I might have missed a statement by Paizo saying that they were against these, but anyways.
I think the racial changes Pathfinder brought were great. Bonuses to mental stats are finally available in core and the races were improved overall. However, with the human/half-orc/half-elf flexible attribute bonus, a lot of archetypes become less viable in comparison. It's pretty hard to go for an elven druid when you can't get a +2 on wisdom and gnome illusionists are sub-par to most of the races. All the races have their niches, but humans, half-orcs and half-elves are good options every single class. Compare that to the halfling, who is a good candidate for maybe 4-5 (including the APG classes).
Don't get me wrong, I don't want anything close to the amount of subraces available in 3.5, but some flexibility for the races without a floating +2 bonus would be nice, at least for the mental stats, such as a gnome who gets a bonus to intelligence instead of charisma, an elf who gets a bonus to wisdom instead of intelligence and so forth.
But by doing so the whole point of the races is taken away. Why have races with distinct characteristics if those very same characteristics can be nullified anyway?
The "Races of" books contains a plethora of different races, but the only race variant book I've read (or more appropriately, "skimmed" though) was Races of Faerun, which had variants of gnomes, elves and the like. But even those didn't change the ability scores the main race is given, at least as far as I could tell.
I might be completely missing the point you're trying to make. But then again, I have no issues with the races RAW.
But by doing so the whole point of the races is taken away. Why have races with distinct characteristics if those very same characteristics can be nullified anyway?
The "Races of" books contains a plethora of different races, but the only sub-race book I've read (or more appropriately, "skimmed" though) was Races of Faerun, which had variants of gnomes, elves and the like. But even those didn't change the ability scores the main race is given, at least as far as I could tell.
I might be completely missing the point you're trying to make. But then again, I have no issues with the races RAW.
Well, I think giving the races some flexibility is actually easier in Pathfinder than it was in 3.5 because they have more adjustments to their attributes (2 increases and 1 decrease). Like, say if you give modify an elf to be more in tune with nature (wisdom instead of intelligence bonus) you still have a +2 to dexterity and -2 to constitution, which are the attribute adjustments we've associated them with for so long.
Now that we have adjustments to mental ability scores (in core at least), you're working with a pretty narrow concept unless you're playing a race with a floating +2.
I might have missed a statement by Paizo saying that they were against these, but anyways.
I think the racial changes Pathfinder brought were great. Bonuses to mental stats are finally available in core and the races were improved overall. However, with the human/half-orc/half-elf flexible attribute bonus, a lot of archetypes become less viable in comparison. It's pretty hard to go for an elven druid when you can't get a +2 on wisdom and gnome illusionists are sub-par to most of the races. All the races have their niches, but humans, half-orcs and half-elves are good options every single class. Compare that to the halfling, who is a good candidate for maybe 4-5 (including the APG classes).
Don't get me wrong, I don't want anything close to the amount of subraces available in 3.5, but some flexibility for the races without a floating +2 bonus would be nice, at least for the mental stats, such as a gnome who gets a bonus to intelligence instead of charisma, an elf who gets a bonus to wisdom instead of intelligence and so forth.
It's been so long I have no recollection as to where I saw it--so obviously take this with a large grain of salt--but I believe I saw a statement from either James Jacobs or Jason Buhlman to the effect of "we are trying to avoid extraneous subraces wherever possible."
Obviously they are including fairly iconic offshoots like the drow, who are significantly different enough from elves to need their own statblock.
Nearly all the races got a +2 they didn't have before, or didn't lose anything--you can still be more flexible with the core PF races than you could be before. And the dramatic alteration to the concept of "favored class" helps with that immensely. IMO, the human and half-human races are SUPPOSED to have that flexibility. The price of paying the other races, who have a lot of other cool abilities, is they don't slip into as many variety of roles as easily.
And certainly you can still fit them into other roles. No, an elf doesn't have a bonus to Wisdom but elves will still make excellent druids. You just need to focus on building that Wisdom another way (frex, just give the elf a low Int--it'll still be boosted by racial bonuses--and put those extra point buy points into Wisdom instead). I see the ability score adjustments as a help to making certain builds, but certainly seldom a great hindrance otherwise.
If they don't come out with subraces, my advice would be to differentiate your character's racial and ethnic origins by application of traits.
I hope they do not. I have always hated the "But my elf lives on the coast land and his skin is not the same color as the core elves. So clearly I need different stats"
If humans of different skin tones do not gain new stats why should elves or any other race? Unless your talking about a new race that can trace it's roots to a common ancestor.{Drow/elf or human/Neanderthal}
Living in a new environment and having a different skin color just does not cut it.
Edit: Now the elf/dwarf have culture stuff built into the stats that could be changed but it would not change the ability score mods.
Personally, i find character traits a very good deal for dealing with "racial variants". Quite a few of the traits in Elves- and Dwarves- of Golarion convey specific benefits of distinct cultures and regions within elf- and dwarfdom.
