What about an Advanced Player's Guide: Races


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 92 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Would it be possible to have a nicely designed, detailed, expanded and balanced supplement about races from a player perspective? I'd say a book offering a lot of new races, with for each a presentation (including size and age generation; quite like in the rulebook) and customization options (like in the Advanced Player's) including the possibility to generate half-breeds.

Maybe some environmental feats, specific prestige classes and equipment pieces would complete it perfectly...
This would definitely offer more options to players and a little help to GM to handle it.

Silver Crusade

Between the Core rules and the Bestiary plenty of race options exist. Expanding that list with a splat book would create a number of races that add nothing to the game.

You can already customize the base races with the APG. Extra races usually cause trouble rather than solutions. For what are you looking that the race options already available do not cover?

More half-breeds? Easily handled with you and your DM.

More information? (age and height) for all available races? Talk to your DM or use an existing chart from the core rules.

More feats, prestige classes, and equipment pieces? Talk to your DM. More of those just cause problems like they did in D&D. Encouraging people to go all 20 levels in their class is a good thing to do. Characters are amazingly customizable. The only reason people seem to want new feats and prestige classes is so they can combine them into a crazy maxed out character that ruins the fun for everyone.

Here is an idea. Use one of the many race splat books from D&D. They are mostly compatible and keep the problem confined to your game.


Paizo has said a couple of times that they don't really want to flood their game and/or world with lots of PC races. It's pretty much about the basic 7. If they do monsters that work well as "character races" (i.e. those without racial hit dice) in bestiaries, they'll add "X as characters" information, though that is mostly for NPCs. You can make PCs out of those, too, but they won't add any information about relative power level and how to compensate (Pathfinder doesn't have real rules for level adjustment - those are up to the GM).

The future might hold the Pathfinder's answer to Savage Species (i.e. "How to play more or less everything as a PC and integrate it into a party that also has humans and their like"), but a book with just new races is very unlikely.

That doesn't mean that nobody can or will do such a book, though. In fact, I think I saw something like that already. I didn't look because I'm not really interested in that stuff, but this sort of thing is perfect for third party publishers.

Dark Archive

Less races means more custom class feats and abilities for the races that exist; maybe even race-specific kits for classes :). I'd rather they focused on the 7; late 3.5 and especially 4th went too far on making races for every monster, some of which you just don't see wandering the city.

Grand Lodge

I'm thinking this should be a niche product for a 3rd party publisher.

I can see some really creative things from some companies, and some creative people out there could even start up their own company just to do this. Keeping them balanced and interesting would be the hardest part.

Silver Crusade

Thalin wrote:
Less races means more custom class feats and abilities for the races that exist; maybe even race-specific kits for classes :). I'd rather they focused on the 7; late 3.5 and especially 4th went too far on making races for every monster, some of which you just don't see wandering the city.

This is what I can get behind. Rather than "more kind of elves" we get "more things for elves to do" or "more ways to use elves" Or half-orcs, or gnomes, dwarves, Etc.

Dark Archive

More races IMO is a horrible idea. If they added more races it would end up like the 2 games I have played in 4E where with a total of 12 PC's there were exactly 0 humans. Golarion is supposed to be a human dominated world. There shouldn't be a bunch or strange weird being walking around and mixing with the core races.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

How about all the racial options that already exist?

  • the Assimar (Bestiary 1 p. 7) - more powerful then a standard PC race. (Unbalanced Stats, Elemental Resistances, and a Powerful Spell Like Ability)
  • the Dhampir (Bestiary 2 p. 89)
  • the Fetchling (Bestiary 2 p. 123) - more powerful then a standard PC race. (Very Powerful Spell Like Abilities)
  • the Grippli (Bestiary 2 p. 149)
  • the Ifrit (Bestiary 2 p. 160) - Note: The Ifirt can become borderline more powerful if allowed to play a Fire Sorcerer.
  • the Oread (Bestiary 2 p. 205)
  • the Suli-Janni (Pathfinder Companion: Qadira p. 28) - more powerful then a standard PC race. (Unbalanced Stats and a Powerful Elemental Resistances.)
  • the Sylph (Bestiary 2 p. 258)
  • the Tengu (Bestiary 1 p. 263) - borderline more powerful (Swordtrained Ability)
  • the Tiefling (Bestiary 1 p. 264) - borderline more powerful (Elemental Resistances and Moderately Powerful Spell Like Ability.)
  • the Urdine (Bestiary 2 p. 275)

    (The Merfolk (Bestiary 1 p. 204) - not included due to specific environmental requirement.)

    But then there are some balanced races that cannot be used due to being hated.

  • the Drow (Bestiary 1 p. 114) – borderline more powerful (innate spell resistance). The Drow Noble is much more powerful.
  • the Duergar (Bestiary 1 p. 117) - more powerful then a standard PC race (powerful immunities and powerful spell like abilities)
  • the Goblin (Bestiary 1 p. 156)
  • the Hobgoblin (Bestiary 1 p. 175) - borderline more powerful (Unbalanced Stats)
  • the Kobold (Bestiary 1 p. 183) - borderline LESS powerful (Negatively Unbalanced Stats)
  • the Orc (Bestiary 1 p. 222) - borderline LESS powerful (Negatively Unbalanced Stats)

  • Grand Lodge

    bigkilla wrote:
    More races IMO is a horrible idea. If they added more races it would end up like the 2 games I have played in 4E where with a total of 12 PC's there were exactly 0 humans. Golarion is supposed to be a human dominated world. There shouldn't be a bunch or strange weird being walking around and mixing with the core races.

