I was referring to the illustration for the "climb" skill in the 3.0 PHB.
The iconic human cleric and half-orc barbarian are climbing a rocky spire. The cleric has just reached the summit by using Krusk's face as a stepping stone, while the half-orc clutches his handholds and howls in dismay. The caption read "Krusk helps Fozan climb the cliff."
Sorry, this was so funny when I was 15 that I couldn't imagine anyone not remembering it. I tried to find the image on google but haven't come up with anything yet.
Hydro, here you go. One half-orc barbarian being stepped on.
Ha! Thanks.
I knew the Wizard's homepage must have it somewhere, but the only gallery I could find was of the davinci-esque lineart for each chapter.
Wha! Why you... Who you callin a ho?("Let's intentionally enforce stereotypes that are already mechanically optimal")There were both favored classes that were decidedly non-optimal (example: gnomes -- really? what, exactly makes bards a good choice for gnomes, mechanically speaking?) and non-favored classes that were decidedly optimal (example: dwarven barbarians were better than half-orc ones, even though dwarves had fighter for a favored class and h-o's had barbarian) in 3.5.
Actually, he called you a h-o (which I assume is pronounced like "ho" but drawn out. I.e, "Hooooooo").
|
I was referring to the illustration for the "climb" skill in the 3.0 PHB.
The iconic human cleric and half-orc barbarian are climbing a rocky spire. The cleric has just reached the summit by using Krusk's face as a stepping stone, while the half-orc clutches his handholds and howls in dismay. The caption read "Krusk helps Fozan climb the cliff."
Sorry, this was so funny when I was 15 that I couldn't imagine anyone not remembering it. I tried to find the image on google but haven't come up with anything yet.
Ah, gotcha. I have actually never read a 3.0 PHB. I went from 2ed straight to 3.5.
Edit: Thanks for the link. That's uh... funny.
|
Actually, he called you a h-o (which I assume is pronounced like "ho" but drawn out. I.e, "Hooooooo").Wha! Why you... Who you callin a ho?("Let's intentionally enforce stereotypes that are already mechanically optimal")There were both favored classes that were decidedly non-optimal (example: gnomes -- really? what, exactly makes bards a good choice for gnomes, mechanically speaking?) and non-favored classes that were decidedly optimal (example: dwarven barbarians were better than half-orc ones, even though dwarves had fighter for a favored class and h-o's had barbarian) in 3.5.
Well, I ain't no Thundercat either.
And I woulda ate that cleric's feet.
"Cleric's feat" sounds like it might be an orkish delicacy.
but dwarf movement doesn't mesh with barbarian fast movement (you can either wear light and move at 30 or wear heavy and move at 20; same as a human fighter).
Dwarf movement absolutely meshes with barbarian fast movement. You missed an option in your list: you can wear medium armor and move as fast as a half-orc barbarian in medium armor. In effect, barbarian fast movement supersedes the dwarven movement penalty as long as you wear the best available armor.
You're also ignoring all the other combat bonuses a dwarf gets that half-orcs have no reply to. Little things like +4 dodge bonuses, virtual immunity to being bull-rushed, +2 to all saves vs spells and spell-likes, etc.
They also have 1 more skill point per level (thanks to half-orc's -2 int that has no matching penalty in dwarves).
Dwarves make dramatically better barbarians than half-orcs do. Half-orcs deal a couple more points of damage, on average. That's their only positive (literally).
So favored classes are still there in some form?
Alright, that'll be the first thing I'm house-ruling. Stupid arbitrary penalties for not playing your character according to stereotypes.
If it works as is being speculated, there are no stereotypes enforced. If I want to play a halfling barbarian, then barbarian can be my favored class. The benefit is +1 hit point or +1 skill point per barbarian level I take. If I then want to multiclass and take rogue levels, I don't get a penalty - I just don't get the favored class bonus for the rogue levels I take.
Basically, it seems that favored class is still in, but that it's now tailored to your individual character rather than race.
|
|
but dwarf movement doesn't mesh with barbarian fast movement (you can either wear light and move at 30 or wear heavy and move at 20; same as a human fighter).Dwarf movement absolutely meshes with barbarian fast movement. You missed an option in your list: you can wear medium armor and move as fast as a half-orc barbarian in medium armor. In effect, barbarian fast movement supersedes the dwarven movement penalty as long as you wear the best available armor.