Quite a good way of personalizing your character without going into substitution abilities and other considerations which make character generation heavier.
And certainly you can still fit them into other roles. No, an elf doesn't have a bonus to Wisdom but elves will still make excellent druids. You just need to focus on building that Wisdom another way (frex, just give the elf a low Int--it'll still be boosted by racial bonuses--and put those extra point buy points into Wisdom instead). I see the ability score adjustments as a help to making certain builds, but certainly seldom a great hindrance otherwise.
It's still pretty hard to overlook as a player. It might not sound like a hindrance, but when you've got four races that can grant you the same wisdom score without pumping down every other stat, choosing the elf just sounds like gimping yourself to me.
I hope they do not. I have always hated the "But my elf lives on the coast land and his skin is not the same color as the core elves. So clearly I need different stats"
I don't see what's wrong with elves and the others having a little bit of freedom for their mental stat bonus, it's not as if their physiology changes. It just gives you a little more space to fit in a concept you like.
FWIW the new search works quite well.
James made some comments on this a while back.
And that pretty much answers the thread topic. Thanks.
Creative Director
|
We'll be offering some new options regarding races and customization in the Advanced Player's Guide. I'm not sure exactly HOW that stuff'll work out, but I do believe we're trying to avoid what happened in the Forgotten Realms with so many different kinds of elves and dwarves and halfligns. We DO have subraces like drow and spriggans and duergar and svirfneblin, but these subraces are different enough from their primary race that they're much closer to being their own race.
We'll be offering some new options regarding races and customization in the Advanced Player's Guide. I'm not sure exactly HOW that stuff'll work out, but I do believe we're trying to avoid what happened in the Forgotten Realms with so many different kinds of elves and dwarves and halfligns.
Just what I wanted to hear. Thanks!
|
And certainly you can still fit them into other roles. No, an elf doesn't have a bonus to Wisdom but elves will still make excellent druids. You just need to focus on building that Wisdom another way (frex, just give the elf a low Int--it'll still be boosted by racial bonuses--and put those extra point buy points into Wisdom instead). I see the ability score adjustments as a help to making certain builds, but certainly seldom a great hindrance otherwise.It's still pretty hard to overlook as a player. It might not sound like a hindrance, but when you've got four races that can grant you the same wisdom score without pumping down every other stat, choosing the elf just sounds like gimping yourself to me.
I hope they do not. I have always hated the "But my elf lives on the coast land and his skin is not the same color as the core elves. So clearly I need different stats"I don't see what's wrong with elves and the others having a little bit of freedom for their mental stat bonus, it's not as if their physiology changes. It just gives you a little more space to fit in a concept you like.
And that pretty much answers the thread topic. Thanks.FWIW the new search works quite well.
James made some comments on this a while back.
You might as well just make it so that every race has a floating mental stat then. If at every corner you want a certain race to fit a certain class you will always want it changed. Now it is an elf druid, but next you will want the elf to have a bonus in charisma so you can play a bard. That completely nullifies the point of the races and having niches that they fill better than others. What you are asking sounds more like min/maxing rather than just character concept.
I seem to be in the minority here (maybe it's just squeaky wheel syndrome), but why does everything have to be optimized all the time? What's so terrible about a druid who starts out with an 18 Wisdom instead of a 20 Wisdom (or 16/18, w/e). If you want to play an elf, play an elf. Yeah, it's nice that some races have good synergy with certain classes, but if all you're going for is optimization, who cares if you're an elf? In that case, just pick the [half] human so you can get your maximized Wisdom.
|
Creative Director
|
I seem to be in the minority here (maybe it's just squeaky wheel syndrome), but why does everything have to be optimized all the time? What's so terrible about a druid who starts out with an 18 Wisdom instead of a 20 Wisdom (or 16/18, w/e). If you want to play an elf, play an elf. Yeah, it's nice that some races have good synergy with certain classes, but if all you're going for is optimization, who cares if you're an elf? In that case, just pick the [half] human so you can get your maximized Wisdom.
Nothing at all wrong with that. Heck, our iconic rogue, Merisiel, is statted up with Intelligence as her dump stat; we took a fair amount of heat and complaints on the boards as a result from folks who argued that Intelligence is NOT a good dump stat for a rogue. And they're right; it's not a good choice... as far as number optimization goes. But as far as roleplaying opportunities go, it's actually a pretty solid choice, since rogues already get a LOT of skill points anyway, and thus can absorb an Int hit to their skills better than any other class.