    This assumes of course that Golarion is the world being used.

    The core rules are setting neutral (other than deities) and can easily support books that "break" the setting.

    But I still think 3PP is the way to go for this. I just cannot imagine Paizo ever releasing a book of races.


    Lord Fyre wrote:
    the Orc (Bestiary 1 p. 222) - borderline LESS powerful (Negatively Unbalanced Stats)

    Far more powerful. +4 strength. Fighter. Done and done.

    RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

    Umbral Reaver wrote:
    Lord Fyre wrote:
    the Orc (Bestiary 1 p. 222) - borderline LESS powerful (Negatively Unbalanced Stats)
    Far more powerful. +4 strength. Fighter. Done and done.

    Even there though, the -2 to Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma will be a problem as the Orc levels. Specifically the Wisdom penalty, with hinder both several key skill and the fighters already poor will save.

    RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

    Well, there are 60 +2/+2/-2 combos of stats, so there might be a place for more races. A lot of people like playing unusual races.

    And there are a lot of race ideas out there that don't fit the standard Tolkienesque 7. A lot of people like catfolk, or other animal-headed folk. Some like dragon-kin. Some like planar halfbreeds (aasimar, tiefling, various elemental-kin, etc. etc.), rogue modrons, and the various gith-folk. Some people like cactus-folk, frog-folk, and beetle-faced-folk. Some like half-giants, thri-kreen, and half-dwarves. Some like shifters, changelings, and living constructs. Some like goliaths, raptorans, and illumians.

    Dark Archive

    Krome wrote:

    I'm thinking this should be a niche product for a 3rd party publisher.

    I can see some really creative things from some companies, and some creative people out there could even start up their own company just to do this. Keeping them balanced and interesting would be the hardest part.

    +1.

    RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

    Lord Fyre wrote:
    Umbral Reaver wrote:
    Lord Fyre wrote:
    the Orc (Bestiary 1 p. 222) - borderline LESS powerful (Negatively Unbalanced Stats)
    Far more powerful. +4 strength. Fighter. Done and done.
    Even there though, the -2 to Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma will be a problem as the Orc levels. Specifically the Wisdom penalty, with hinder both several key skill and the fighters already poor will save.

    I like using the Beta version of the half-orc for PC (and NPC) orcs.

    +2 Str, +2 Wis, -2 Int.

    RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

    SmiloDan wrote:
    Lord Fyre wrote:
    Umbral Reaver wrote:
    Lord Fyre wrote:
    the Orc (Bestiary 1 p. 222) - borderline LESS powerful (Negatively Unbalanced Stats)
    Far more powerful. +4 strength. Fighter. Done and done.
    Even there though, the -2 to Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma will be a problem as the Orc levels. Specifically the Wisdom penalty, with hinder both several key skill and the fighters already poor will save.

    I like using the Beta version of the half-orc for PC (and NPC) orcs.

    +2 Str, +2 Wis, -2 Int.

    I like using the Beta version of Half-Orcs for Half-Orcs. :)

    Scarab Sages

    SmiloDan wrote:

    Well, there are 60 +2/+2/-2 combos of stats, so there might be a place for more races. A lot of people like playing unusual races.

    And there are a lot of race ideas out there that don't fit the standard Tolkienesque 7. A lot of people like catfolk, or other animal-headed folk. Some like dragon-kin. Some like planar halfbreeds (aasimar, tiefling, various elemental-kin, etc. etc.), rogue modrons, and the various gith-folk. Some people like cactus-folk, frog-folk, and beetle-faced-folk. Some like half-giants, thri-kreen, and half-dwarves. Some like shifters, changelings, and living constructs. Some like goliaths, raptorans, and illumians.

    +1

    I don't need a million PC races (I am usually the DM,btw), but stats for a half dozen or so would be nice. Some that I would want are no longer available (Grimlock,for example), but those are easily converted from 3.5.
    Some are ones covered in APs (Kobolds,Lizardfolk,Mites) are all possibles in Kingmaker, for example, and we have just finished the 2nd Module.
    Just as an example.

    -Uriel


    Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
    SmiloDan wrote:

    Well, there are 60 +2/+2/-2 combos of stats, so there might be a place for more races. A lot of people like playing unusual races.

    And there are a lot of race ideas out there that don't fit the standard Tolkienesque 7. A lot of people like catfolk, or other animal-headed folk. Some like dragon-kin. Some like planar halfbreeds (aasimar, tiefling, various elemental-kin, etc. etc.), rogue modrons, and the various gith-folk. Some people like cactus-folk, frog-folk, and beetle-faced-folk. Some like half-giants, thri-kreen, and half-dwarves. Some like shifters, changelings, and living constructs. Some like goliaths, raptorans, and illumians.

    Someone's been reading Perdido Street Station :)

    Cheers


    SmiloDan wrote:

    I like using the Beta version of the half-orc for PC (and NPC) orcs.

