"Advanced Race Guide" Wish List


Product Discussion

201 to 250 of 548 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Azure_Zero wrote:
Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:


Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
I was very much in favor of the progression as they level. First glide, then limited flight, them full flight; with maneuverability and speed progressing some what as well.So by the time you get full flight, it isn't all that much a deal because sorcerers have been able to do it for two or three levels already. Personally I wouldn't mind waiting till 12th to get the racial ability to fly unlimited duration baring endurance.
Azure_Zero wrote:
I agree that flight should be a progressed power.
Starting with a simple bonus to jump might not be a bad idea.

I remember the feat well, not perfect, The first dragon wings feat gave:

+10 racial bonus on jumps,
a glide speed of 30ft, average maneuverability
and some thing else

the second one "improved dragon wings" gave:
at 6HD -> limited flying
at 12 HD -> unlimited flying

Some thought that for a racial power that could be replaced by a spell it was too powerful. So for the PF version maybe a simple bonus to jump would be different idea.


Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
Azure_Zero wrote:
Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:


Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
I was very much in favor of the progression as they level. First glide, then limited flight, them full flight; with maneuverability and speed progressing some what as well.So by the time you get full flight, it isn't all that much a deal because sorcerers have been able to do it for two or three levels already. Personally I wouldn't mind waiting till 12th to get the racial ability to fly unlimited duration baring endurance.
Azure_Zero wrote:
I agree that flight should be a progressed power.
Starting with a simple bonus to jump might not be a bad idea.

I remember the feat well, not perfect, The first dragon wings feat gave:

+10 racial bonus on jumps,
a glide speed of 30ft, average maneuverability
and some thing else

the second one "improved dragon wings" gave:
at 6HD -> limited flying
at 12 HD -> unlimited flying

Some thought that for a racial power that could be replaced by a spell it was too powerful. So for the PF version maybe a simple bonus to jump would be different idea.

Because it was a glide speed, it was useful, but you ALWAYS had to drop 5 feet per move using it, and you HAD to move minimum 20ft when using glide. so glide speed was not that useful.

Improved Dragon Wings required 6 Hit Dice to take, so no early flying.

The Exchange

Doppleganger: It would as a race be allowed to select another Race as it's 'prefered Race' which would allow it to have such accuracy as to be able to gain the stat bonuses of that 'prefered race' when passing itself off as a member of that race.

So a Doppleganger with Halfling as prefered Race would gain the bonuses (and penalties) of the Halfling when in that form.


yellowdingo wrote:

Doppleganger: It would as a race be allowed to select another Race as it's 'prefered Race' which would allow it to have such accuracy as to be able to gain the stat bonuses of that 'prefered race' when passing itself off as a member of that race.

So a Doppleganger with Halfling as prefered Race would gain the bonuses (and penalties) of the Halfling when in that form.

I can see problems and abuse with this mechanic


I have not read trough the first 200 posts, but these are my wishes nevertheless.

I would want to see rules how to convert monsters to PC:s in detail. I know it is not something designers are planning for Golarion and Bestiary 1 has some base guidelines.

For example:
-I had chance to play certain genie during LoF AP for few sessions and it would have helped to have rules in better detail. Character felt bit overpowered when matching the monstrous PC CR to standard race character CR:s.

Also additional info about templates could be helpful.

Lantern Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

[edit - formatting]
I, personally, do *not* want to see any new races. The gimmicky-race-bloat that 3.5 had towards the end really got on my nerves.
*Alternate racial traits
*New racial feats
*Specifics for height/weight/age for the various ethnics groups already presented
*More favored class flavor [racial substitution levels, I'm looking at you!]
*Racial technology [weapons, armor, magic items, spells]
*Maybe some racial Prestige Classes

Those are the sort of things I'd like to see in Ultimate Races. I don't need more plant people, or cat people, or dog people, or nine-tailed-fox people, or whatever sort of anthropomorphic critter some small fan group wants. Those can be developed by the players and GMs for their specific game; Golarion doesn't need them added to the general census data. Heck, rules like those presented in the old Savage Species book would be great for folks wanting to make their own unique eldritch races, and would be worth a single chapter in the book.

That's my little rant, for what it may be worth.

Scarab Sages

I'm excited for any Mermaid related info, as well as more Elf stuff.