The optimization mentality gets on my nerves at times too (especially the idea that there's one best choice for anything—if that's the case and that's how the game is mean to be played, why offer choices at all?), but it's important to remember that folks play the game differently.
|
I seem to be in the minority here (maybe it's just squeaky wheel syndrome), but why does everything have to be optimized all the time? What's so terrible about a druid who starts out with an 18 Wisdom instead of a 20 Wisdom (or 16/18, w/e). If you want to play an elf, play an elf. Yeah, it's nice that some races have good synergy with certain classes, but if all you're going for is optimization, who cares if you're an elf? In that case, just pick the [half] human so you can get your maximized Wisdom.Nothing at all wrong with that. Heck, our iconic rogue, Merisiel, is statted up with Intelligence as her dump stat; we took a fair amount of heat and complaints on the boards as a result from folks who argued that Intelligence is NOT a good dump stat for a rogue. And they're right; it's not a good choice... as far as number optimization goes. But as far as roleplaying opportunities go, it's actually a pretty solid choice, since rogues already get a LOT of skill points anyway, and thus can absorb an Int hit to their skills better than any other class.
The optimization mentality gets on my nerves at times too (especially the idea that there's one best choice for anything—if that's the case and that's how the game is mean to be played, why offer choices at all?), but it's important to remember that folks play the game differently.
It's posts like this that make me happy. I like having my thoughts reflected back to me from time to time. That's not to say that I don't optimize to some degree. I certainly do. It just bugs me a little when it becomes the sole focus of my players. Still, I don't want to complain too much. I like my players and am glad for them and the ability to play the game with them. I just find it difficult at times to balance an encounter with their inflated stats. Ah, the work of the GM never ends...
They certainly keep me on my toes
:-)
Nothing at all wrong with that. Heck, our iconic rogue, Merisiel, is statted up with Intelligence as her dump stat; we took a fair amount of heat and complaints on the boards as a result from folks who argued that Intelligence is NOT a good dump stat for a rogue. And they're right; it's not a good choice... as far as number optimization goes. But as far as roleplaying opportunities go, it's actually a pretty solid choice, since rogues already get a LOT of skill points anyway, and thus can absorb an Int hit to their skills better than any other class.The optimization mentality gets on my nerves at times too (especially the idea that there's one best choice for anything—if that's the case and that's how the game is mean to be played, why offer choices at all?), but it's important to remember that folks play the game differently.
Full agreement here. I don't think you can erase class synergy elements without the game losing flavor. Doing away with hardwired favored classes was a good idea, as it was not really a synergy, but an imposition. But letting a race be good at anything equally makes it really hard to develop a setting flavor.
Another issue is that one decides to tweak with the rules to change race synergies in their own settings (e.g. a campaign world where elves are the major caretakers of the natural balance and dwarves are a bunch of atheistic craftsmen and sorcerers... oops, I guess that's Glorantha for you). Then you should probably alter stat bonuses, but that's your own campaign tweak, which will be different from your GM next door's one. PF has to offer one given "default" fantasy setting (amongst many possible ones).Offering players open-ended personalization in order to min-max their favored class choice... well, depends on your game, but probably your campaign integrity might suffer a bit.
On the other hand, if a PC is dying for that kind of min/max for a class choice outside of race synergy, why don't you let him or her work on:
1) a convenient trait or feat which gives a similar edge to that class for the race and that reflects a particular campaign-based unusual event or upbringing for the PC
2) Bloodline rules. Those are in the d20 SRD if I recall well, and easily adaptable to PF. Bloodlines give PCs, among other goodies, +2 bonuses to stats at certain levels.
3) Similar to the above, create a template with +1 ECL rating and have the character begin either with a XP debt or with an NPC class (for the druid commented above, Adept would be an easy choice). "Feytouched" or "First World Changelling" would be good choices. You can include the desired +2 to stat x and two or three little knacks.
I am personally quite lenient when players want to get away with some level of character coolness, but I ruthlessly enforce that it always requires creative campaign and character development beyond the numbers. And that development tends to include some darker side which can cause "complications" later... call it GM karma if you will.
It's still pretty hard to overlook as a player. It might not sound like a hindrance, but when you've got four races that can grant you the same wisdom score without pumping down every other stat, choosing the elf just sounds like gimping yourself to me.
See to me, as a player, choosing an elf sounds to me like you're making a druid who's good at overcoming spell resistance and is proficient in some swords and bows that other druids are not and cannot be without taking a feat or dipping into another class.
Maybe at the cost of "only" starting with a Wis of 15 or so rather than 16 or 17 (And maybe not, depending on how you buy your ability scores), but by the time having a very, very high casting stat will be important, you'll have caught up. And thus it seems a fair tradeoff.
Plus your naturally high dex is going to be assisting with your wild shaped combat and improving your AC and reflex saves (which otherwise aren't good for a Druid).
I don't see any "gimping" going on here at all.
Think outside the box a bit. There's more than one way to build an effective character, and you don't need eighty billion races or classes to do so.
Off hand, I'm hoping Jason's alternate race stuff is a combination of :
A) New base races (note I didn't say CORE, so please disable your flame phasers).