    +2 Str, +2 Wis, -2 Int.

    Before 1.0 came out, beta half-orcs were the race of choice for wildshaping druids and monks. Now, players take human instead.

    SmiloDan wrote:

    Well, there are 60 +2/+2/-2 combos of stats, so there might be a place for more races. A lot of people like playing unusual races.

    And there are a lot of race ideas out there that don't fit the standard Tolkienesque 7. A lot of people like catfolk, or other animal-headed folk. Some like dragon-kin. Some like planar halfbreeds (aasimar, tiefling, various elemental-kin, etc. etc.), rogue modrons, and the various gith-folk. Some people like cactus-folk, frog-folk, and beetle-faced-folk. Some like half-giants, thri-kreen, and half-dwarves. Some like shifters, changelings, and living constructs. Some like goliaths, raptorans, and illumians.

    Absolutely. Completely. Definitely. +1

    Dark Archive

    SmiloDan wrote:

    Well, there are 60 +2/+2/-2 combos of stats, so there might be a place for more races. A lot of people like playing unusual races.

    And there are a lot of race ideas out there that don't fit the standard Tolkienesque 7. A lot of people like catfolk, or other animal-headed folk. Some like dragon-kin. Some like planar halfbreeds (aasimar, tiefling, various elemental-kin, etc. etc.), rogue modrons, and the various gith-folk. Some people like cactus-folk, frog-folk, and beetle-faced-folk. Some like half-giants, thri-kreen, and half-dwarves. Some like shifters, changelings, and living constructs. Some like goliaths, raptorans, and illumians.

    The trouble is, there are just as many players who don't want them, or at least not all of them. I lose the ability to suspend disbelief when humans disappear among the all the oddball races. I think it would be interesting to see alternate campaigns with a different set of racial options. Monte Cook did something like this with his Arcana Evolved Diamond Throne setting, and I think it was well done. I thought a campaign like Eberron that had just the Eberron races, instead of adding them to the classic mix, would have been more interesting. An Egyptian themed campaign with anthro races worshipping gods like Anubis and Bast would be cool. I wouldn't mind seeing a game with all planetouched.

    I fear that with a product like this in the core line, too many players feel entitled to, and too many DMs feel obligated to allow every race in every campaign, and the flavor of a setting in this way gets diluted.


    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
    Lord of Admonition wrote:


    The trouble is, there are just as many players who don't want them, or at least not all of them. I lose the ability to suspend disbelief when humans disappear among the all the oddball races. I think it would be interesting to see alternate campaigns with a different set of racial options. Monte Cook did something like this with his Arcana Evolved Diamond Throne setting, and I think it was well done. I thought a campaign like Eberron that had just the Eberron races, instead of adding them to the classic mix, would have been more interesting. An Egyptian themed campaign with anthro races worshipping gods like Anubis and Bast would be cool. I wouldn't mind seeing a game with all planetouched.

    I fear that with a product like this in the core line, too many players feel entitled to, and too many DMs feel obligated to allow every race in every campaign, and the flavor of a setting in this way gets diluted.

    This is, and always has been, a GM call. Saying you don't want additional races because players might feel 'entitled' to use them is basically saying that your game and desires are more important than other GM's desires to have options.

    It is the responsibility of a GM to decide what races are or are not in his world, and which of those that are in the world are available as PC races. Any argument saying 'I don't want those options because someone might want to use them' is like saying 'I don't want cars to come in any color but blue because someone might buy an orange one and I hate orange'.

    Dark Archive

    4th has this, and it is a terrible idea. Literally everyone begins to pick classes just because a certain class "lines up" right. Imagine a legal Str/Dex or Str/Con -Chr race. It would be difficult to get front liners to play much else, almost regardless of racial abilties. You'd get the people who hate min/maxing doing it, but that would further widen the gap between optimizers and non-optimizers.

    RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

    I don't want new races.

    But I would like to see a VERY OPTIONAL, sorta Savage Species kind of book that does two things:

    1. Provides more options for the "0 HD monsters" in the 2 Bestiaries (see Lord Fyre's post above). I'd like to see racial traits, alternate racial abilities, and race-based feats as the PC races got in the APG.

    2. Provides more in-depth, concrete guidelines for building hit-die-bearing-monsters with character classes than what the Bestiary provides.


    I wouldn't mind having balanced templates that can be used for PCs, or maybe some archetypes for the base classes, but given the huge selection if one includes the bestiaries, I don't think more races are necessary.

    RPG Superstar 2011 Top 8

    mdt wrote:

    This is, and always has been, a GM call. Saying you don't want additional races because players might feel 'entitled' to use them is basically saying that your game and desires are more important than other GM's desires to have options.

    It is the responsibility of a GM to decide what races are or are not in his world, and which of those that are in the world are available as PC races. Any argument saying 'I don't want those options because someone might want to use them' is like saying 'I don't want cars to come in any color but blue because someone might buy an orange one and I hate orange'.

    The problem here is that as a Core book these races should start cropping up in the Core setting. If I am playing in Golarion, it isn't completely my world any more. Yes, I get to control the stories, and I COULD not let people pick certain races as a houserule, but there tends to be this thing with house rules that they become more invasive the 'larger' they are.

