Hello Board.
A lot of use by now probably at least have the PDF. I wanted to discuss some things.
1. What do you think of the new CR replacement for LA.
2. Plane touched. They are too powerful for CR 0 equivalent right? So should we round them up to CR1? Or did I miss something? (Why are they not templates already?)
3. Orcs; am I the only one who finds their minuses and, including their light sensitivity, too steep for what they get?
What do you think in general of the new monsters as PCs.
|
I'd almost consider the kobold to be equal to LA -1 since they have net -4 to stats and can have 3 NPC class levels before counting as CR1. Of course, adding the draconic creature template (RotC, Draconomicon) brings them up to par with the Core races quite nicely. :)
Great illo though. Kinda looks like Stitch of Disney fame.
How are the changes for the Drow?
|
The Drow look pretty balanced from my first glance. The base-line Drow has been reduced slightly in power (SR is now 6 + level instead of 11), but there's a "Noble" drow variant that goes up in power considerably, with no change in CR. My guess is that the "Noble Drow" are meant to be strictly NPCs. I certainly wouldn't allow a player to play one in my campaign without some serious penalties.
I was also quite disappointed by the carrying-over of the Goblinoid and Orc racial traits. Kobolds I can live with being super wimpy, because that's part of their charm to me, but I think Goblinoids and Orcs should get the full PF treatment. I know they are primarily supposed to be opponents and NPCs, but they're popular enough that they deserve to be balanced with the regular PF Races.
My hope is that there will be a separate book released in the future that will focus on Orcs and Goblinoids and up-gun their stats. Classic Hordes Revisited, perhaps? (wink wink nudge nudge)
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
1. What do you think of the new CR replacement for LA.
2. Plane touched. They are too powerful for CR 0 equivalent right?
3. Orcs; am I the only one who finds their minuses and, including their light sensitivity, too steep for what they get?
1) Love it and hate it. Love that it is "virtual class levels" but you use the HD as is. So sometimes you get more HD than the "class levels" and other times you get less.
2) Plane touched = Aasimar? I built a spreadsheet, puts Human at 18, Orc at 12.46, Tiefling at 11.46, and Aasimar at 48.46. They are roughly where PC races need to be.
3) Not as good as Aasimar/Human/etc, but ok.
"Noble" drow variant that goes up in power considerably, with no change in CR.
It could be more clear, but the Noble Drow is CR +1. So a 10th level Fighter would have 10 levels in Fighter and 1 "virtual level" in Noble Drow that doesn't provide him anything (like how LA was.)
2) Plane touched = Aasimar? I built a spreadsheet, puts Human at 18, Orc at 12.46, Tiefling at 11.46, and Aasimar at 48.46. They are roughly where PC races need to be.
Uh...those numbers mean what, exactly? Without any context, 48.46 sounds way better than 18. Unless it's the opposite. Or a goblin's 1200.23 or something.
Creative Director
|
...I think Goblinoids and Orcs should get the full PF treatment. I know they are primarily supposed to be opponents and NPCs, but they're popular enough that they deserve to be balanced with the regular PF Races.
The "proper PF treatment" of these races, though, is not to make them player races. It's to make them monsters. And some monsters HAVE to be wimps, so that low level heroic PCs can have a chance fighting a bunch of them.
Turning monsters into PC races is, in fact, NOT the Pathfinder way. We prefer games that use the core races as core races, after all. That's the assumption in Golarion and all of our adventures and products. Time spent this early in the game's new life cycle supporting styles of play that aren't the bread-and-butter of our backbone products is bad business. In time, we'll be able to turn our attention to more niche markets like psionics, epic content, and monstrous PCs. That time is not yet here, but we DO want to try to give some guidelines on how folks can get started on this stuff without us.
But keep in mind that we had to and WANTED to design a core game with core assumptions.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Uh...those numbers mean what, exactly? Without any context, 48.46 sounds way better than 18. Unless it's the opposite. Or a goblin's 1200.23 or something.2) Plane touched = Aasimar? I built a spreadsheet, puts Human at 18, Orc at 12.46, Tiefling at 11.46, and Aasimar at 48.46. They are roughly where PC races need to be.