B) Rules for stripping the social aspects off of core races and adding other social aspects. Perhaps with a point by or column shifting system (IE: Choose two from column A and one from Column B). Or, another option would be ripping them off the races and making each one a 'cultural package'. So, let's say I have a half-elf that was raised exclusively by humans, maybe he get's the human social package, but none of the elf social package and none of the elf social package. Another might be a human raised by orcs would not get the human social package, instead he'd get the orc or half-orc social package. His physical stats would still be human (probably +2 put to a physical stat).
I seem to be in the minority here (maybe it's just squeaky wheel syndrome), but why does everything have to be optimized all the time? What's so terrible about a druid who starts out with an 18 Wisdom instead of a 20 Wisdom (or 16/18, w/e). If you want to play an elf, play an elf. Yeah, it's nice that some races have good synergy with certain classes, but if all you're going for is optimization, who cares if you're an elf? In that case, just pick the [half] human so you can get your maximized Wisdom.Nothing at all wrong with that. Heck, our iconic rogue, Merisiel, is statted up with Intelligence as her dump stat; we took a fair amount of heat and complaints on the boards as a result from folks who argued that Intelligence is NOT a good dump stat for a rogue. And they're right; it's not a good choice... as far as number optimization goes. But as far as roleplaying opportunities go, it's actually a pretty solid choice, since rogues already get a LOT of skill points anyway, and thus can absorb an Int hit to their skills better than any other class.
The optimization mentality gets on my nerves at times too (especially the idea that there's one best choice for anything—if that's the case and that's how the game is mean to be played, why offer choices at all?), but it's important to remember that folks play the game differently.
Thanks for those words. Jason. I agree the whole optimization mentality is just boring. Our hafling Druid started with 14 wis and 16 char and strength 12 or 13. His animal companion is a dog - not a wolf or a bear. Not a great druid, not a great animal companion. But it's fun. People spend to much time playing this game as a computer game.
You kids and your newfangled rules. Why, in my day there was no such thing as an elf druid and halflings could only be fighters or thieves. *crotchety glare*
You kids and your newfangled rules. Why, in my day there was no such thing as an elf druid and halflings could only be fighters or thieves. *crotchety glare*
Hah!
In my day, halfling were just... halflings.The same way elves were just elves, and dwarves dwarves.
I'm not going to respond to each individual post, but I'll just have my say and then be out of here since this has been discussed far too often.
Optimizing and roleplaying are not mutually exclusive. I've been playing D&D for many years now and to me it's as much a roleplaying game as it is a tactical wargame. I wouldn't play it if it wasn't for the roleplaying and I have played countless memorable characters, many of which I cherish to this day. However, I'm also very competitive about the combat aspect of the game and I always want to contribute as much as I can to my current party in those situations. That is why I try to optimize my characters.
The reason for this topic was not to see if I could create some horribly imbalanced character by going for an elven druid/gnome illusionist with some tweaks to their attributes. I asked because those are two of the archetypes that have been around in D&D for a very long time and I've grown fond of. I know I may be clinging to the past and the Pathfinder races are not the same as the ones in older D&D versions, but when a half-orc makes for a better illusionist (in terms of optimization) than a gnome, I feel a bit sad. I wanted to see if there was any hope for later supplements to include some customization to the races so I could tinker around with the aforementioned concepts (and others) while still remaining viable (I know our definition of "viable" varies greatly). Jacobs answered my question and I'll have to sit and wait until these racial variants come out, but please don't tag me as some min-maxing munchkin even though my emphasis on the numbers on the character sheet might be a bit higher than yours.
Cheers and happy gaming, everybody!
Very good post, Ellington...
+1
I asked because those are two of the archetypes that have been around in D&D for a very long time and I've grown fond of. I know I may be clinging to the past and the Pathfinder races are not the same as the ones in older D&D versions, but when a half-orc makes for a better illusionist (in terms of optimization) than a gnome, I feel a bit sad.
You make a good point, just feels a bit like you put too much stock in a very high casting main stat as a prime optimization factor. And that at Lvl 1. You're right, but it think you're slightly overplaying it.
On the old-time archetypes, I wonder what's the big tradition of D&D Elven Druids... Previous editions bonused either their Dex or Int. High Wis Druid-type elves tended to be off the beaten path subraces, mostly encountered as NPCs and then recycled as playable variant races in later products (think of Dragonlance Kagonesti elves or the Wild Elves in Unearthed Arcana). The "essential" D&D elf stands out as the Basic D&D Elf (necessarily a Fighter-Wizard) or the AD&D multiclass elf (who had access to arcane casting only for a long while).
In Gnome Illusionist you have a point. PF made a compromise by implementing backward compatibility with 3.5, where the archetypal gnome was a Bard (the 3.0 gnome, who favored Illusionist, was, I guess, felt as an anomaly, as it was the only class favoring a wizard specialization, and somehow redundant with Elf, which already favored Wizard period).