    If a GM wants to tweak a couple of certain spells because he thinks they are over/underpowered, thats easy to live with. Messing with popular Feats/Feat Trees can be bigger. Disallowing an entire Class is even bigger and starts to get in to the realm of not letting people play the sort of characters they would like to play. If there is a nation of Core Character Race Robot Cat People out there, but my GM doesn't want us to play them or even visit there, even though its on the map, in the book, and possibly in the fiction... that as a player starts to make me worry.

    All in all, this just works better as a third party book. That way it remains up to me as a GM to allow Robot Cat People or not and it means Paizo doesn't have to worry about customer pressure on them to shoehorn or retcon Robot Cat People into Golarion. And of course, if it turns out Robot Cat People actually DO fit Golarion really well, nothing stops Paizo from adding high quality OGL races to their products/working out a licencing deal with the 3PP.

    All of this goes out the window, of course, if Paizo decides to put a new campaign setting with its own new races together, but I rather doubt they are planning to abandon Golarion any time soon.

    Silver Crusade

    Dotting


    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
    Evil Space Mantis wrote:


    The problem here is that as a Core book these races should start cropping up in the Core setting. If I am playing in Golarion, it isn't completely my world any more. Yes, I get to control the stories, and I COULD not let people pick certain races as a houserule, but there tends to be this thing with house rules that they become more invasive the 'larger' they are.

    Sorry, but you're wrong. If you check the boards, you will see, time and time again, Paizo staff have stated that Core RPG is separate, but supportive of, Golarion. The two are two completely different, but interconnected lines.

    Thus, things that may be in the core books may or may not be in the setting. For example, the 0HD races in the beastiary may or may not ever appear in Golarion, same for the monsters really.

    Paizo reserves the right to use that material in Golarion, but it is not required for it to be.

    To put it another way, if they decided that there needed to be a bunch of catfolk in a swamp environment in Golarion, they would stat them up in Golarion materials (IE: APs). However, if they later decided they wanted to add these to the RPG line, they would then move them to the B3 or B4. However, there are currently things statted up for APs that are not in the core rules, and vice versa. So this is really a strawman argument. No offense intended.

    Liberty's Edge

    Thalin wrote:
    4th has this, and it is a terrible idea. Literally everyone begins to pick classes just because a certain class "lines up" right. Imagine a legal Str/Dex or Str/Con -Chr race. It would be difficult to get front liners to play much else, almost regardless of racial abilties. You'd get the people who hate min/maxing doing it, but that would further widen the gap between optimizers and non-optimizers.

    100% with you on this. Rather see the core 7 races made more versatile and unique so as to encourage a little variety (not *every* fighter a Half-Orc and *every* wizard an elf, etc). Traits that give the races a little uniqueness and utility (towards specialization) go a long way in this regard.

    Also, the #1 item in the 4E description for 'Reasons to play a Dragonborn' being 'You want to play a dragon' made my brain hurt.

    Dark Archive

    mdt wrote:


    This is, and always has been, a GM call. Saying you don't want additional races because players might feel 'entitled' to use them is basically saying that your game and desires are more important than other GM's desires to have options.

    It is the responsibility of a GM to decide what races are or are not in his world, and which of those that are in the world are available as PC races. Any argument saying 'I don't want those options because someone might want to use them' is like saying 'I don't want cars to come in any color but blue because someone might buy an orange one and I hate orange'.

    Expressing my preference and opinion does not mean my desires are more important. Only that my opinion counts too. Regarding blue Vs orange cars? I didn't say I hate anything Don't put words in my mouth.

    But to illustrate what I'm getting at, let's consider a pair of races that have both been labels with the word hate. If I express a desire to play a kender, I'm a lot more likely to be shot down that if I want to play a gnome. Both cause fits in some circles, but I'm more likely to get turned down for the kender than the gnome. That's the pressure a GM, who I understand perfectly gets "final call", faces.

    That's why I prefer to see alternate races be handled by 3PPs. A GM is equally within his rights to accept or decline these races as he see fit, and if one seems to be especially appropriate for Golarion, Paizo might even adopt them via the Open Gaming License.


    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
    Lord of Admonition wrote:
    mdt wrote:


    This is, and always has been, a GM call. Saying you don't want additional races because players might feel 'entitled' to use them is basically saying that your game and desires are more important than other GM's desires to have options.

    It is the responsibility of a GM to decide what races are or are not in his world, and which of those that are in the world are available as PC races. Any argument saying 'I don't want those options because someone might want to use them' is like saying 'I don't want cars to come in any color but blue because someone might buy an orange one and I hate orange'.

    Expressing my preference and opinion does not mean my desires are more important. Only that my opinion counts too. Regarding blue Vs orange cars? I didn't say I hate anything Don't put words in my mouth.

    But to illustrate what I'm getting at, let's consider a pair of races that have both been labels with the word hate. If I express a desire to play a kender, I'm a lot more likely to be shot down that if I want to play a gnome. Both cause fits in some circles, but I'm more likely to get turned down for the kender than the gnome. That's the pressure a GM, who I understand perfectly gets "final call", faces.