Stockvillain wrote:

[edit - formatting]

I, personally, do *not* want to see any new races. The gimmicky-race-bloat that 3.5 had towards the end really got on my nerves.
*Alternate racial traits
*New racial feats
*Specifics for height/weight/age for the various ethnics groups already presented
*More favored class flavor [racial substitution levels, I'm looking at you!]
*Racial technology [weapons, armor, magic items, spells]
*Maybe some racial Prestige Classes

Those are the sort of things I'd like to see in Ultimate Races. I don't need more plant people, or cat people, or dog people, or nine-tailed-fox people, or whatever sort of anthropomorphic critter some small fan group wants. Those can be developed by the players and GMs for their specific game; Golarion doesn't need them added to the general census data. Heck, rules like those presented in the old Savage Species book would be great for folks wanting to make their own unique eldritch races, and would be worth a single chapter in the book.

That's my little rant, for what it may be worth.

Didn't Savage Species consist entirely of random furry races?


Stockvillain wrote:

[edit - formatting]

I, personally, do *not* want to see any new races. The gimmicky-race-bloat that 3.5 had towards the end really got on my nerves.
*Alternate racial traits
*New racial feats
*Specifics for height/weight/age for the various ethnics groups already presented
*More favored class flavor [racial substitution levels, I'm looking at you!]
*Racial technology [weapons, armor, magic items, spells]
*Maybe some racial Prestige Classes

Those are the sort of things I'd like to see in Ultimate Races. I don't need more plant people, or cat people, or dog people, or nine-tailed-fox people, or whatever sort of anthropomorphic critter some small fan group wants. Those can be developed by the players and GMs for their specific game; Golarion doesn't need them added to the general census data. Heck, rules like those presented in the old Savage Species book would be great for folks wanting to make their own unique eldritch races, and would be worth a single chapter in the book.

That's my little rant, for what it may be worth.

Most of this is covered in the first part of the first page of posts

Dark Archive

Cartigan wrote:


Didn't Savage Species consist entirely of random furry races?

Actually, the anthro races were just a few pages, mostly a large table with all the animals of the Monster Manual.

Anthropomorphic baleen whales, anthropomorphic bats, ...

The horror! The horror!


I would prefer my cat race to be more humanan in apperance but with cat like ears and tail and have some stripes/spots on there skin. But if they have to have fur then make it very fine/short. Cat like eyes would be cool but not a cat's nose/muzzle.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Sorry, hadn't read the first page at the time of posting, but the sentiment holds true. Niche-race-bloat is really the only thing I'm against. I've got high hopes for a supplement that expands on all the peoples mentioned so far in Golarion-lore, and eagerly await further developments.


i want to bring back vanarans form oriental adventures!


Stockvillain wrote:

[edit - formatting]

I, personally, do *not* want to see any new races. The gimmicky-race-bloat that 3.5 had towards the end really got on my nerves.
*Alternate racial traits
*New racial feats
*Specifics for height/weight/age for the various ethnics groups already presented
*More favored class flavor [racial substitution levels, I'm looking at you!]
*Racial technology [weapons, armor, magic items, spells]
*Maybe some racial Prestige Classes

Those are the sort of things I'd like to see in Ultimate Races. I don't need more plant people, or cat people, or dog people, or nine-tailed-fox people, or whatever sort of anthropomorphic critter some small fan group wants. Those can be developed by the players and GMs for their specific game; Golarion doesn't need them added to the general census data. Heck, rules like those presented in the old Savage Species book would be great for folks wanting to make their own unique eldritch races, and would be worth a single chapter in the book.

That's my little rant, for what it may be worth.

I agree with you on some parts and disagree with you on others. Although I don't play in the campaign setting, I personally think that Golarion will be stronger if as much of the Core Material as possible is usable in every PFS game. The only thing that currently isn't legal that is jumping into my head at the moment is the Words of Power spellcasting system, which isn't a big deal, as its only an alternate system to something that is very solidly established in game.

What Wizards of the Coast did wrong, in my opinion, is make tons of new races in an attempt to cater to as many people as possible, and then try to incorporate each and every one of them into their campaign settings. I think what Paizo is doing is perfect; they know which races go where in their world, and those races are printed accordingly (for example, in Dragon Gazetteer, the "core races" are different for that continent, so there are new core races). In order to help all of us GMs who want something different, Paizo is offering a Race Building Guide in the book. That way, Paizo can say "Races build with the Race Engineering System are not legal for Pathfinder Society Play." They can continue to expand on that system in subsequent books if they choose to, but no matter what races can be built their, they are not going to be legal in PFS, and therefore will not affect Golarion Lore or Cannon. It's a brilliant plan, really.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Complete rules for the Aquatic Elf. This has been missing since the first Bestiary. We've got Gillmen which is great but I'd really like to see the Aquatic Elf.

