|
|
Chris, my choices on which races favor which classes were conservative in that I respected the decisions taken by the Paizo team on this issue. In my copy of the rulesbook I only needed to insert a couple of 'or's and of corner brackets to mark variant builds to have the Beta say what I want.
Still. Maybe there aren't any particular(ly good) reasons why gnomes, of all races, should favour sorcerers in the first place. And you are spot on that one of the Paizo iconics is a gnome druid. BUT. On your proposal no single race favours the sorcerer class. That's not in itself bad - the paladin and monk aren't favoured either - but it's something sorcerer players are going to miss.
Now I'm not a sorcerer player myself, but my rant's main gist is that Paizo should please as large a customer base as possible, my speculation being that they lose more people over +2/+2/-2 than they are gaining, particularly if they (continue to) fail to sell it convincingly. Dropping the sorcerer as a favoured class would perhaps have a similar result.
Unless, of course, people wishing to play sorcerers wouldn't feel they're missing out since they can always pick humans or half-elves. But they still MIGHT feel that way since they're not picking a race boosting their core ability.
Chris, my choices on which races favor which classes were conservative in that I respected the decisions taken by the Paizo team on this issue. In my copy of the rulesbook I only needed to insert a couple of 'or's and of corner brackets to mark variant builds to have the Beta say what I want.
Still. Maybe there aren't any particular(ly good) reasons why gnomes, of all races, should favour sorcerers in the first place. And you are spot on that one of the Paizo iconics is a gnome druid. BUT. On your proposal no single race favours the sorcerer class. That's not in itself bad - the paladin and monk aren't favoured either - but it's something sorcerer players are going to miss.
Now I'm not a sorcerer player myself, but my rant's main gist is that Paizo should please as large a customer base as possible, my speculation being that they lose more people over +2/+2/-2 than they are gaining, particularly if they (continue to) fail to sell it convincingly. Dropping the sorcerer as a favoured class would perhaps have a similar result.
Unless, of course, people wishing to play sorcerers wouldn't feel they're missing out since they can always pick humans or half-elves. But they still MIGHT feel that way since they're not picking a race boosting their core ability.
You raise a lot of good points. The way I reconciled druid and gnome over sorcerer and gnomes is that forest gnomes would probably favor druid over sorcerer as a class. I guess the fact that I don't care for sorcerers factored in as well BUT not too much. ;)
Overall, I'd prefer to err on the side of classic D&D-flavor continuity and that's the basis for the slight changes I made (because I like 95% of your idea).
I agree with your speculation over the ability mods turning off potential new players. The guys I game with see it as Paizo's way of bringing in new players by amping up the power levels of races and classes rather than streamlining 3.5 (which is more in line with what we'd like to see... particularly in high-level play).
|
|
UPDATE
It never occured to me to properly motivate my proposal on a level other than the rule mechanical one. So here comes:
The inspiration behind the proposal for D&D races to come in two "builds".
Straight from a classic. Because no single race favors one class only.
"Sixteen years," Matron Malice said to him. "You have breathed the air of Menzoberranzan for sixteen years. An important period of your life has passed."
The weapon master took a long step forward to deflect the matron mother's attention from Drizzt.
"Secondboy?" he asked, sounding impressed, both for the sake of Drizzt's swelling pride and to placate and distract Malice. "Then it is time for you to train."
Malice let her anger slip away, a rare event. "Only the basics at your hand, Zaknafein. If Drizzt is to replace Nalfein, his place at the Academy will be in Sorcere. Thus the bulk of his preparation will fall upon Rizzen and his knowledge, limited though it may be, of the magical arts."
"Are you so certain that wizardry is his lot, Matron?" Zak was quick to ask.
"He appears intelligent," Malice replied. She shot an angry glare at Drizzt. "At least, some of the time. Vierna reported great progress with his command of the innate powers.
Our house needs a new wizard. ... Sorcerer seems the natural course."
Zak took a flat coin from his neck-purse, flipped it into a spin, and snatched it out of the air. "Might we see?" he asked.
Four coins went up. Four coins were caught. The only parts of Drizzt's body that had even flinched were his arms.
"Two-hands," Zak said to Malice. "This one is a fighter. He belongs in Melee-Magthere."