    That's why I prefer to see alternate races be handled by 3PPs. A GM is equally within his rights to accept or decline these races as he see fit, and if one seems to be especially appropriate for Golarion, Paizo might even adopt them via the Open Gaming License.

    Then let me turn the question around. Why does it matter then, if the GM is still the final say, whether it's Paizo making a race for PF Core (not Golarion, that is a completely seperate product line, Core supports Golarion, but Golarion is different from Core) or it's a 3PP? Not that I dislike 3PP, but, in general, Paizo's standards are much higher, their artwork is better, and they are intimately familiar with both the core system as it is, and where they are heading in the future. To me, that makes them much better able to create a race that is not broken, and will remain unbroken, with future updates to the core rules.

    Additionally, Paizo is very very good about continuing support for things. And while I do like some 3PP stuff, they are much flakier about future support. Note that this is a general statement, not a specific complaint against any specific 3PP. There are a few who are very good about future supporting their work (Green Ronin, Super Genius, for example).

    Dark Archive

    Evil Space Mantis wrote:


    All in all, this just works better as a third party book. That way it remains up to me as a GM to allow Robot Cat People or not and it means Paizo doesn't have to worry about customer pressure on them to shoehorn or retcon Robot Cat People into Golarion. And of course, if it turns out Robot Cat People actually DO fit Golarion really well, nothing stops Paizo from adding high quality OGL races to their products/working out a licencing deal with the 3PP.
    All of this goes out the window, of course, if Paizo decides to put a new campaign setting with its own new races together, but I rather doubt they are planning to abandon Golarion any time soon

    Exactly. I would welcome a new setting with a new set of races. I don't want them to be introduced to Golarion, though.


    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
    Lord of Admonition wrote:
    Evil Space Mantis wrote:


    All in all, this just works better as a third party book. That way it remains up to me as a GM to allow Robot Cat People or not and it means Paizo doesn't have to worry about customer pressure on them to shoehorn or retcon Robot Cat People into Golarion. And of course, if it turns out Robot Cat People actually DO fit Golarion really well, nothing stops Paizo from adding high quality OGL races to their products/working out a licencing deal with the 3PP.
    All of this goes out the window, of course, if Paizo decides to put a new campaign setting with its own new races together, but I rather doubt they are planning to abandon Golarion any time soon
    Exactly. I would welcome a new setting with a new set of races. I don't want them to be introduced to Golarion, though.

    Ok, see, I think this is part of the problem. An addition to the RPG line (Core rule book, Bestiary, APG, GMG, etc) does not mean an addition to Golarion. It means an addition to the core RPG rules. Golarion, being a setting, may or may not incorporate things from the core rules.

    Think of the difference between Ebberon and Core D&D rules. A good example would be the God & Demigod guide. The guide was Core, but Eberron had it's own specific gods and setting, and didn't use those rules, even though they were core.

    Dark Archive

    mdt wrote:
    Then let me turn the question around. Why does it matter then, if the GM is still the final say, whether it's Paizo making a race for PF Core (not Golarion, that is a completely seperate product line, Core supports Golarion, but Golarion is different from Core) or it's a 3PP? Not that I dislike 3PP, but, in general, Paizo's standards are much higher, their artwork is better, and they are intimately familiar with both the core system as it is, and where they are heading...

    I would say it's up to the 3PPs to step up their own quality, then. Dreamscarred Press seems to have done a good job with Psionics. Let's see someone take that challenge with races. Or Epic rules.

    My illustration demonstrates why it matters whether Paizo does it or not.


    mdt wrote:
    Lord of Admonition wrote:
    Evil Space Mantis wrote:


    All in all, this just works better as a third party book. That way it remains up to me as a GM to allow Robot Cat People or not and it means Paizo doesn't have to worry about customer pressure on them to shoehorn or retcon Robot Cat People into Golarion. And of course, if it turns out Robot Cat People actually DO fit Golarion really well, nothing stops Paizo from adding high quality OGL races to their products/working out a licencing deal with the 3PP.
    All of this goes out the window, of course, if Paizo decides to put a new campaign setting with its own new races together, but I rather doubt they are planning to abandon Golarion any time soon
    Exactly. I would welcome a new setting with a new set of races. I don't want them to be introduced to Golarion, though.
    Ok, see, I think this is part of the problem. An addition to the RPG line (Core rule book, Bestiary, APG, GMG, etc) does not mean an addition to Golarion. It means an addition to the core RPG rules. Golarion, being a setting, may or may not incorporate things from the core rules.

    This is why I said in the other basically identical thread that it would be short-sighted to approach all new content as "has to fit into Golarion, and if it doesn't fit in Golarion, it doesn't get created."


    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
    Cartigan wrote:


    This is why I said in the other basically identical thread that it would be short-sighted to approach all new content as "has to fit into Golarion, and if it doesn't fit in Golarion, it doesn't get created."

    Apparently we can agree on some things. Bit scary, ne? :)


    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
    Lord of Admonition wrote:
    mdt wrote:
    Then let me turn the question around. Why does it matter then, if the GM is still the final say, whether it's Paizo making a race for PF Core (not Golarion, that is a completely seperate product line, Core supports Golarion, but Golarion is different from Core) or it's a 3PP? Not that I dislike 3PP, but, in general, Paizo's standards are much higher, their artwork is better, and they are intimately familiar with both the core system as it is, and where they are heading...