You're also ignoring all the other combat bonuses a dwarf gets that half-orcs have no reply to. Little things like +4 dodge bonuses, virtual immunity to being bull-rushed, +2 to all saves vs spells and spell-likes, etc.
They also have 1 more skill point per level (thanks to half-orc's -2 int that has no matching penalty in dwarves).
Dwarves make dramatically better barbarians than half-orcs do. Half-orcs deal a couple more points of damage, on average. That's their only positive (literally).
Dwarf movement doesn't suck. No, you will never match the max movement of not-so-short barbarians, but the ability to just about ignore encumbrance is nice.
As for 'other combat bonuses', the dodge bonus is very situational unless your campaign has an unusually high concentration of giants, and Stability is not virtual immunity, it's a +4. That's big against average Joe (who is unlikely to Bull-rush anyway), but only somewhat useful against creatures who are actually likely to use it.
A Half-orcs 'couple more points of damage' applies to every single hit. Oh, and that strength also helps him to hit more often.
Both are viable Barbarians. The Dwarf will dodge some pretty hefty chunks of damage from giants, but the Half-orc will tally up a significantly higher amount damage over the course of time.
but dwarf movement doesn't mesh with barbarian fast movement (you can either wear light and move at 30 or wear heavy and move at 20; same as a human fighter).Dwarf movement absolutely meshes with barbarian fast movement. You missed an option in your list: you can wear medium armor and move as fast as a half-orc barbarian in medium armor. In effect, barbarian fast movement supersedes the dwarven movement penalty as long as you wear the best available armor.
You're also ignoring all the other combat bonuses a dwarf gets that half-orcs have no reply to. Little things like +4 dodge bonuses, virtual immunity to being bull-rushed, +2 to all saves vs spells and spell-likes, etc.
They also have 1 more skill point per level (thanks to half-orc's -2 int that has no matching penalty in dwarves).
Dwarves make dramatically better barbarians than half-orcs do. Half-orcs deal a couple more points of damage, on average. That's their only positive (literally).
As Darkwolf noted, that "couple more points of damage (read: +1 or +2 damage and +1 to attacks) applies to every single attack. I think you're overblowing the usefulness of the dwarf's miscellaneous bonuses and seriously under-rating the power of +2 Str.
The main thing that the dwarf race brings to the barbarian class is 1 more round of rage, which amounts to one more round of +4 str. But, to repeat, the half-orc gets +2 str every round, every fight.
You're right about the armor though (I was under the impression that Fast Movement only applied in light armor).
Edit: I'm thinking in 3.5 again.
What PRPG dwarves get is 1 more rage-point per level.
In the beta, this actually isn't that impressive (you quickly reach the point where a barbarian can be assumed to be raging every round of every fight, and your other options for spending rage points were quite underwhelming when you consider their costs). If barbarian abilities have gotten better in the final version, though, dwarf barbarians might be even better than they've been in the past.
How is the new favored class system enforcing racial stereotypes?
You get +1 hp or 1 skill rank every level you take in your favored class, and you choose your favored class at first level. Half-elfs may choose two favored classes, but otherwise it is the same for every race.
I really don't understand that complaint, and I've read it several, several time son this thread.
As for the rest, my opinion is.
It no longer inhibits multiclassing from a racial standpoint, and if you really want the favored class bonus while multiclassing, half-elfs give you that optimality, like say play a dwarf fighter rather than a halfling fighter, because that race is better at it.
Now flavour, certainly is lost to an extent, but its in the same bucket as illiteracy for barbarians, that was a flavourful ability, no doubt, but ultimately enforcing certain aspects of flavour might not be the best thing for the game going forward. It suits everyones game, while for flavour, individual campaigns and campaign worlds can houserule racial favored classes.
To be honest its just a nice little bump, though with emphasis on the little. In play and in campaigns during Beta I had houseruled that everyone gets to pick a favored class. It's not game-breaking really And it doesn't open up new game-breaking combos really, seeing as the XP penalty would only have applied to absolute dippers, and the loss of the few points of hp/skill ranks wouldn't have dissuaded someone froma an unbeleivable combo anyway, so thats that from the angles of 3.5 and Beta.