That said, PF seems to have reached a good compromise by giving Gnomes some illusion-oriented race abilities:
_ higher DC for illusion spells (that counts as 2 extra points of Int for calculating DC)
_ bonus illusion cantrips
_ resistance to illusions.
Actually, Gnome seems to favor an Illusion-oriented Sorcerer, as opposed to an Illusionist Wizard.
My recipe for economically producing an "old feel" and quite optimized Gnome Illusionist would be to create a new Sorcerer Bloodline, call it something like "Mirage" and connect it to oniric creatures, the First World, or some other sort of glamours. Then fill the bloodline goodies (extra spells, feats, etc) with illusion-related stuff. This is the ultra-optimized gnome arcane caster, as gnomes have good Cha and both Sorcerer and Gnome minor innate abilities are Cha-dependent. Add the illusion DC boost.
Sure, you have access to fewer spells than a Wizard Illusionist, but actually that is also in the vein of old school (Gnome) Illusionist, who only had access to a small selection of spells, mostly related to illusion and misdirection, as opposed to the wider array of full blown Magic-Users.
You know, Andreas's post gave me a seedling of an idea. I would love to see some alternate class features tied to race.
For example, a sorcerer bloodline that was illusion oriented that was specific to Gnomes. Or, a rogue alternate ability that gave a synergy between the elf detect secret passages and trapfinding, replacing trapfinding. Or some rage abilities that were orc oriented.
"Why I Love Pathfinder" by stormraven
Checks and balances.
Thank you.
I'm not an RP purist or an Optimizer Supreme... but I would absolutely hate it if Pathfinder gave the non-human races a floating stat bonus of any type. Here's why. It will throw off the nice balance between the races. Back in the day (AD&D, etc.) there was virtually no reason for anyone to play a human... and an optimizer of any stripe sure as hell wouldn't unless they wanted to play one of the 'restricted' human-only classes. Pathfinder addressed that imbalance by giving humans and 1/2s a stat bonus and its a floating one to boot. The extra skill point and Bonus Feat are very nice - no argument - but they don't outweigh (in my estimation) the 'value' of the 2 stat bonuses and truckload of skills, proficiencies, and racial skills enjoyed by the other races: Darkvision, Low Light Vision, Attack Bonuses, Save Bonuses, Dodge Bonuses, Perception Bonuses, Spell Immunities, etc.
So, to my mind, the only nominal 'penalty' the different races suffer is that they are restricted in which stats get pumped up. If they were to get a floating stat bonus the most noticeable 'edge' humans have would be gone and I think we would again be at a point where the average player (and definitely any optimizer) would ask themselves "why play a human?" when they clearly have few if any advantages.
|
Humans are already a very flexible race. Fluff-wise that can be taken advatage of by a setting designer. Without necessarily creating a near-human with variant characteristics, human culture can be defined by the specific combination of choices a human might make. For example, just say that most humans from Countryland have Ability Score boost to X, Skill point bonus in Y and feat Z. Thus, a Kellid might usually have +2 Strength, Power Attack, and Survival, though your own PC is free to choose otherwise with no penalty.
I hope they do not. I have always hated the "But my elf lives on the coast land and his skin is not the same color as the core elves. So clearly I need different stats"
I agree. However, a fluff book on different elves, like wild elves and sea elves would be very cool
stuff
Good points.
I will remember your idea on the gnome sorcerer. If James reads this, I really hope he pick up your idea on the Illusionist Sorcerer Bloodline.
I'm not going to respond to each individual post, but I'll just have my say and then be out of here since this has been discussed far too often.
Optimizing and roleplaying are not mutually exclusive. [...]
I Wasn't targeting you but the concept of Optimizing. However as as Andreas pointed out:
"You make a good point, just feels a bit like you put too much stock in a very high casting main stat as a prime optimization factor. "
and that usually, but not always, imply Optimizing.
|
Another poster against the addition of subraces.
My main problem arises when the difference between subraces is as large as (or larger than) the difference between two completely different races.
If the difference between a Zangle Elf and a Dwoot Elf is more significant than the difference between a Gnome and a Halfling, something has gone horribly, horribly wrong. In previous editions this really bothered me.
I also feel that in the hierarchy of importance for character decisions, concept should trump optimization. I optimize and have no problem with others doing so, but I pick a concept and then optimize that concept, instead of optimizing a character and then packaging it up in a nice RP wrapping. I encourage my players to do the same because often, a characters weaknesses are at least as memorable as their strengths are. Playing a race in spite of it being suboptimal is one way to get those memorable weaknesses.
|
|
Nothing at all wrong with that. Heck, our iconic rogue, Merisiel, is statted up with Intelligence as her dump stat; we took a fair amount of heat and complaints on the boards as a result from folks who argued that Intelligence is NOT a good dump stat for a rogue. And they're right; it's not a good choice... as far as number optimization goes. But as far as roleplaying opportunities go, it's actually a pretty solid choice, since rogues already get a LOT of skill points anyway, and thus can absorb an Int hit to their skills better than any other class.