The "rough" meaning of those numbers are "what it would cost in thousands of gp to buy these abilities" or so. Not a rigid solid exact amount.
The "rough" meaning of those numbers are "what it would cost in thousands of gp to buy these abilities" or so. Not a rigid solid exact amount.
For those who aren't intimate with curve proximity, maybe you could log(n) those numbers? Might actually be a solid resource.
Edit: How are you deriving the gold values? I'm also curious where a kobold comes out. :)
1. What do you think of the new CR replacement for LA.
2. Plane touched. They are too powerful for CR 0 equivalent right?
3. Orcs; am I the only one who finds their minuses and, including their light sensitivity, too steep for what they get?
1) Love it and hate it. Love that it is "virtual class levels" but you use the HD as is. So sometimes you get more HD than the "class levels" and other times you get less.
2) Plane touched = Aasimar? I built a spreadsheet, puts Human at 18, Orc at 12.46, Tiefling at 11.46, and Aasimar at 48.46. They are roughly where PC races need to be.
3) Not as good as Aasimar/Human/etc, but ok.
.... Ah, if I remember right, they get spell like abilities, +2 to two stats with no minuses, and energy resistances... So I think they are way beyond any core races.
As for the ors; I'd say drop the light sensitivity and maybe one of the -2 to int, wis, or cha.
But keep in mind that we had to and WANTED to design a core game with core assumptions.
I know I'm going to need to clean my kissin' lips after this, but this DM thanks you for that. My campaign world has a lot of strange races, but I'm glad you left the decision about that up to me, not the Bestiary.
Since they're recommendations, I would say that both apply. Pretty much a, "Work it out for yourself, and see what works best." Of course, my opinion.
|
Creative Director
|
What is going on with all of these contradictory monstrous PC rules?
The Bestiary goes on at length about using CR as a sort of level adjustment, while the Core Rules say (in the Monstrous Characters section, pages 405-406) that you should always use HD, never CR, to balance monstrous PCs with non-monstrous PCs.
Now I'm thoroughly confused. Does CR act as a level adjustment (per the Bestiary), or does HD act as a level adjustment (per the Core Rules)? Or do both somehow apply at the same time?
They're not "rules." And it goes a long way toward proving that it's a complex subject, and not something that can be adequately covered in a half page. I kind of wish we were able to not say anything about it at all, but I think that'd be even more confusing to folks who come into the game expecting something like Savage Species.
My preference is to NOT use CR as a gauge, of course, but to look at each montster's abilities and HD and everything as a whole. Using CR as a gauge is, in my opinion, dangerous, since CR measures a monster's effectiveness in a single battle (that probalby only lasts a minute) whereas it doesn't measure its effectiveness on a 24-7 always on-screen persistent creature in the hands of a player.
Basically, if you're a GM who wants to let players play weird races, take what we give you as a big load of advice and use it to shape your own opinions and decisions, because what's balanced and okay for one game simply won't be for another.
The "proper PF treatment" of these races, though, is not to make them player races. It's to make them monsters.
Turning monsters into PC races is, in fact, NOT the Pathfinder way. We prefer games that use the core races as core races, after all.
You knew very well that players would want to use Monsters as PCs, like we were able to do in 3.5, so why in the world would you make it so difficult?
This whole "monsters aren't supposed to be used as PCs" excuse strips away so much of the experimentation and flexibility that made the system fun.
The monster advancement rules provided in the Bestiary appendix are nebulous and tricky. Just as the 3.5 MM did, it would have been very helpful if you had provided us with the specific adjustments necessary for making each monster into a PC. Instead, we only got that information for a few "convenient" races, like Drow and Tiefling. For this reason, the Bestiary is actually a step backwards from the MM.
Also, I don't particularly appreciate being told how I should play my game. If I want Monster PCs, let me have them. Please don't tell me that the game is not designed that way because that only stifles creativity. Why limit us?
You claim that Pathfinder is supposed to be compatible with pre-existing material, but making the creation of Monster PCs so darn difficult actually makes the bestiary LESS compatible.