So if there's room in the book please don't leave the Aquatic Elf out this time.


Lobolusk wrote:
i want to bring back vanarans form oriental adventures!

No reason they can't. Vanaras appear mainly in the Ramayana (under that name-- which means "forest people," more or less) and they would just need some different mechanics. They are firmly a part of RW folklore, more so than Orcs and Gnomes, actually.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Brinebeast wrote:

Complete rules for the Aquatic Elf. This has been missing since the first Bestiary. We've got Gillmen which is great but I'd really like to see the Aquatic Elf.

So if there's room in the book please don't leave the Aquatic Elf out this time.

By that same token, do we really need an Elf for Every Day Of The Week? I'm inclined to say "No," but of course for your game that would be a different case.

How about, instead, an option for "Aquatic Races" - IE - "The following traits are common to all aquatic races" and then a laundry list?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

All I'd really like to see are guidelines on creating my own races with some really good, fleshed-out examples.


Cartigan wrote:
Didn't Savage Species consist entirely of random furry races?

Who told you that? Savage Species was mostly templates, p-classes, and "monster classes."

Lobolusk wrote:
i want to bring back vanarans form oriental adventures!

Vanaras seem to be confirmed for Bestiary 3. There's a mention of the Advanced Race Guide including new races from that source. (Hopefully, vanaras will be a 0-HD/class-defined race with a climb speed...)

Pale wrote:
All I'd really like to see are guidelines on creating my own races with some really good, fleshed-out examples.

Supposedly, there will be a chapter on just that.


jemstone wrote:
Brinebeast wrote:

Complete rules for the Aquatic Elf. This has been missing since the first Bestiary. We've got Gillmen which is great but I'd really like to see the Aquatic Elf.

So if there's room in the book please don't leave the Aquatic Elf out this time.

By that same token, do we really need an Elf for Every Day Of The Week? I'm inclined to say "No," but of course for your game that would be a different case.

How about, instead, an option for "Aquatic Races" - IE - "The following traits are common to all aquatic races" and then a laundry list?

I agree to keeping the number of sub races for each race to a minimum of say 4, and not have like 20 of them.

Pale wrote:


All I'd really like to see are guidelines on creating my own races with some really good, fleshed-out examples.

I also agree to that, as I would like to see not only the process, but the end result of the process to know if I got it right.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The current sub race count of zero is about right as far as I'm concerned. The whole subrace bloat in 3.5 was gross with players taking whatever subrace best suited their class. Moon elves were always clerics, etc. Bleh.

This sort of thing belongs in the campaign setting, where it can be put into context.


Subraces can be done with traits and/or optional racial abilities like the APG did.

I would be fine if Vanaras were as strong as Nagas and Garudas instead of as playable race.

I would like to see a make your own race system of some kind wether it is a slot based, point based, or other.

I do not think there is race bloat even with this book since it always up to the DM what the players can use.

Dark Archive

Stockvillain wrote:
Sorry, hadn't read the first page at the time of posting, but the sentiment holds true. Niche-race-bloat is really the only thing I'm against. I've got high hopes for a supplement that expands on all the peoples mentioned so far in Golarion-lore, and eagerly await further developments.

This product will not be Golarion-oriented, but the part of Crunch line. That's why I think that it is more than appropriate venue for introducing races such as Catfolk or whatever. Golarion has "X of Golarion" line for campaign setting specific races.

Dark Archive

0gre wrote:
The current sub race count of zero is about right as far as I'm concerned. The whole subrace bloat in 3.5 was gross with players taking whatever subrace best suited their class. Moon elves were always clerics, etc. Bleh.

Instead of making entire races into 'the race that makes good wizards' and then developing subraces that are 'the subrace that makes good clerics,' I'd prefer if the base races were a little more flexible.