The optimization mentality gets on my nerves at times too (especially the idea that there's one best choice for anything—if that's the case and that's how the game is mean to be played, why offer choices at all?), but it's important to remember that folks play the game differently.
...er? I thought that was done intentionally, to show off the fact that rogues can get by without being geniuses any more. Bluff, Stealth, Perception, and Disable Device cover all of the traditional "rogue stuff" and let you use the rest to be chatty or acrobatic at your whim. If someone was arguing that a rogue needs high int to be optimal in PF, they're not weighing optimization over roleplaying. They're just wrong.
Of course, Merisiel has Stealth but doesn't have the Bluff to make it actually useful, but that's another story.
3.5 Merisiel didn't even have any Bluff, let alone being very good at it. That was part of why I had major issues with her build under 3.5 rules. There's a difference between suboptimal and barely playable. Also, when the sample rogue character in a 3.5 module has to take 20 just to have any hope of finding the traps in the module, that's either poor module design or poor sample rogue design. (Multiple times in 3.5 Gamemastery Modules, the traps have Search DCs of 20 + X, where X is Merisiel's Search check -- Merisiel - "Uhh, yeah, I think it's ok." *Valeros opens the door, the missed glyph of warding goes off* Merisiel - "Uhh, sorry, I think I missed one. Again."
Now with Pathfinder's skill consolidation and the elven Int bonus, Merisiel is a sup-optimal but by no means dangerous choice to have as trap detector in a party, whereas in 3.5 she was so ineffective the party would have been better off with Amiri just setting off the traps with her face or however a barbarian would do it.
Anyway, suboptimal choices are a fundamental part of the game, absolutely true, there are just some times when suboptimal is also sub-playable.
Some more food for thoughts...
The core rules list a few races that players can select. But next to nothing is said about the cultural aspect of those races. And this is for a good reason: the rules aren't a depiction of a setting.
Like some of my comrades, I'd like to see race variants, but I think they'd belong to a given setting, you know, like Darwinism applied to RPG worlds.
"Here, the dwarves dug deeper to escape the orcish hordes, and developped their subterranean nature more than the other dwarf clans."
"Here, the elves were hunted and had to flee. Their only option? The see. Over a few generations, with magic on their side, they adapted to the aquatic environment."
"Here, the humans established encampments rather than whole cities. They became nomadic, and adapted to their harsher environment. Rather than a floating +2, they get +1 Str and +1 Con."
"Here, the halflings were exchanged as slaves. Their hard labor made them stronger and they adapted to their poor conditions. They don't have -2 Str and their feet are harder - but they can't wear shoes."
That's just a few examples of the myriad of possibilities. Too many that it can't be included in the standard rules.
-OR-
Rather than have to read all the setting rules to select a race, just pick one, get rid of those stat adjustments (give everyone two floating +2 and a floating -2), and you can select a cultural description later on.
Another idea I posted, several months ago, about blood: describing a character's race using his ancestors (say, your grand-parents were a dwarf, a halfling, a human, and a minotaur? what are you? what can you do?). There could also be a link with a Sorcerer's Bloodline choice. I think it's a good idea because that could make a player think about his character's background more than "My druid is a generic elf."
If a racial variant supplement is to see the light of day, that's an optional/alternate rule I'd like very much - although the idea would have to be more refined, I know that too.
I will be the first to say that I dont want to see the deluge of elven subraces like was done with FR's moon, sun, star, wood, wild, avariel, ect, ect. Having said that I would like to see one, and only one, more added due to the fact that the core Elf feels very much like the High Elf, theres no hiding its natural inclination towards wizardry and magic. Therefore I would like to see a Wood or Wild Elf type which has its focus shifted back towards nature, not nessasarily the extremely xenophobic type of 3E FR Wild Elves, more like the FR Wood Elves. If the designers decide to bestow a +2 Wis instead of +2 Int on them (which I guess is the logical choice) then thats fine with me, but I'm more interested in the flavor behind the additional subrace.
Humans are already a very flexible race. Fluff-wise that can be taken advatage of by a setting designer. Without necessarily creating a near-human with variant characteristics, human culture can be defined by the specific combination of choices a human might make. For example, just say that most humans from Countryland have Ability Score boost to X, Skill point bonus in Y and feat Z. Thus, a Kellid might usually have +2 Strength, Power Attack, and Survival, though your own PC is free to choose otherwise with no penalty.This is true. However, I was thinking more of content which focused on how to build different races of man - advice on how to put religion, economy, politics, history, the gods (or perhaps their religion has no gods), shared symbols, shared values,
Definitely that seems the territory of racial/regional character traits and of the region affinity feats. "Cultural packages" sound like a great idea, when done with traits and feats. I do not know if it was open content, but Substitution Levels are a pretty elegant, economic, and campaign-related method for dealing with things like how a Barbarian fro the North Skald differs from a Cheliax Thespian.