I hope you come out with a product in the future that gives PC conversions for each monster (within reason, obviously). It would be great if this was a free download for people who purchased the Bestiary.
I hope this rant doesn't sound too snarfy. I really love the work that Paizo does, but I'm very let down and disappointed in the Bestiary's lack of Monster PC support. I feel somewhat cheated when I'm told, "well, you're not supposed to do that."
|
Creative Director
|
You knew very well that players would want to use Monsters as PCs, like we were able to do in 3.5, so why in the world would you make it so difficult?
Because, on one level, it's a difficult problem. But more importantly, the game WE want to publish adventues and supplements for has players playing the core races. We can build a world and adventures based on the assumptions that all players will be starting at a basic ground level of power, game rules-wise, and from a society that is interactive and at peace. Once we start having to account for the possibility of monstrous PCs, suddenly building adventures and settings becomes exponentially more complex. We can't have an adventure in a city without spending an unfortunate amount of time explaining how the city's inhabitants react to things like lizardfolk or goblins in their midst. We can't place treasure in adventures without worrying about whether or not the players will have the fingers to wear the rings or the feet to wear the boots... or indeed the hands to use treasure to begin with. And lots of monsters come with things like invisibility, flight, water breathing, and other abilities that can render adventures of lower levels cakewalks.
In short, we HAVE to assume a baseline for character races, not for the rules themselves but for the world those rules work in. Were Golarion a different campaign setting, we'd most certainly have a different baseline. But we don't. We based the campaign setting on a certain set of core assumptions, and those assumptions are what we built the Pathfinder Game to work best with.
The "experimentation and flexibility" you're looking for are still there. They're just not a part of the core game experience. One or two or five years from now, I have NO DOUBT that we'll have products that expand the choices into things like goblins and minotaurs and dragons as PCs. Heck; we've already got an adventure path that works well with tiefling PCs, and provide a lot of advice on how to handle tiefling PCs as a result.
We don't have the time to give the same level of attention and treatment to dozens of player races all at once. We'll probably get there eventually, but even if and when we do, the central core game assumption will remain the same—that players play humans, elves, dwarves, halfliings, gnomes, half-elves, and half-orcs.
Also, I don't particularly appreciate being told how I should play my game. If I want Monster PCs, let me have them. Please don't tell me that the game is not designed that way because that only stifles creativity. Why limit us?
We aren't limiting you at all. We gave you a huge monster book FILLED with monsters. A creative GM who wants to take the game into areas we didn't take it has all the tools he needs to do so. We also didn't give you rules for car chases, but given time and a bit of work, a GM can include car chases in his game if he wants. And in time, we might build car chase rules for you. But we don't have them as part of the core game.
You claim that Pathfinder is supposed to be compatible with pre-existing material, but making the creation of Monster PCs so darn difficult actually makes the bestiary LESS compatible.
I think you're being willful and stubborn here. Pathfinder IS compatible with existing 3.5 material from Wizards of the Coast. You can still use Savage Species with the game, and can still use those guidelines to build LAs for monsters in your game. That's not the core game we built, though, and so you'll need to do more work on your own. Just like folks in the first few months or even years of 3rd edition's existence had to do... although unlike them you DO have access to a decade's worth of compatible material to work from.
I hope you come out with a product in the future that gives PC conversions for each monster (within reason, obviously). It would be great if this was a free download for people who purchased the Bestiary.
Given the (somewhat surprising to me, honestly) highly vocal outcry for such gameplay options, I'm pretty certain that we WILL come out with a product like this some day. But since we've got all our products planned out through the end of 2010 pretty much... it'll be a while.
I hope this rant doesn't sound too snarfy. I really love the work that Paizo does, but I'm very let down and disappointed in the Bestiary's lack of Monster PC support. I feel somewhat cheated when I'm told, "well, you're not supposed to do that."
I'm afraid this isn't our fault... we never claimed that the Bestiary would be a player-friendly race book. In fact, I've been quite vocal ever since the start a year ago that we'll be building the Bestairy to be a monster book for GMs and won't be making a book for players. That has NEVER been a hidden agenda. In fact, the book itself has MORE material for playing monsters in it than I'd thought it would. That it doesn't go as far enough as you want isn't the book's fault at all, since it's not built to do what you want it to do.