I really don't understand that complaint, and I've read it several, several time son this thread.
It's been a layered thread. Note that some people have said "But I liked the old multiclass rules", and others have replied "Well I don't because..."
I don't think anyone is saying that the NEW rules enforce racial stereotypes.What they DO do, as someone else astutely observed, is encourage players to decide what they want to play at 1st level and discourage those who's character may have changed focus as a result of in-game events.
It also discourages multiclassing.
Neither of these are worthy goals in my eyes (I encourage multiclassing), but I think the latter is more tolerable than the former. I would prefer it if the class in which you had the most levels was automatically considered your "favored class" (then again, I'd like it even better if this rule didn't exist at all, and they found some other boost to give to humans and half-elves).
I'm gonna eat your face, boy.Screw humanity. As a Half-orc, I am not pleased at all with this crap. >.<Well, as a half-orc, no one cares what you like or not! :P
Unspeakable Things From Beyond have tried. If they can't do it, a mere mongrel mutt won't have a lot of success. I'm kinda used to it, at least in the time I use it.
I never met a player or DM from 3.0 onward that actually used the xp penalty rule.
Wow I never saw a game first hand that did not.
EDIT: I may just keep the listed preferred classes from FR 3.X, but I'm happy to see multi-classing penalties go away.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I never met a player or DM from 3.0 onward that actually used the xp penalty rule.Wow I never saw a game first hand that did not.
Every campaign I've ever played in has allowed multiclassing without XP penalties. A lot of them have done abstracted XP though, such as milestone and story-based instead of an actual number, where the penalty couldn't be applied. Still most everyone I know thinks it was a dumb rule anyway and made for way too much bookkeeping on top of everything else.
I was referring to the illustration for the "climb" skill in the 3.0 PHB.
The iconic human cleric and half-orc barbarian are climbing a rocky spire. The cleric has just reached the summit by using Krusk's face as a stepping stone, while the half-orc clutches his handholds and howls in dismay. The caption read "Krusk helps Fozan climb the cliff."
Sorry, this was so funny when I was 15 that I couldn't imagine anyone not remembering it. I tried to find the image on google but haven't come up with anything yet.
I remember that, it was one of the better illustrations.
|
One argument against the old 3.5 method of multiclassing penalties, is that they only applied to multiple base classes, and when prestige classes were considered, you had some strange anomalies.
Eg; a Rogue5/Wizard7 would be penalised for being an unfocussed dilettante, yet a Rogue5/Wizard6/ArcanePrC1 would be considered balanced, despite the latter being even more focussed and specialised on wizardry than the former.
Granted, there are PrClasses out there, like Arcane Trickster, and Mystic Theurge, whose entire purpose is to bridge two classes, or which assume prerequisites from two classes. These would presumably have benefitted from a note to the effect of 'Progressing in this class counts as simultaneous progression in classes X and Y, and so does not trigger multiclass penalties relating to those two classes'.
But many PrClasses are actually hyper-focussed versions of their base class, so it is odd that the former example would have been penalised for taking a level of wizard, but the latter would have got away with taking a level of 'wizard with jam on top'.
I don't believe PrCs ever counted toward multi-classing penalties.
|
|
I don't believe PrCs ever counted toward multi-classing penalties.
That's my point. Because they didn't count, you had a weird situation, in which a multi-classed PC with unequal base class levels would incur the xp penalty (assuming, of course that neither was favoured class), but a PC with equal base classes, and some PrC levels on top, would slip under the radar.
Of the two examples above (Rogue5/Wizard7, or Rogue5/Wizard6/PrC1), I know which one I consider to have most over-specialised, and left his Rogue training to wither.
"Hi, errm, sorry I didn't make it to Thieves' Guild meeting last night, it's just that, something came up. I won't be there tonight, either, and....well, in fact, it's best you don't expect to see me for a couple of months, if I'm honest. I have to go on this quest thing? And do a lot of travelling? There's this other group, and, well, I'd rather hang with them from now on, but I have to prove myself by going to the Bogs of Blaaargh, to the Pillars of Pung'nath'niog, and passing the Test of The Quark'loq....it's all very complicated, and I won't have time for us anymore. No, you've all been great, but I'm just not feeling it these days. It's not you, it's me....oh, dear <pulls hanky out to dry the tears>...."