Somebody brought up Conan OGL as an example. I think that's a problematic territory to go in:
1) MGP Conan OGL is a good game, because it captures the fantasy spirit of Howard and his times, where the whole "ethnic" paradigm was prevalent in the Western World. And that paradigm proved a pretty scary line to follow, not in fantasy lit, but in tragic events of the 20th century. Yellow scare, hordes of "colored people" ready to bring down civilization, dark Variags and Haradim... I'd rather have a different model for my fantasy, and PF too, fortunately, judging from the diversity and integration of ethnicities and sexualities in their art and text.
2) Conan OGL is a human-only game. Extreme diversity is fun for character and party contrast.
That said, I find that games that underscore cultural and geographical factors (which can translate into traits and feats), as opposed to hardwired race features and bonuses according to race are friendlier to a modern understanding of culture and ethnicity. Games are for fun, but fantasy (games and fiction) does also reflect quite a bit about the miseries and virtues of our civlization at large.
That said, I find that games that underscore cultural and geographical factors (which can translate into traits and feats), as opposed to hardwired race features and bonuses according to race are friendlier to a modern understanding of culture and ethnicity. Games are for fun, but fantasy (games and fiction) does also reflect quite a bit about the miseries and virtues of our civlization at large.I'm not aware that anyone was talking about hard wired race features. Race features don't have to derive from biology. They can derive from life experiences (isn't that, after all, why the different classes gain bonuses to stats as they gain in level)? Humans have no obvious biological race trait (no nightvision or anything like that). What they gain is a bonus to a stat and extra skill points (all of which can be explained by life experiences, not biology).
Which is exactly why he suggested using the regional and racial traits, instead of building completely new subraces to "fill in" these gaps. It was the first part of his post.
Which is exactly why he suggested using the regional and racial traits, instead of building completely new subraces to "fill in" these gaps. It was the first part of his post.Building new subraces vs. using regional/racial traits - they are both just mechanics - why prefer the traits over the races?
Sometimes, package deals are a better option because they are easier to balance.
Traits can be left out in an easier fashion or can be used by other races (through the adoption trait for example) than subraces.
If a regional or racial trait comes up, fine. You might not have seen a person in the race with it before but you hardly know the entire race.
If suddenly this brand new group of almost this but not that pop up out of no where in the world it hurts the believability of the setting -- where were they before and why weren't they noticed until now?
You can get away with one at most two 'mystery races' in a setting, but after they are out you're done -- you can't have new races popping up with any frequency... especially sentient races... it just doesn't really work.
Traits on the other hand are much more ambiguous. You might have even met someone with a trait that is actually "new" you simply didn't know it. Any subrace however that is different enough from the base race to warrant a change in the "genetic" make up of the race (i.e. the stats) needs to look and feel significantly different from the base race.
And this isn't even getting into the headaches of what happens when two subraces of the same main race mate, et al.
In the end traits are simply easier to change up, and handwave in than completely new subraces (that are generally simply new races period).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is exactly why he suggested using the regional and racial traits, instead of building completely new subraces to "fill in" these gaps. It was the first part of his post.That said, I find that games that underscore cultural and geographical factors (which can translate into traits and feats), as opposed to hardwired race features and bonuses according to race are friendlier to a modern understanding of culture and ethnicity. Games are for fun, but fantasy (games and fiction) does also reflect quite a bit about the miseries and virtues of our civlization at large.I'm not aware that anyone was talking about hard wired race features. Race features don't have to derive from biology. They can derive from life experiences (isn't that, after all, why the different classes gain bonuses to stats as they gain in level)? Humans have no obvious biological race trait (no nightvision or anything like that). What they gain is a bonus to a stat and extra skill points (all of which can be explained by life experiences, not biology).
Yep, that's what I meant. What I mean by hard-wired is something like "all Skald characters get +2 to Con", as in the favorite RW retarded cliché "all members of race X are good at sport Y". It does not even have to be based on biology only. Ultra-deterministic theories can also spring from ambiance factors, "immoral cultures", "historical retardation" and other niceties of that kind.
If these factors are just chosen at lvl 1, we're doing a bit of disfavor to diversity within a species.Mind it, I definitely distinguish between races and species. Human, Elf, Dwarf etc are species and hardwired factors are OK, as a species' makeup can be strongly (though not exclusively) biological and deterministic (if your species sees only black and white, or has a given hearing frequency range, you're stuck with it). Think the variation between neanderthals and homo sapiens sapiens. This can be sharper with fantasy, where biology is not just natural, but can include magical and planar factors.
Race, be it human or elven, feels quite different to me. Culture and life experiences play a huge role, whereas human (eg) biology is one and only (some genetic factors, like some ethnicities' proclivity to lactose intolerance, or specialized propensity to some diseases are really minor when compared to human uniformity).