Hence,
DrowDrow come in one of two ‘builds’: the core build, which is 3.5/OGL compliant, and the variant build, which is not. Each build consists of two interlocking elements:
o Ability adjustments
o Your character’s favored class
All other racial traits are constant across the core and variant build.Your choice of race determines your negative ability adjustment and limits your options when taking a favored class.
o Drow (-2 Constitution): Wizard (core build) or Ranger (variant build).
For the purposes of racial builds, drow function like elves.Your choice of favored class determines your positive ability adjustment.
o Ranger -> Dexterity +2
o Wizard -> Intelligence +2
but my rant's main gist is that Paizo should please as large a customer base as possible, my speculation being that they lose more people over +2/+2/-2 than they are gaining, particularly if they (continue to) fail to sell it convincingly.That is debatable in the extreme. I certainly wouldn't use the number of forum rants here as a measure for in the most part people only post when they want to see a change, not generally when they're happy with what they have. I don't see any real evidence that people are passing Pathfinder up because of that specific aspect.
As far as I'm seeing with the guys I know, Pathfinder has fallen off of our collective radar because it is "re-making" D&D in a way that we feel is not necessary.
Pathfinder, to our minds, should have stayed as setting neutral as possible... using supplemental books to alter races based on campaign-specific fluff.
My hope was that Pathfinder would clean up 3.5, addressing some of its well-known problems (multiclass caster issues, stacking effects, DR rules, grappling) and eliminating some of the overly-complicated rules, particularly for high-level play.
Instead they have ramped up the power level of races and classes significantly, and incorporated Golarion-specific fluff into the PHB.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
My gnawing doubt is compatability. If I stick with D&D 3.5 (which is likely), will the fifth Adventure Path begin with 1st Level (Pathfinder RPG) characters in mind, and will it be too tough for 1st level D&D characters (lower stats, weaker skills, and fewer hit points) to overcome?
|
My gnawing doubt is compatability. If I stick with D&D 3.5 (which is likely), will the fifth Adventure Path begin with 1st Level (Pathfinder RPG) characters in mind, and will it be too tough for 1st level D&D characters (lower stats, weaker skills, and fewer hit points) to overcome?
It seems to me that all APs need a bit of tuning (and in the case of Xanesha, complete retooling) in places. Given that people have been able to run RotRL in PFRPG with relatively simple modifications, I would have thought that the reverse would be true enough for 3.5. And this is probably as close, of course, to ongoing production of 3.5 material as can be had (which is another reason I'm going to go with PFRPG, because I want to be playing a game that's still supported and is 3.5-like).
Off-topic: Sorry to hear from Dennis up-thread that the d4 hit die might make a return. I'd rather that casters are more easily interrupted but can take more hits, myself.
|
Interesting commentary. I have on this.
1) If we are concerned about the increasing stat scores, just take down the point buy or have the players roll 3d6 and add any modifiers as appropriate. I think every DM has a number in his/her head on what the average starting stats should look like. For me its in the 12-14 range. Regardless of how Jason/Paizo writes the rules, I will house rule the starting stats (probably through a lower point buy) to ensure that the characters are starting off at the right point for my campaign.
2) Since HP's were brought up, here is my take. At first level, characters need some help. After that, they are fine. I am ok with Wizards at d6 or d4. I am probably going to go with max HP + racial adj + con bonus. That should put most characters up over 10, which I think is fine to start. I do not want 1st level characters over 20 hps at start. 1st level characters should feel brittle, and should be avoiding sustained melee.
As a bit of a rant, having 1st level characters go head to head with monsters over 100 hps is well over the top. We need to reign this in quite a bit. (I think you guys know where I am going with this)
Power creep aside, I don't like the idea of "builds" that combine two choices that could otherwise be independent. I wouldn't mind choosing +2 in one of two stats, if the choice represented something like sub-races, but I don't see why that has to be coupled with my choice of favored class. If the modifiers have anything to do with class, then they aren't racial modifiers. So no, I don't like this fix, and I don't think it gives me any more flexibility than I already have.
While I agree that hard choices make things more interesting, I really don't see an issue here. The extra +2 makes the racial choice more fun. The selections on the menu all look a little more appetizing. I might have mixed things up slightly differently, like giving humans +1 to any two different stats, but I'm not complaining. The new racial modifiers are an improvement over 3e, so the fuss about power creep and backward compatibility seems a little overwrought to me.