|
Hello everyone,
I wanted to get opinions on fairness and gameplay on a subject my core players and I, as the DM, have ideas on.
My core players generally stick with a favored race when creating new characters, but usually when we have new players or less frequent players, they always ask which race is the best? Due to the modifiers gained, these players always pick a demihuman. In a way to get folks from picking a demihuman simply on a powergamer basis, we have devised a new ability score generation method which we may begin to implement, pending reviews from fellow DMs and players. I should say GMs, rather (sorry, we have recently switched from Advanced 2nd).
2 options will be given at ability generation:
1) Roll scores
2) Distribute points instead of rolling
1) ROLL SCORES: If this method is picked, 4 options then occur for the player:
a) If they choose a Demi-human, and plan to be more than one class, they roll 3d6, in the order which is listed on the sheet. No choosing where the points go.
b) If they choose a Human, and plan to be more than one class, they roll 3d6 and choose where the scores go, getting the right to re-roll one score.
c) If they choose to be single class Demi-human, they get to roll 4d6 and place them in the order which is listed on the sheet, no choosing where the points go.
d) If they choose to be a single-class Human, they get to roll 4d6 and choose where the scores go.
option 2,
2) DISTRIBUTE POINTS: If this method is picked, a total point system is used. Using the above criteria of class and race:
a) Demi, multi-class 25 points
b) Human, multi-class 27 points
c) Demi, single class 29 points
d) Human, Single 32 points
Points must begin no lower than 8, and no more than 7 points can be put into a score.
We are doing this in the interests of: Maintaining single-class purity and keeping humans as the more populace player character.
Do these systems make sense? While it is our campaign world, we want to get others' opinions on the changes we may implement, both opinion and rule balance observations.
Thanks everyone!
We are doing this in the interests of: Maintaining single-class purity and keeping humans as the more populace player character.
Do these systems make sense? While it is our campaign world, we want to...
Out of curiosity, why are you interested in 'maintaining single-class purity' ? Single-classed characters have a sizable advantage over multi-classed characters in Pathfinder as far as I understand, so this seems like you're just handing out higher ability scores to stronger characters (rich getting richer, etc.).
I have just a few suggestions/things to keep in mind:
Keep in mind the setting of the world. Are there significantly reduced amounts of non-humans. As in very few so that race's likeliness of producing a greatly above average being is smaller?
For the multi-classing penalties, I agree with the others, they are usually at a disadvantage depending on which classes they choose. If you insist on keeping the penalties, I'd just say reduce the penalties.
Other things you might want to think of are if there would be role-playing benefits to make up for the penalties for those who insist on playing one of the less favorable races / class combos.
Just my 2 cp.
There is not much more that I can say, that hasn't already been said.
#1. A single class is an optimized character -- especially for casters. Multiclassed characters are already at a disadvantage.
#2. Humans are the most "optimized" race.
#3. The point methods you have listed are far superior to any 3d6 method, so those simply won't be used.
I think you are letting personal biases and lack of concern about promoting a fun environment for your players get in the way.
But it is your campaign, so do what you want. I say just keep it simple. Just have everyone follow the same character creation rules, but apply an experience bonus to humans (i.e. 10%) if you would prefer people to play them. If you do not like people to multiclass (and thereby create a less-optimized character) then penalize them further with an experience penalty (i.e. -10%).
What would I do as the GM in this situation? I would talk to the players. Sometimes its just that easy. I would just tell the players that human characters will have a stronger focus in the campaign. I would also advise my players that there are more opportunies to involve human characters in my story than demi-humans.
|
|
Out of curiosity, why are you interested in 'maintaining single-class purity' ? Single-classed characters have a sizable advantage over multi-classed characters in Pathfinder as far as I understand, so this seems like you're just handing out higher ability scores to stronger characters (rich getting richer, etc.).
We are doing this in the interests of: Maintaining single-class purity and keeping humans as the more populace player character.
Do these systems make sense? While it is our campaign world, we want to...
We are trying to keep new players from coming in and powergaming; lots of people are playing WoW and DDO, and are used to combat, but my campaign involves 50/50 combat and rpg.
|
|
I have just a few suggestions/things to keep in mind:
Keep in mind the setting of the world. Are there significantly reduced amounts of non-humans. As in very few so that race's likeliness of producing a greatly above average being is smaller?
For the multi-classing penalties, I agree with the others, they are usually at a disadvantage depending on which classes they choose. If you insist on keeping the penalties, I'd just say reduce the penalties.
Other things you might want to think of are if there would be role-playing benefits to make up for the penalties for those who insist on playing one of the less favorable races / class combos.
Just my 2 cp.
I don't think these are penalties, these are just ways to give bonuses to Humans. Way different than penalizing a demihuman. People can be dwarf or elf, but they just won't get any bonuses like humans would.
If humans are inherently as powerful as any other race (which I would certainly say they are), why do they need a +10% XP bonus? That is the same as giving demi-humans a 9% penalty on XP, effectively. It is a penalty to some players if you're giving bonuses to others. Because while it's not a competitive game (per se), it's not much fun to be, effectively, impaired compared to the other members of the party.