On a character creation level, more flexible tools than a starting (lvl 1) racial/cultural template have advantages. Imagine a Skald character. He wants to play a Fighter and for a few levels he stays as a village thane's guard or champion. He could take traits, regional feats and maybe one substitution level to reflect the cultural benefits of "being native" to his ethnic background. Then he goes south and signs up in a gladiator arena in Katapesh for a bit of time to pay a debt. Character progression would change via traits, feats and substitution level (if used) to portray his radical change of culture. He would still be a fighter, and his early Northern upbringing would play a difference from native Katapeshi, but:
1) no hardwiring, the character is a human. besides not all Skald would be identical, traits and such can be as rich as you design them. Versus one single race template you have dozens of combinations with one page of traits.
2) huge economy: racial options now would not be a set of "starting templates" (one for each subrace the GM can imagine and allow), but useful material for characters who get exposed and incorporate a given culture.
3) creating "mixed background characters", like a Forlorn Elf or a child of Qadiran immigrants who becomes the apprentice of an Andoran wizard would be easy, painless and varied.
|
|
This is true. However, I was thinking more of content which focused on how to build different races of man - advice on how to put religion, economy, politics, history, the gods (or perhaps their religion has no gods), shared symbols, shared values, etc. together to create a synergistic sense of who 'these' people -are- (with an eye towards using such things in home brew campaigns).
I could create home brew races of man myself, but it might be worthwhile to have a professional game designer throw in their two cents.Really, the concept of race (particularly if one includes culture) is seriously underdeveloped in the game. It might be nice to flesh it out a lot more. In the over two decades I've been playing (and I assure you there have been a -lot- of GMs in that time) I have never, not once, seen a race described in any more than the most shallow manner. The closest to doing it right (and 'closest to doing it right' is a long way from 'doing it right') were the Drow back in 2e.
I absolutely agree with you that a fluff based race supplement is best for humans. i was simply speaking out against the need for mechanical human subraces. I would pay very well indeed for a book like the one you described.
I absolutely agree with you that a fluff based race supplement is best for humans. i was simply speaking out against the need for mechanical human subraces. I would pay very well indeed for a book like the one you described.
+1 for a fluff book on ethnically diverse Humans.
I'm concerned (whether it's a well-founded concern or not, I don't know) that if we implemented what you're talking about, there'd be no -there- there.
I mean stereotypes are supposed to exist in works of fiction - they convey meaning. They reduce pages and pages and pages of description to a single sentence or two. This is a good thing. d20 is not meant to simulate reality. Clark Kent, for example, is a farm boy from Kansas - with all the stereotypes that entails. Bruce Wayne is a playboy millionaire on the surface but living in a vacant mansion cast in long shadows - again, with all the stereotypes that entails. Without those stereotypes, these fictional characters would not have the resonance with us that they do.
If you make the sub races so flexible that there are no stereotypes, I think you lose something significant.
Well said my friend, I agree 100%, without these stereotypes races could deteriorate into blanks slates upon which you slap random special features, which would rip some of the heart and soul out of the game.
Well said my friend, I agree 100%, without these stereotypes races could deteriorate into blanks slates upon which you slap random special features, which would rip some of the heart and soul out of the game.I'm concerned (whether it's a well-founded concern or not, I don't know) that if we implemented what you're talking about, there'd be no -there- there.
I mean stereotypes are supposed to exist in works of fiction - they convey meaning. They reduce pages and pages and pages of description to a single sentence or two. This is a good thing. d20 is not meant to simulate reality. Clark Kent, for example, is a farm boy from Kansas - with all the stereotypes that entails. Bruce Wayne is a playboy millionaire on the surface but living in a vacant mansion cast in long shadows - again, with all the stereotypes that entails. Without those stereotypes, these fictional characters would not have the resonance with us that they do.
If you make the sub races so flexible that there are no stereotypes, I think you lose something significant.
I agree with you as well. Part of the strength of humans is their diversity and versatility. As opposed to the dwarves, elves etc etc
That exact argument is why people don't want a lot of sub races too though. Each sub race makes the "main race" less distinct and leads to questions of why/what is the actual main race.
Traits are already a part of the pathfinder society play actually. They don't "randomly slap on special features" -- they add small perks based on region or race (or training) that generally are about as good as half of a feat.
The traits system is available as a download for free on your "my downloads" page actually and is updated regularly in both the player guides, the regional books for galorian, and the racial books.
|
I absolutely agree with you that a fluff based race supplement is best for humans. i was simply speaking out against the need for mechanical human subraces. I would pay very well indeed for a book like the one you described.+1 for a fluff book on ethnically diverse Humans.
There is an entire line of products dedicated to various ethnically diverse humans, it's called Pathfinder Companion. It's designed around all the various regions in the Inner Sea region of Golarion. There are racial traits for every region along with prestige classes in some on lots of details about the region.
If you want a more generic treatment the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting or the Pathfinder Gazetteer has less in depth treatments of most of the races.