I understand that point of view, but I still think it's a weak reason.
If given the choice between altering one race, and throwing a wrench in the entire multiclassing system, well...
I dislike it because you're inventing a (potentially very irritating) penalty just so that one race can ignore that penalty. I prefer to reward someone for taking a given race, rather than penalize them for not taking it.
I don't believe PrCs ever counted toward multi-classing penalties.That's my point. Because they didn't count, you had a weird situation, in which a multi-classed PC with unequal base class levels would incur the xp penalty (assuming, of course that neither was favoured class), but a PC with equal base classes, and some PrC levels on top, would slip under the radar.
Of the two examples above (Rogue5/Wizard7, or Rogue5/Wizard6/PrC1), I know which one I consider to have most over-specialised, and left his Rogue training to wither.
"Hi, errm, sorry I didn't make it to Thieves' Guild meeting last night, it's just that, something came up. I won't be there tonight, either, and....well, in fact, it's best you don't expect to see me for a couple of months, if I'm honest. I have to go on this quest thing? And do a lot of travelling? There's this other group, and, well, I'd rather hang with them from now on, but I have to prove myself by going to the Bogs of Blaaargh, to the Pillars of Pung'nath'niog, and passing the Test of The Quark'loq....it's all very complicated, and I won't have time for us anymore. No, you've all been great, but I'm just not feeling it these days. It's not you, it's me....oh, dear <pulls hanky out to dry the tears>...."
LOL!
|
they think it's a "minor benefit (or loss)", yet they're leaping for joy?
combinations of various optional splat-books under 3.5 could easily combine for extremely unbalanced outcomes... and that may continue to be the case under PRPG?seriously, the rule-tards who drool over their next splat-book opening the uber-build can shrill in glee or howl in outrage whether or not something "increases their power", I think PRPG will be doing just fine as a framework for the "games we like to play", to paraphrase Jason and the folks at Paizo.
Oh, as I said, I don't think it will be a common problem at all, but it gives a benefit (and that "minor benefit" refers to the bonus HPs, not the freedom to pick your favorite class) to powergamers (and I know more than a handful of hard core "min-maxers" and occasionally game with such guys). The big boost for these guys is that they get their "dream combo" from racial abilities, i.e. +4 to just the "right" stats or even +2 to your prime stat and then +1 to all saves (from halfling, for example) or some other useful racial benefits which futher "boost" some abusable build (e.g. +4 to melee damage from prestige classes X and Y, and +2 to AC). In *most* groups, this will likely be a non-issue, but as this problem was evident with certain crowd in 3E (and if you happen to have one or two "min-maxers" in your group) and I see this making it worse.
Personally, I'm more disappointed at certain stereotypes losing *some* ground in the game (mechanically and flavourwise); for example, now dwarves make better rangers than elves. This could be helped with racial traits (or even racial feats, which we discussed back in the day), and I'm hoping they're included in a future supplement.
|
|
You're talking about level 15 and 20 builds. Do you understand what a tiny effect your racial modifiers have at that point?
If a halfling can get +20 to all saves, then any other race could still get +19. I don't think allowing the halfling to do it is what's breaking the game.
Well, those bonuses include a regional FR feat (note: I'm also including setting-specific feats when I'm talking about using splat books) which also boosts all saves and AC by +1 (also note the size modifier and bonus to dex gives him +2 to AC in relation to many other races). And halfling paladin adds his CHA to saves as well (plus divine templar gives you mettle and specialization, and the former makes you virtually invulnerable to any fort and will based effects by level 10). In terms of pure number-crunching for saves/AC, I'd rather go with halfling paladin than, say, dwarven or elven paladin. And I'm pretty sure there's other "cheesy stuff" I could use with "free" multiclassing and getting to pick my initial favored class.
But, if you're using only the core rules and there are no character optimizers in your group, it's not an issue at all (unless you're disappointed at the loss of racial stereotypes, i.e. dwarves now being "better" rangers than elves).
And I'm pretty sure there's other "cheesy stuff" I could use with "free" multiclassing and getting to pick my initial favored class.