If Gnomes, for instance, had -2 Str, +2 Con and their choice of either +2 Int, +2 Wis or +2 Cha, that would allow a gnomes to follow the tinker / illusionist concept from Dragonlance / 1st and 2nd editions, the +2 Cha could suit the FC: Bard Gnomes of 3.5, while the gnomes who choose the +2 Wis could be more like the forest gnomes / fey gnomes of earlier editions / Golarion. Instead of three subraces, any gnome PC could choose which of those three mental stat bonuses suit their goals, and since all three of those mental stat bonuses already fit preconceived notions of 'gnome' (from various editions), it would be a 'fit the mechanics to the flavor' concept, and not just shameless choosing of wood gnome, deep gnome, rock gnome, tinker gnome, whisper gnome, etc. subrace to get the best mechanical benefit for your class choice.

Liberty's Edge

Here the thing though you can allow or disallow whatever subraces one sees fit. I want to see more options that I can and pcik and choose to allow not less. Players taking the best race for the class will always happen. No matter how it is implemented.

Shadow Lodge

memorax wrote:
Here the thing though you can allow or disallow whatever subraces one sees fit. I want to see more options that I can and pcik and choose to allow not less. Players taking the best race for the class will always happen. No matter how it is implemented.

It's actually quite a bit easier for a GM to add options to a game world than it is to deny existing ones. Particularly if Paizo adds guide-lines for building new races as has been suggested. Most likely step one of their race building guide is "Start with an existing race...".

Shadow Lodge

Set wrote:
0gre wrote:
The current sub race count of zero is about right as far as I'm concerned. The whole subrace bloat in 3.5 was gross with players taking whatever subrace best suited their class. Moon elves were always clerics, etc. Bleh.

Instead of making entire races into 'the race that makes good wizards' and then developing subraces that are 'the subrace that makes good clerics,' I'd prefer if the base races were a little more flexible.

If Gnomes, for instance, had -2 Str, +2 Con and their choice of either +2 Int, +2 Wis or +2 Cha, that would allow a gnomes to follow the tinker / illusionist concept from Dragonlance / 1st and 2nd editions, the +2 Cha could suit the FC: Bard Gnomes of 3.5, while the gnomes who choose the +2 Wis could be more like the forest gnomes / fey gnomes of earlier editions / Golarion. Instead of three subraces, any gnome PC could choose which of those three mental stat bonuses suit their goals, and since all three of those mental stat bonuses already fit preconceived notions of 'gnome' (from various editions), it would be a 'fit the mechanics to the flavor' concept, and not just shameless choosing of wood gnome, deep gnome, rock gnome, tinker gnome, whisper gnome, etc. subrace to get the best mechanical benefit for your class choice.

I don't care for this a lot but it would bother me far less than having half a dozen alternate "sub races" that wind up accomplishing the same thing. At least it's honest power creep.


0gre wrote:


I don't care for this a lot but it would bother me far less than having half a dozen alternate "sub races" that wind up accomplishing the same thing. At least it's honest power creep.

Agreed - And to go one step further Set, and to play Devil's Advocate, if you're going to encourage such variety in the Non-Human PC races, why not encourage a change to Humans that gives them +2 in a second stat - thus bringing them up to the same number of positive bonus points that every other PC race gets.

Oh, sure, lots of people will say "But Humans get an Extra Feat and Skill Point and Cool Class Bonuses! That balances the lack of the extra +2 out! And they don't suffer a penalty!" And sure, all of that is factually true - but frankly with the way the system you suggest works, there will be even less reason for people to play Humans any more. Sure, it's a book called "Ultimate Race Guide" - and that in and of itself presents a de-facto "Use this book for all your Non-Human Needs" sort of visage - but the fact is that we've already got a bias in the various PC races toward certain classes. Halflings make fantastic rogues. Elves make great Wizards. Dwarves make the best Clerics. And so on and so on - why? Because they get that second bonus to an attribute that is specifically targeted at a particular class. The system you propose would increase flexibility, sure, but it would also increase the disparity between Human and Non-Human in game populations. I can say this with some certainty because I've seen it (exactly as you describe it) in more than one game. It does, literally, lead to the (Demi-Human Sub-Race) For Every Day Of The Week syndrome, and ends up marginalizing the number of Human PC's (and NPC's!) in games.