EDIT: Basically, I just think it's unfair to malign the book by complaining it doesn't do something it was never intended to do. That'd be like railing against the core rules for not including the aforementioned car chases.
You knew very well that players would want to use Monsters as PCs, like we were able to do in 3.5, so why in the world would you make it so difficult?
Players in 3.5 could use Psionics as well. Or have 'Epic' gameplay. Or use a kajillion rules out of Unearthed Arcana. The fact of the matter is that we shouldn't be expected to replace every rule that ever existed in 3.5 in the Core book, if only for lack of space.
Monster PCs are a slippery slope. This is why you don't see general rules (like a point buy system) for creating spells, monsters, and other things in the game. It's because individual abilities are sometimes useless but extremely powerful in a combination. It's problematic to put a value on something that's ultra-powerful in one application and completely useless in another.
To truly do Monster PCs and do it balanced would mean to do a complete write-up for each individual monster with playtesting and all. looking at every possible combination with feats and classes.
I don't know about you, but I'm sure as heckfire not going to do that.
I think simple guidelines were the best way to go here. It puts the power in the hands of the DMs. I think a lot of people may not appreciate this, but it's very very important and I think it's a sign that Pathfinder is sticking to its core mission and will not fall into the same rut that 3.0 and 3.5 did.
Kudos.
|
Honestly, In my long fantasty RPG career the heroic PC party was all about a stout dwarven warrior, a noble elf mage, a willy halfling rogue and a pious human cleric. I have this image burned in my mind since the Red Box, and no amount of drow hexblades, kobold dragon shamans and marilith commoners is going to shift that. I even conisder starting up "Roleplayers for Classic Races in Gaming" movement ;-)
|
Also, I don't particularly appreciate being told how I should play my game. If I want Monster PCs, let me have them.
Wait wait wait. This reads contradictory to me.
"Don't tell me how to play my game! Tell me how to play monstrous PCs!"
I just had to share my amusement, cause it sounds like asking for both freedom and restriction in one breath.
I kind of wish we were able to not say anything about it at all...Okay, I'm going to make an unpopular request, here. I'm going to ask that Paizo NOT publish a particular product for which lots of fans are clamoring.
If the Paizo staff isn't absolutely passionate about creating rules for monstrous character races, please don't ever develop rules for monstrous character races. Ditto for psionics. I'd rather see Paizo choose to never develop those subsystems at all than see half-hearted, "well if we have to" content that no one on the staff really cares about.
Thankfully, I don't really think that is the case at all for psionics as they do seem to be quite passionate about that.
But as far as a monster book, I for some reason imagine that if that were they case that Paizo staff were not incredibly interested themselves, that they would typically get the assistance of someone much more interested them them on the project as a freelancer or such. If they all don't want the book is one thing, but I just imagine that passion would not be issue for the chosen developers of the book given previous author choices.
Also, I don't particularly appreciate being told how I should play my game. If I want Monster PCs, let me have them.Wait wait wait. This reads contradictory to me.
"Don't tell me how to play my game! Tell me how to play monstrous PCs!"
I just had to share my amusement, cause it sounds like asking for both freedom and restriction in one breath.
Yeah actually its funny, because RAW leaves it totally open, you can do it and approach the problem however you like, whereas having rules would be telling you how to play it.
Thankfully, I don't really think that is the case at all for psionics as they do seem to be quite passionate about that.
Yeah they seem to wait them, just not in the current form/set up
And the rules wotc used where wonky and did not really work at all. They were a half hearted kinda but not really working fix. All it did was work to reinforce core only without coming out and saying it
ah but the was a case of someone elses rules we need to deal with it. This is a case of our baby what do we plan to do with it?