    I would say it's up to the 3PPs to step up their own quality, then. Dreamscarred Press seems to have done a good job with Psionics. Let's see someone take that challenge with races. Or Epic rules.

    My illustration demonstrates why it matters whether Paizo does it or not.

    I'm afraid I just don't agree your illustration demonstrates that Paizo shouldn't do it. It only demonstrates it if your base assumption is that only Golarion is important, and anything that doesn't exactly fit in that one world book should be verbotten.

    In other words, in my opinion, your base assumption is at fault and therefore the entire argument falls apart.

    Dark Archive

    mdt wrote:
    Lord of Admonition wrote:
    mdt wrote:
    Then let me turn the question around. Why does it matter then, if the GM is still the final say, whether it's Paizo making a race for PF Core (not Golarion, that is a completely seperate product line, Core supports Golarion, but Golarion is different from Core) or it's a 3PP? Not that I dislike 3PP, but, in general, Paizo's standards are much higher, their artwork is better, and they are intimately familiar with both the core system as it is, and where they are heading...

    I would say it's up to the 3PPs to step up their own quality, then. Dreamscarred Press seems to have done a good job with Psionics. Let's see someone take that challenge with races. Or Epic rules.

    My illustration demonstrates why it matters whether Paizo does it or not.

    I'm afraid I just don't agree your illustration demonstrates that Paizo shouldn't do it. It only demonstrates it if your base assumption is that only Golarion is important, and anything that doesn't exactly fit in that one world book should be verbotten.

    In other words, in my opinion, your base assumption is at fault and therefore the entire argument falls apart.

    Because I didn't say they shouldn't do it. From a business standpoint, they should. There's obviously a market for it. I said I don't want them to do it. Because GMs feel more pressure to allow "official" things. It's purely emotional, not logical on either the part the hypothetical GM, or myself.

    RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

    several people wrote:
    Core book... Core setting...

    All of these arguments about including new races in Core rules and Core settings are completely irrelevant.

    Pathfinder is not 4e. There is only one Core book and there is no Core setting. No new book that gets published in any product line counts as Core rules. If a player wants to pick character options out of any book other than the one called Core Rules, he is no longer playing a Core rules game.

    Dark Archive

    Epic Meepo wrote:
    several people wrote:
    Core book... Core setting...

    All of these arguments about including new races in Core rules and Core settings are completely irrelevant.

    Pathfinder is not 4e. There is only one Core book and there is no Core setting. No new book that gets published in any product line counts as Core rules. If a player wants to pick character options out of any book other than the one called Core Rules, he is no longer playing a Core rules game.

    Technically, you're right, but the idea that everything published by Core publisher = Core was strong in 3.5, even if it was never expressly stated, like it was in 4E. It's not official policy, but it is linked in the mind of much of the gaming public. Paizo's official stance, IIRC is that the Adventure Paths are the Flagship product, and the Pathfinder RPG exists to support that line. Therefore, PFRPG products are only created for use with the Pathfinder Campaign Setting (Golarion and related planets and planes of existence). I wonder if that's changing, considering sales volume of the RPG products.

    Sovereign Court

    mdt wrote:
    Evil Space Mantis wrote:


    The problem here is that as a Core book these races should start cropping up in the Core setting. If I am playing in Golarion, it isn't completely my world any more. Yes, I get to control the stories, and I COULD not let people pick certain races as a houserule, but there tends to be this thing with house rules that they become more invasive the 'larger' they are.
    Sorry, but you're wrong. If you check the boards, you will see, time and time again, Paizo staff have stated that Core RPG is separate, but supportive of, Golarion. The two are two completely different, but interconnected lines.

    It really depends upon who you read and when.

    I have also seen staff posts which, time and time again, have stated that PathfinderRPG exists to support the APs.

    Selective quotation is... disingenuous?

    So, she/he's not wrong. Sorry.

    The Exchange

    Thalin wrote:
    4th has this, and it is a terrible idea. Literally everyone begins to pick classes just because a certain class "lines up" right. Imagine a legal Str/Dex or Str/Con -Chr race. It would be difficult to get front liners to play much else, almost regardless of racial abilties. You'd get the people who hate min/maxing doing it, but that would further widen the gap between optimizers and non-optimizers.

    +1 to this, I completely agree. 4th Edition gets to be really silly in this aspect, and it's my least favorite part of a system that I generally think is alright. I hear about different groups all the time that not only don't include any humans, but also don't include any elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, or half orcs; it's all thri-kreen, goliath, shifter, warforged, deva, genasi, changeling....I don't want to see Pathfinder ever get to that point.

    Sorry, I'm going to have to say I support their decision to keep it down to the core 7.


    If races exist, they should have support. This means feats, flavor, and options. The more races we have, the less support these races get.

    Now, two things here: I love unusual races. And, I'm nostalgic for the "theme-heavy" RPGs of a decade or so ago.

    If I see a dwarf, or a karuriar, I'd like not just a set of stats, but flavor, backstory, and support both thematically and mechanically.