But, if you're using only the core rules and there are no character optimizers in your group, it's not an issue at all (unless you're disappointed at the loss of racial stereotypes, i.e. dwarves now being "better" rangers than elves).
Umm... Hmm..
I think any benefit that min-maxing gets from the changes to multiclassing are heavily countered by:
That's my point. Because they didn't count, you had a weird situation, in which a multi-classed PC with unequal base class levels would incur the xp penalty (assuming, of course that neither was favoured class), but a PC with equal base classes, and some PrC levels on top, would slip under the radar.
It's not slipping under the radar. It's a necessary exception to the rule, because you need to have 5+ levels in other classes before you can get your first PrC level, so unless the rules were changed in this regard, you'd always incur those penalties.
That would make even less sense than the XP penalty rule did in the first place.
Going back to the first edition of the game that I played (2e) I kind of liked racial level limits. it was one of the few edges humans had.
I think racial favored classes were the 3.X "equivalent". I am not too keen on how PFRPG handles this, really. I'll probably house rule it.
I completely hated the caps. Never made sense to me. PF is too liberal (either you have racial lists of FCs, or you don't have the rule at all). I'm not quite sure what I'll do, but it's unlikely I let it stand as is.
Either I'll put racial lists back in or I just get rid of the rule altogether. I think I'll just get rid of it. I usually use 25 point purchase, so my players really cannot complain about the power level.
But, if you're using only the core rules and there are no character optimizers in your group, it's not an issue at all (unless you're disappointed at the loss of racial stereotypes, i.e. dwarves now being "better" rangers than elves).
I'm pretty sure it isn't an issue at all anyway. A halfling "save-monster" is not more powerful than an elven or dwarven one. In fact, he's actually slightly weaker because in that situation his "+1 to all saves" racial feature will sometime be wasted (remember that a natural 1 fails no matter how high your bonus).
No offense but I'm not sure if your practical understanding of game balance is thorough enough to make these harsh judgments regarding playstyle. Having an over-multiclassed halfling paladin who can save against anything isn't overpowered.
Min-maxed? Yes. Overpowered? Not remotely.
Large bonuses to attack and damage are different, but even then, it seriously depends on what build you're talking about. Having a high bonus to something isn't automatically overpowered, if you've legitimately paid for it in other ways (rather than just capitalized on frontloaded prestige classes; an issue entirely unrelated to race).
But, if you're using only the core rules and there are no character optimizers in your group, it's not an issue at all (unless you're disappointed at the loss of racial stereotypes, i.e. dwarves now being "better" rangers than elves).
I'm planning on sticking mostly with the 3.5 FR FCs mostly for racial flavor, but I don't follow your argument that dwarves are better rangers than elves sans FC.
Also, while I probably wouldn't have used the term "rules-tard" myself, I'm still not sure that was necessary.several paragraphs of vitriolChrist man, do you need a hug?
I'm sorry if my choice of words rubbed you wrong (it wasn't directed at any poster here).
I think if you actually read my last two posts, beyond that one sub-optimal choice of words , I wouldn't characterize what I wrote in my 2 recent posts as "vitriol": I was pointing out (to Hydro) that the "racial" issue raised by another poster involved more than just base stats (splat books), and extrapolated the position of using optional rules.
I think this just isn't my sort of thread, so I'll bow out now... :-/
For the record, my "that wasn't necessary" comment was directed at Kuma, not at you. I think his characterization of your post was a little on the dramatic side.
For the record, my "that wasn't necessary" comment was directed at Kuma, not at you. I think his characterization of your post was a little on the dramatic side.
Thanks, I had pretty much assumed that was the case after thinking it over a bit...
(my usage of "you" should probably also have been directed more clearly to Kuma.)
Okay, right. ^^
Not that I'm trying to gang up on Kuma either. After all, there may be some "rules-tards" in this thread and there's no need to rip on them for their playstyle.
Basically I think we all play the game different and there's no need to get personal about it. :)
I'll likely reinstate a fixed racial favored class, in large part because it was one of the only mechanical differences for any "subrace" in my campaign. For example, high elves, wood elves, and wind elves all used the same stat mods, and the only mechanical difference between them was that high elves favored wizard, wood elves favored ranger, and wind elves favored duskblade. The only mechanical difference between river halflings and plains halflings was that river halflings favored rogue and plains halflings favored paladin.