I just don't see what the point of this is.
And why penalize multi-classing anyway? That's hardly the worst problem when dealing with power-gaming.
I guess I agree that this is a severe way of dealing with a problem that I don't think really exists.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Instead of a detailed analysis, review, opinion, etc, I'll just say this:
You'd be halfway through describing this to me when I'd stand up, bid you farewell, and go away. I probably wouldn't even bother to argue about it. This is wrong on, well, every single level.
Instead of a detailed analysis, review, opinion, etc, I'll just say this:
You'd be halfway through describing this to me when I'd stand up, bid you farewell, and go away. I probably wouldn't even bother to argue about it. This is wrong on, well, every single level.
This. And I usually play humans.
Seems Bizzaro.
Power gameiest race? Human
Power gamiest class? Single Class Caster or Single Class Meleer.
No?
Seems Bizzaro.
Power gameiest race? Human
Power gamiest class? Single Class Caster or Single Class Meleer.
No?
Yes. The extra skills, especially the extra feat, and of course the free-floating +2 make humans a really attractive choice for almost everything. Add the favoured class options from the APG for sorcerers and other spontaneous casters and we're close to the point were people actually have to justify not playing a human.
In some specialised circumstances, other races can be better than humans at specific roles, but humans are never a bad choice. Other races often are.
And multiclassing? Unless you do some really cheesy stuff, multiclassing means you're giving up a lot of stuff.
Better to hit everyone who does cheesy stuff - hit them with a hammer - until they stop doing cheesy stuff than to make already not-too-great choices even worse.
Seems Bizzaro.
Power gameiest race? Human
Power gamiest class? Single Class Caster or Single Class Meleer.
No?
Yes is no. Just go with it.
Seriously, though, what Kae Yoss said. And then some. Humans are both the most optimizable and yet the most versatile race in the game. The mobility of the +2 ability, as opposed to the fixed modifiers of other races, means they are at the very least the sexcond best, and often THE best choice, for ANY class -- especially when you use dice rolls for CharGen. And that extra feat really can tip the balance.
As for multiclassing, the only real non-cheesy uses for it are if you are in a VERY roleplaying, out-of-combat-intensive game, and have a specific ocncept in mind, or if you are aiming at a prestige class. The real kicker is all those high level class-specific features, as well as the "+x per y levels" ones.
Combine the two, and single-class humans are already receiving a bonus just by the RAW. The penultimate example of this is arguably the Human Fighter, who is the most feat-rich character in the game.
for the dice rolls i wouldn't not let them put them where they want. I think that that was one of the biggest flaws of the old editions, (or at least the dm's i played with, also when i say old editions i mean like aD&D or second edition). I feel it makes them go lets roll scores and see if i can play what i want, and if not that sucks, guess i will play what the dice told me to. which isn't very fun, and probably leads to more min/maxing due to the whole if you can't play the cool character you thought up your gonna instead make a dude who is a powerful as you can make so it can be cool too. or at least maybe. Either way i wouldn't make them roll them in order, and would probably make it 4d6 to start off with and 5d6 further down the chart.
Also i think the idea of penilizing multiclass people is really a you just aren't playing the game long enough with one character, make them hit twenty and see them go "crap no capstone" and maybe watch them die due to lack of high enough spellcasting.
As another thing of note i personallly think not playing humans is more fun. That it helps me get away from reality which is part of the reason i play. and the races are so out of balance that they make bad choices by picking anything.
for the dice rolls i wouldn't not let them put them where they want. I think that that was one of the biggest flaws of the old editions, (or at least the dm's i played with, also when i say old editions i mean like aD&D or second edition). I feel it makes them go lets roll scores and see if i can play what i want, and if not that sucks, guess i will play what the dice told me to.
Exactly. Only weak men (and women) let dice tell them what their character will be like.
Which is why I don't use anything other than Purchase.
which isn't very fun, and probably leads to more min/maxing due to the whole if you can't play the cool character you thought up your gonna instead make a dude who is a powerful as you can make so it can be cool too. or at least maybe.
Or I use the worst possible combination and then do my level best to get the character killed.
Also i think the idea of penilizing multiclass people is really a you just aren't playing the game long enough with one character, make them hit twenty and see them go "crap no capstone" and maybe watch them die due to lack of high enough spellcasting.
Twenty? In a lot of cases, you don't have to go to 20 to make multiclassing hurt. Sometimes, level two is enough.
We are trying to keep new players from coming in and powergaming; lots of people are playing WoW and DDO, and are used to combat, but my campaign involves 50/50 combat and rpg.
The best thing to support RP over PG is to concern LESS with the rules. If you introduce additional rules, the powergamers will get big eyes because the more complex the rules get, the more niches the PGs will find.
|
|
Well, after my players and I debated, and considering everyone's input here, we agree that further rules just aren't necessary in rolling up new characters. We will just stick with the core rules suggestion. I think I will go with points purchase, though, rather than dice rolling. I was afraid new players would think these rules are dumb (as it appears that most think this) and that it may further limit even more characters picking to be a demi-human.
Thanks for the input!