    Unfortunately, it's difficult to do both, so while I love the unusual races? I have to side on the end of: there's only so much that can be done.

    So why not look at it another way?

    Many races can be divided along themes. Even among human cultures, trends exist. A racial book might discuss building a tribal structure, or--provide general crunch support for "tribal" or "spirit" or "artifice" style races that could be used and reswapped by a time-crunched GM.

    I believe we have to think "optional" and "general-purpose."

    After all, if we look at Pathfinder as a set of rules--then it puts worldbuilding and so forth into the hands of the GM, or 3PPs (aside from Golarion).


    Personally I wouldn't mind seeing a book of optional/additional race, and there is good reason for it. Not every game master whats to run a Golarion campaign. Race books are more then player options they're also options for the game master who wants to express their own individuality/creativity. No elves or dwarves, but you can play teiflings and githyanki was a call I made as a game master when playing a second edition planscape game. I don't regret that call, it created a unique flavor that I was looking for at the time.

    However, Jason had said in the past that Paizo's releases material based on the kind of stories that they, as a company, want to tell (paraphrase). So far that means the core seven race, but the bestiaries do contain some info. on possible PC races for more creative players and game masters. To me thats good enough.

    Sovereign Court

    Ismellmonkey wrote:

    Personally I wouldn't mind seeing a book of optional/additional race, and there is good reason for it. Not every game master whats to run a Golarion campaign. Race books are more then player options they're also options for the game master who wants to express their own individuality/creativity. No elves or dwarves, but you can play teiflings and githyanki was a call I made as a game master when playing a second edition planscape game. I don't regret that call, it created a unique flavor that I was looking for at the time.

    However, Jason had said in the past that Paizo's releases material based on the kind of stories that they, as a company, want to tell (paraphrase). So far that means the core seven race, but the bestiaries do contain some info. on possible PC races for more creative players and game masters. To me thats good enough.

    I agree.

    There are rules (bestiary) for playing tieflings, aasimar, etc. (no githyanki, they're Wizards of the Coast IP).
    But putting them in the bestiary makes them non-core but available. I think that's far enough for GMs to include those races but reserved enough that it won't be in Pathfinder Society rules or 'core'.


    w0nkothesane wrote:
    Thalin wrote:
    4th has this, and it is a terrible idea. Literally everyone begins to pick classes just because a certain class "lines up" right. Imagine a legal Str/Dex or Str/Con -Chr race. It would be difficult to get front liners to play much else, almost regardless of racial abilties. You'd get the people who hate min/maxing doing it, but that would further widen the gap between optimizers and non-optimizers.

    +1 to this, I completely agree. 4th Edition gets to be really silly in this aspect, and it's my least favorite part of a system that I generally think is alright. I hear about different groups all the time that not only don't include any humans, but also don't include any elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, or half orcs; it's all thri-kreen, goliath, shifter, warforged, deva, genasi, changeling....

    So....?

    Quote:
    I don't want to see Pathfinder ever get to that point.

    ...what? It's not like those races are mechanically better than any of the "classic" races so it isn't a problem of balance. Your problem with it is what exactly?


    Evil Hat wrote:
    SmiloDan wrote:

    Well, there are 60 +2/+2/-2 combos of stats, so there might be a place for more races. A lot of people like playing unusual races.

    And there are a lot of race ideas out there that don't fit the standard Tolkienesque 7. A lot of people like catfolk, or other animal-headed folk. Some like dragon-kin. Some like planar halfbreeds (aasimar, tiefling, various elemental-kin, etc. etc.), rogue modrons, and the various gith-folk. Some people like cactus-folk, frog-folk, and beetle-faced-folk. Some like half-giants, thri-kreen, and half-dwarves. Some like shifters, changelings, and living constructs. Some like goliaths, raptorans, and illumians.

    Someone's been reading Perdido Street Station :)

    Cheers

    Or the issue of Dragon that highlighted Meiville's world and had stat blocks for all three of those races mentioned, plus some. And a grindylow that's far more terrifying that the octo-goblin in bestiary 2.


    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

    I started writing crappy stories long before D&D came out and adapted the game to run in my world 35 yrs ago. I have a number of races that I couldn't do anything with until 3.whatever came out, but now I can. Players that have read some of the stories and have demanded to play said races have driven me to include some of the more 'distinctive'. These are ones that have significant features that set them apart, features that I showcased in a story, that players have wanted to develop further.

    One race, the Rulic, are steppes nomad 'centaur-goats'. Another are avian scavengers that prefer the company of other races due to their own racial infighting. A third are best described as ADHD, 13 yr girls with no impulse control and magical powers. A race reserved for npc roles are remnants of a race that 'elevated' itself to divine status, torquing off a lot of low end deities. All represent solid RP opportunities and I have had some awesome nights of play as players took my creations further than I ever thought possible.

    The key is to make the Race you wish to add offer something unique and difference. Raptorians offer a flying race with no level adjustment. Warforged make a nice start for tinmen, robots and cog-and-gear folk. Races for Obsidian Twilight are radically different, each intriguing in it's own way.


    Lord Fyre wrote:


    But then there are some balanced races that cannot be used due to being hated.