And I liked that favored class sort of encouraged that, especially in the way the Beta would have handled it - because it means that plains halfling paladins have more HP or skill points than a river halfling who takes levels in paladin, which sort of makes some sense based on culture and what-not.
So I'll probably do something I don't know that I've ever really done in my games - house rule something to be more restrictive, rather than less.
I'll likely reinstate a fixed racial favored class, in large part because it was one of the only mechanical differences for any "subrace" in my campaign. For example, high elves, wood elves, and wind elves all used the same stat mods, and the only mechanical difference between them was that high elves favored wizard, wood elves favored ranger, and wind elves favored duskblade. The only mechanical difference between river halflings and plains halflings was that river halflings favored rogue and plains halflings favored paladin.
Those sound more like cultures than subraces, then.
Do you treat human cultures the same way?
In my experience, most non-human subraces are just cultural differentiations when you get right down to it. They have cosmetic differences, too (like wind elves tend to have blond or red hair, while high elves have black or navy and extremely pale/sickly looking skin, for example), but I didn't want to have FR's "an elf for every class" approach.
As for the human culture question, I didn't do that, in part because humans ARE supposed to be the most dynamic and varied race. The cultures of the human nations dictate where they get to put their competencies, though (which are sort of bonuses to skills that allow for a bit of "background skill ranks" that the 3.5 system allowed for but that PF doesn't, sadly).
I think the concept of a "subrace" started with Tolkien's three elvenhosts; the light elves, the sea elves and the cave elves (to put it simply).
On one hand, they were depicted as being very different in ability and disposition. On the other, classes are also very different, and I suppose you could very easily just say that the light elves were all cleric or paladins while the cave elves were fighters and artificers.
Anyway,
As for the human culture question, I didn't do that, in part because humans ARE supposed to be the most dynamic and varied race.
So, would that mean that the cultural inclinations of a mountain halfling are genetically wired in a way that those of a mountain human aren't?
I think the concept of a "subrace" started with Tolkien's three elvenhosts; the light elves, the sea elves and the cave elves (to put it simply).
On one hand, they were depicted as being very different in ability and disposition. On the other, classes are also very different, and I suppose you could very easily just say that the light elves were all cleric or paladins while the cave elves were fighters and artificers.
Anyway,
As for the human culture question, I didn't do that, in part because humans ARE supposed to be the most dynamic and varied race.So, would that mean that the cultural inclinations of a mountain halfling are genetically wired in a way that those of a mountain human aren't?
As most campaigns tend toward the human-centric I think it would range from difficult to unworkable to specify a favored class for every human culture, nation, region, city-state etc.
Also, while I probably wouldn't have used the term "rules-tard" myself, I'm still not sure that was necessary.I'm sorry if my choice of words rubbed you wrong (it wasn't directed at any poster here).
I think if you actually read my last two posts, beyond that one sub-optimal choice of words , I wouldn't characterize what I wrote in my 2 recent posts as "vitriol": I was pointing out (to Hydro) that the "racial" issue raised by another poster involved more than just base stats (splat books), and extrapolated the position of using optional rules.
Quandary, I didn't think you were getting on someone specific's case. I'm perhaps too sensitive to language, but "rules-tard" struck me as being unnecessarily harsh. I thought I was asking you to chill out in a relatively mild way. No need for you to bow out of anything though.
For the record, my "that wasn't necessary" comment was directed at Kuma, not at you. I think his characterization of your post was a little on the dramatic side.
Well, I wasn't going to say anything; but since it's evidently a topic now: I don't really care what you thought of it. I was a little melodramatic because that style is often seen as less combative and more humorous. I wanted to express the opinion to Quandary that he was straying too far in his choice of words. It was as necessary or unnecessary as any opinion you've ever given voice to.
As most campaigns tend toward the human-centric I think it would range from difficult to unworkable to specify a favored class for every human culture, nation, region, city-state etc.I think the concept of a "subrace" started with Tolkien's three elvenhosts; the light elves, the sea elves and the cave elves (to put it simply).