The fact is beefing up monster to "core" race level devalues them as monsters. I do not want koblods,goblins and orcs beefed up as it completely changes the role as low level baddies. Core assumes they are not standard races and are in fact opponents
Paizo has given people wanting to use them as pc good advice and placed the option to do so back 100% in the GM hands. Where it should be really
But as far as a monster book, I for some reason imagine that if that were they case that Paizo staff were not incredibly interested themselves, that they would typically get the assistance of someone much more interested them them on the project as a freelancer or such. If they all don't want the book is one thing, but I just imagine that passion would not be issue for the chosen developers of the book given previous author choices.
Seems like something an Adamant or 4 Winds or whatever would tackle eventually if Paizo doesn't
James, thanks for taking the time to give such in-depth responses.
This is another example of Paizo's excellent customer service.
You've made some very valid points and I understand where you're coming from.
The book is packed with great info and artwork, it really is an excellent product.
I must have been in some kind of mood when I made my previous post.
I was pouting because Paizo refuses to spoon feed us, forcing us to think for ourselves.
Good on you.
You and the other folks are absolutely correct that giving specific monster stats would only serve to limit the creativity and customizations options.
I'm sorry to everybody for being such a Negative Nancy.
I'm going to approach the Bestiary with an open mind and a little creativity and come up with some badass Monster PCs.
Thanks again for everybody's input!
|
|
Shadow13.com wrote:
I hope you come out with a product in the future that gives PC conversions for each monster (within reason, obviously). It would be great if this was a free download for people who purchased the Bestiary.Given the (somewhat surprising to me, honestly) highly vocal outcry for such gameplay options, I'm pretty certain that we WILL come out with a product like this some day. But since we've got all our products planned out through the end of 2010 pretty much... it'll be a while.
Hey James,
I for one would love to have a slightly more transparent system for playing monstrous PC's built into the Pathfinder system. Non-human creatures are fun to play and make for great role playing opportunities.
The concept of XP debt is a great starting point to having a solid rules set for monstrous PC's and I think some sort of mathematical formula could be whipped up by someone much smarter than I to calculate the XP debt for any given monster based on their CR and HD.
Rought idea on how to do this:
If a creature's CR works out to be between 1/2 and less than 1, then no xp debt is needed and the creature needs no modifications.
For creatures that fall under less than 1/2 a CR, they should get either a few bonus stat points or one bonus HD in an NPC class.
For every full point of CR, the xp debt is equal to 1/2 what is needed to get to first level. If the CR is greater than twice the APL of non-monstrous characters, then it's inappropriate to play at that power level of the campaign. If the racial HD exceeds the CR of the creature (as if often the case), use that instead of CR to calculate xp debt and if it's appropriate to play.
Like I said, rough idea pulled out of my hat (or other place). If something like this was used, it wouldn't need a full rules suppliment book, just a paragraph or two in a book about Game Mastering (wink wink) and maybe a few examples or even a table of common appropriate options.
PS I just picked up my hard copy from my FLGS and it is so pretty. The PDF is nice and all, but the book itself is a thing of beauty.
That works too, as long as you have a list for every monster.Very true. Or a formula like "monsters with CR N cost XP equal to the amount needed to reach level N+1" or some such.
The problem with a formula like this is that it just wouldn't work.
I kind of wish we were able to not say anything about it at all...Okay, I'm going to make an unpopular request, here. I'm going to ask that Paizo NOT publish a particular product for which lots of fans are clamoring.
If the Paizo staff isn't absolutely passionate about creating rules for monstrous character races, please don't ever develop rules for monstrous character races. Ditto for psionics. I'd rather see Paizo choose to never develop those subsystems at all than see half-hearted, "well if we have to" content that no one on the staff really cares about.
I think that if they do it, they do it right. Case in point: they didn't just give us some half-assed LA numbers for everything because they didn't want to do a crappy job of it.
Plus, I think that they'll find someone who is enthusiastic enough to want to do it.
I kind of wish we were able to not say anything about it at all...Okay, I'm going to make an unpopular request, here. I'm going to ask that Paizo NOT publish a particular product for which lots of fans are clamoring.
If the Paizo staff isn't absolutely passionate about creating rules for monstrous character races, please don't ever develop rules for monstrous character races. Ditto for psionics. I'd rather see Paizo choose to never develop those subsystems at all than see half-hearted, "well if we have to" content that no one on the staff really cares about.