  • the Drow (Bestiary 1 p. 114) – borderline more powerful (innate spell resistance). The Drow Noble is much more powerful.
  • the Duergar (Bestiary 1 p. 117) - more powerful then a standard PC race (powerful immunities and powerful spell like abilities)
  • the Goblin (Bestiary 1 p. 156)
  • the Hobgoblin (Bestiary 1 p. 175) - borderline more powerful (Unbalanced Stats)
  • the Kobold (Bestiary 1 p. 183) - borderline LESS powerful (Negatively Unbalanced Stats)
  • the Orc (Bestiary 1 p. 222) - borderline LESS powerful (Negatively Unbalanced Stats)

  • What a shame.

    I think these races and lizardmen should have been designed/redesigned as player character races. They may never be used by PCs but I think it would make more balanced as NPCs.

    RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

    unnambed wrote:
    Lord Fyre wrote:


    But then there are some balanced races that cannot be used due to being hated.

  • the Drow (Bestiary 1 p. 114) – borderline more powerful (innate spell resistance). The Drow Noble is much more powerful.
  • the Duergar (Bestiary 1 p. 117) - more powerful then a standard PC race (powerful immunities and powerful spell like abilities)
  • the Goblin (Bestiary 1 p. 156)
  • the Hobgoblin (Bestiary 1 p. 175) - borderline more powerful (Unbalanced Stats)
  • the Kobold (Bestiary 1 p. 183) - borderline LESS powerful (Negatively Unbalanced Stats)
  • the Orc (Bestiary 1 p. 222) - borderline LESS powerful (Negatively Unbalanced Stats)

  • What a shame.

    I think these races and lizardmen should have been designed/redesigned as player character races. They may never be used by PCs but I think it would make more balanced as NPCs.

    No problem.

    These races cannot be used as PCs in Golarion because the races are hated and will likely be killed on sight.

    From a Mechanics standpoint, each of them is mechanically balanced, except as noted. They cannot be PCs for social reasons, not game-balance ones.


    Guy Ridarch wrote:

    Would it be possible to have a nicely designed, detailed, expanded and balanced supplement about races from a player perspective? I'd say a book offering a lot of new races, with for each a presentation (including size and age generation; quite like in the rulebook) and customization options (like in the Advanced Player's) including the possibility to generate half-breeds.

    Maybe some environmental feats, specific prestige classes and equipment pieces would complete it perfectly...
    This would definitely offer more options to players and a little help to GM to handle it.

    If/when Bestiary 3 gets released, this would make an excellent follow-up.

    When I GM, I use the Golarion setting maybe 55% of the time; everything else tends to be homebrew or third-pary settings (not Greyhawk, Eberron, or FR). For those custom settings, I always remove/rename any reference to all the nonhuman classics (elves, half-elves, dwarves, orcs/half-orcs, gnomes, and above all halflings); sometimes gnomes and dwarves make the cut, but not often.

    I despise Tolkien's world (not his dwarves, just Middle Earth) and feel no need to build my own homebrew setting off of standards inspired by his work. When I cater to newer players, using Golarion (which uses classic D&D as a template while injecting newer, better ideas) as a sort of shallow zone where they can test the waters. I find that once they realize I'll allow damn near any suggestion when it comes to homebrew, they grab monster books and go nuts. When I get a chance to play, I want an option other than the "classic" seven; I don't mind playing a human, but give me options like dhampir, tiefling, grippli, and fetchling. There are many monsters/races that I never use (i.e. centaur and lycanthropes), so getting a race book and seeing a dull race means nothing to me as long as there's something awesome in the next few pages.

    Not everyone will buy every single Pathfinder release; I'm skipping the halflings book next month just like many other people will skip Undead Revisited and Lords of Chaos. Even if a Bizarre Races of Golarion was released, I'm sure many naysayers could still use the material to build awesome villains/NPCs.

    That is unless such a naysayer only runs "heroes fight through hordes of orcs to kill giant masters then discover that they must defeat dragon overlord to save the king" campaigns.


    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
    GeraintElberion wrote:
    mdt wrote:
    Evil Space Mantis wrote:


    The problem here is that as a Core book these races should start cropping up in the Core setting. If I am playing in Golarion, it isn't completely my world any more. Yes, I get to control the stories, and I COULD not let people pick certain races as a houserule, but there tends to be this thing with house rules that they become more invasive the 'larger' they are.
    Sorry, but you're wrong. If you check the boards, you will see, time and time again, Paizo staff have stated that Core RPG is separate, but supportive of, Golarion. The two are two completely different, but interconnected lines.

    It really depends upon who you read and when.

    I have also seen staff posts which, time and time again, have stated that PathfinderRPG exists to support the APs.

    Selective quotation is... disingenuous?

    So, she/he's not wrong. Sorry.

    I have not seen that, the only ones I've seen is the statements that the PF Core supports the Golarion world, but that the two are seperate lines, and that the Core is not dependent on Golarion. Please don't insult me by saying I'm selectively quoting. I'm quoting what I've read. Probably because I'm only active on the RPG forums. It's possible something was posted in the Golarion/AP forums that is different, but your assumption that I'm selectively quoting is pretty insulting to me personally.

    1 to 50 of 92 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / What about an Advanced Player's Guide: Races All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.