On one hand, they were depicted as being very different in ability and disposition. On the other, classes are also very different, and I suppose you could very easily just say that the light elves were all cleric or paladins while the cave elves were fighters and artificers.
Anyway,
As for the human culture question, I didn't do that, in part because humans ARE supposed to be the most dynamic and varied race.So, would that mean that the cultural inclinations of a mountain halfling are genetically wired in a way that those of a mountain human aren't?
Uhm,
No, if you look back, nations historically tended to have 'classes' their warriors fell into.For example,
Roman Legionaires
English Archers
Japanese Samurai
Now, a Roman Legion was mostly made up of guys with shields, short swords, and spears. They weren't the only weapons they used (despite what 300 would have you believe). Samurai preferred the katana, but they also used spears, great swords (usually from horseback), and bows to name a few.
The idea is though, all those nations were human, but they all had specific 'classes' that were the common (or the ideal, in Japan's case, since most of the footsoldiers weren't samurai, just grunts in shellacked bamboo armor with spears and bows) or iconic for them.
In my world I tend to have nations that are 'known' for specific fighter types. Archers, Horsemen, Pikemen, Knights, Berserkers, etc. Those nations may be elven or human or halfling or dwarven or whatever. They still tend to be known for specific warrior types because as a nation they take pride in a specific fighting style.
A good set of books to read where you can get that idea is David Eddings 'The Belgariad'. Where all the different nations had different fighter types, from Vikings (Barbarians) to Knights to Archers to Pikemen. And all the different groups had strengths and weaknesses and mindsets based around their preferred fighting style that were part of their national upbringing and identity.
MDT, I hear what you're saying (cool Belgariad reference BTW), but let me counter with an example from a setting I'm conversant in.
What would be the FC for humans from:
Cormyr
The Dales
Sembia
Waterdeep
The Silver Marches
Chessenta
Moonsea
Dragon Coast
etc, etc, etc,
I think for most settings it's seen as impractical, at best, to hammer out FCs for every region. I won't say it can't be done, but is it worth the effort?
YMMV
MDT, I hear what you're saying (cool Belgariad reference BTW), but let me counter with an example from a setting I'm conversant in.
What would be the FC for humans from:
Cormyr
The Dales
Sembia
Waterdeep
The Silver Marches
Chessenta
Moonsea
Dragon Coast
etc, etc, etc,
I think for most settings it's seen as impractical, at best, to hammer out FCs for every region. I won't say it can't be done, but is it worth the effort?
YMMV
LOL,
And I only recognize half of those, and have no details on any of them. Mainly because I don't use pregenerated worlds. But is it difficult? Uhm, no, not really. Lemme see, The Dales. If I remember, that's where Drizzt lives right? I've read one or two of those books. Icewind Dales? Here's something off the top of my head (note, not supposed to be a perfect match for the Dales)Location: The Dales
Preferred Class: Ranger
Description :
The Dales exist in the high mountains of the frigid north. They are a loose confederation of small kingdoms who alternate between fighting amongst themselves and turning on any invading army in a massed defensive.
The kingdoms are rather insular, the only thing they agree on is that outsiders are a bigger threat than any internal disagreements. All battles between kingdoms are called that, disagreements. All kingdoms stop their disagreements to turn on outsider invaders, even on the battlefield itself, an invading force will suddenly find the two army's it tried to ambush turning to attack as one unit.
The kingdoms, due to their mountainous terrain and the vast cold wilderness that each controls, maintain a very loose army structure. Most members of the army are rangers whose favored enemies start with human, then orc, and usually vary beyond that. The kingdoms are renowned for their rangers ability to disappear into the wilderness while being observed, and then sink an arrow into an enemies back as they search frantically for the army that was just across the clearing minutes before.
Ok,
Granted, needs work. But not bad for 10 minutes of typing. And that's just a couple of paragraphs of fluff, but it sure gives the idea of a bunch of hard-bitten rangers sniping at each other in the wilderness, suddenly melting into the woods to snipe at outside enemies.
EDIT:
Oh, and it's always worth it. Reason? Anything that adds flavor to a campaign makes it more fun for the players and the GM. Plus you never know when a small 3 paragraph type up of a nation/region will give hooks (or clues to the players that their new buddy is a fake).