James has said in the past several times that he likes the idea of psionics a lot but doesn't care for the system. So a psionics books from Paizo would have the flavor of psionics but without the power point system. If you are more in love with power points than the idea of mental powers then you are likely to be disappointed.
As for monstrous races. Keep in mind Sean Reynolds has cover credits on Savage Species.
And FWIW why not just use savage species until Paizo gets around to revisiting the subject?
I'd like to do a monsters-as-PCs book.
But, like Savage Species (which I worked on), it should be a whole book, not a half-page, one-page, five-page, or even ten-page section in some other book. Sure, you can cover 90% of the monsters with a simple formula, but the remaining 10% are weird enough that the formula is just wrong. It's like classical mechanics, which works to explain most of the world we see, but sometimes you need to use quantium mechanics to explain in detail what's really going on.
I'd like to do a monsters-as-PCs book.
But, like Savage Species (which I worked on), it should be a whole book, not a half-page, one-page, five-page, or even ten-page section in some other book. Sure, you can cover 90% of the monsters with a simple formula, but the remaining 10% are weird enough that the formula is just wrong. It's like classical mechanics, which works to explain most of the world we see, but sometimes you need to use quantium mechanics to explain in detail what's really going on.
+1 Billion? Is that enough?
Sean,
I really really hope you are assigned to do this. As much as I like Jason's work on the PF Core and Bestiary, he's not really (at least he doesn't seem to from his post) interested in doing such a project. I really liked the Savage Species book (despite it needing some more time in the cooker, no offense). I'd *love* to have an entire book dedicated to this.
I know it's presumptuous, but can I please request something along the lines of rules for half-breeds when you work on it? Something that would work for creating human/elf hybrids (IE: Replicating Half-Elf) and yet also work for elf/orc hybrids (rather than considering half-elves either human/elf or orc/elf, which never made sense to me).
I honestly think (and even worked on it some at one point) that a 'point buy' system where stat bonus's cost a certain amount, and racial perks (darkvision, bonuses to skills, etc) as well. A fixed amount to be spent on each to ensure balance. Either that or templates (although templates would be much more difficult).
Anyway, I'm rambling, but I am thrilled to see you are wanting to do such a book, and I hope Paizo can free you up enough to do so!
In my experience as a GM of all 8-9 years of 3rd/3.5 edition and Pathfinder since then; the "monster PC's" are ALMOST ALWAYS the preference for power-gaming players who are looking to get an 'edge'. During the times I've been a player in 3.0/3.5 as opposed to a GM, I've played "normal, standard book characters" and found them satisfactory: one, for the tradition & simplicity of the game; and secondly, the game is built around the basic types of character races. If I as a player or a GM want to have a fair and reasonable expectation of what a fair and reasonable challenge is for my 5th level character, then I can get that with the system in place. If I'm playing a monster with reduced levels, I am often either too underprepared, or (more frequently) overpowered because of the Special Abilities and resistances/qualities that my character produces. I agree with Jacobs (not a sycophant either) that the basic game should be tailored to the basics. I dont' want Dragon PCs straight out of the gate, if ever, in the game. There's just no need for them. Sadly, these over-the-top PCs are becoming the preferred norm for the munchkins and powergamers.
In my experience as a GM of all 8-9 years of 3rd/3.5 edition and Pathfinder since then; the "monster PC's" are ALMOST ALWAYS the preference for power-gaming players who are looking to get an 'edge'. During the times I've been a player in 3.0/3.5 as opposed to a GM, I've played "normal, standard book characters" and found them satisfactory: one, for the tradition & simplicity of the game; and secondly, the game is built around the basic types of character races. If I as a player or a GM want to have a fair and reasonable expectation of what a fair and reasonable challenge is for my 5th level character, then I can get that with the system in place. If I'm playing a monster with reduced levels, I am often either too underprepared, or (more frequently) overpowered because of the Special Abilities and resistances/qualities that my character produces. I agree with Jacobs (not a sycophant either) that the basic game should be tailored to the basics. I dont' want Dragon PCs straight out of the gate, if ever, in the game. There's just no need for them. Sadly, these over-the-top PCs are becoming the preferred norm for the munchkins and powergamers.
In my experience as a GM of all of 18 years in more different game systems than I can list here (easily over 30), I can honestly say that most of the people that I have run in a game that played something off the wall were people who wanted a unique (not overpowered) character.
With all due respect, while you may have had a bad experience or two, your bad experience is not a valid reason to cast aspersions on everyone who posts on here. I am a huge fan of non-standard races. It might be interesting for you to know that I GM 95% of my gaming time, and play 5%.
I am all for Paizo taking their time to stop and do it correctly. I am not all for people trying to disparage or denegrate those of us who prefer variety and options over rigidity and lockstep adherence to a system that existed 30 years ago and has evolved beyond the original creator's wildest dreams and aspirations.
|
Creative Director
|
However, by buffing the core races (including the best ones, and thus raising the power bar), PF makes maintaining this situation difficult. If you buff low-level monster-book humanoids in all cases, you risk overpowering warrior1 of that race as a CR 1/3 - 1/2 opponent. If you buff PCs only, you break the "PCs and NPCs work the same way" rule. If you don't buff PCs, you make choosing a goblin or orc or whatever even more of a punishment, when it already wasn't an overpowered decision to begin with.
This is another point of strain when trying to convert 3.5 material to PF.
I'm not buying this. Enhancing the core races makes playing things like the previously +1 ECL races EASIER, since the core races are no longer that much less powerful than those races. And if you're trying to tell me that 3.5 had a workable and elegant system for playing any monstrous race... you've obviously never seen someone play a pixie sorcerer in a campaign of humanoids. It's sick.
I'm not buying this. Enhancing the core races makes playing things like the previously +1 ECL races EASIER, since the core races are no longer that much less powerful than those races. And if you're trying to tell me that 3.5 had a workable and elegant system for playing any monstrous race... you've obviously never seen someone play a pixie sorcerer in a campaign of humanoids. It's sick.
That's not nice for pixies ;)
But that's true.
As much low LA monsters are easy to play as characters, the ones with high LA can be a real headache, being too powerful as a race and too weak without a class at the same time.
So indeed, a small buff to core races cancels the discrepancy with LA+1 races, therefore making them LA+0, on par with the core ones.
|
A core design principle of 3e has been abandoned in part, and it's causing this confusion and disagreement.
One of the core design principles of 3e is that Team Monster, Team NPC, and Team PC work the same way, except that they are on different teams. This has a lot of implications, from putting magic item creation rules in player hands, to attempting to make all monsters playable, to making monster creation work like PC creation.
Not exactly. PCs, NPCs, and monsters still work the same way. You gain skill ranks, feats, etc. at the same rate, you can build the sample monsters that are portrayed as having class levels using the listed racial stats and the appropriate class rules, you can add PC class levels to most monsters, etc. There's no fundamental incompatibility between the systems.
The only thing that has changed, is that the starting point has been changed for one or more of the teams, but not another. While this may change the power balance between the teams, it's not really a change in a design principle. In fact, it only really changes the power balance if you're looking at them to do the same thing, which James' posts have made abundantly clear is not their role.
(This part is not a direct response to the above quoted poster.)
I, for one, don't think that the "lack" of monster PC rules is that big a deal. Sure, it's a little more work on my part, but it's not as bad as it seems. I can a) expand on the guidelines given in the book, b) continue using the 3.5 rules for such things or convert things like Savage Species, c) come up with my own rules for doing it. House rules are a time-honored tradition in roleplaying, after all. (Heck, they're where some whole game systems came from...)
For those who are upset that Paizo didn't have a full-fledged system in place in their CORE books (for a decidedly non-core option as playing monster PCs), I just have one thing to say: If you're that disappointed that it isn't there, go ahead and put out some rules of your own for it. That's what Dreamscarred Press is doing for Psionics. I'm working on the SRD Epic rules. (Not that I'm anywhere near their league, but... 8^)