I've played in literally hundreds of D&D games since I started playing in 1981, across four editions, and in all but two of them (not counting my own), Humans - who should be the "most populous, most adaptable" race of the game world - always end up increasingly marginalized and played less and less as more and more sub-races enter the scene.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea for a specific type of game world or a specific type of game (The "All Gnome Rogue Squad" for instance), but as a standardized rule, I'd object to it heavily.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I think Set's idea is a good idea for a couple of traits.

Clever Gnome: You get a +2 bonus to your Intelligence score instead of your Charisma score.

First World Gnome: You get a +2 bonus to your Wisdom score instead of your Charisma score.

But I also agree that humans lack a certain oomph. All they get is an extra feat and extra skill rank. Just 2 race features. I wish the designers gave them a little something extra. Even a 3rd trait would be a nice little bit of extra customization....and maybe the option to get a 2nd bonus feat by trading in 2 traits? Some of the favored class options from the APG are pretty good, but other races get neat options too. Heck, some races get more bonus feats than humans do, like Weapon Familiarity, etc.

Maybe a Human Adaptability racial feature? It lets you spend a Hero Point and switch out your bonus feat for a different bonus feat, or switch out your bonus racial skill ranks for different skill ranks. Spellcasters could use this to change a known or prepared spell.

But then you have to play with Hero Points, which not all groups do.

Hmmmmm.....


SmiloDan wrote:

I think Set's idea is a good idea for a couple of traits.

Clever Gnome: You get a +2 bonus to your Intelligence score instead of your Charisma score.

First World Gnome: You get a +2 bonus to your Wisdom score instead of your Charisma score.

But I also agree that humans lack a certain oomph. All they get is an extra feat and extra skill rank. Just 2 race features. I wish the designers gave them a little something extra. Even a 3rd trait would be a nice little bit of extra customization....and maybe the option to get a 2nd bonus feat by trading in 2 traits? Some of the favored class options from the APG are pretty good, but other races get neat options too. Heck, some races get more bonus feats than humans do, like Weapon Familiarity, etc.

Maybe a Human Adaptability racial feature? It lets you spend a Hero Point and switch out your bonus feat for a different bonus feat, or switch out your bonus racial skill ranks for different skill ranks. Spellcasters could use this to change a known or prepared spell.

But then you have to play with Hero Points, which not all groups do.

Hmmmmm.....

We kept the 'humans get a free weapon proficiency' from the playtest. We also allow the +2 to one stat to be split into +1 to any two stats.

Dark Archive

SmiloDan wrote:

I think Set's idea is a good idea for a couple of traits.

Clever Gnome: You get a +2 bonus to your Intelligence score instead of your Charisma score.

First World Gnome: You get a +2 bonus to your Wisdom score instead of your Charisma score.

But I also agree that humans lack a certain oomph. All they get is an extra feat and extra skill rank. Just 2 race features. I wish the designers gave them a little something extra. Even a 3rd trait would be a nice little bit of extra customization....and maybe the option to get a 2nd bonus feat by trading in 2 traits? Some of the favored class options from the APG are pretty good, but other races get neat options too. Heck, some races get more bonus feats than humans do, like Weapon Familiarity, etc.

Maybe a Human Adaptability racial feature? It lets you spend a Hero Point and switch out your bonus feat for a different bonus feat, or switch out your bonus racial skill ranks for different skill ranks. Spellcasters could use this to change a known or prepared spell.

But then you have to play with Hero Points, which not all groups do.

Hmmmmm.....

In my RL game, I have powered up Humans because no one wanted to play them otherwise. I'm using +2 to any two stats, among other things.

Shadow Lodge

Jason Beardsley wrote:
I'd like to see racial archetypes for classes they're most apt to take levels in.

I'd probably prefer new favored class options for all the races. I'd enjoy seeing what Goblin Wizards and Alchemists get, considering "writing steals the words from your head".

Golden-Esque wrote:
---REAL rules for playing as younger characters. You're cutting out about a quarter of a character's life by not including those rules, after all :-P.

+1


SmiloDan wrote:

I think Set's idea is a good idea for a couple of traits.

Clever Gnome: You get a +2 bonus to your Intelligence score instead of your Charisma score.

First World Gnome: You get a +2 bonus to your Wisdom score instead of your Charisma score.

But I also agree that humans lack a certain oomph. All they get is an extra feat and extra skill rank. Just 2 race features. I wish the designers gave them a little something extra. Even a 3rd trait would be a nice little bit of extra customization....and maybe the option to get a 2nd bonus feat by trading in 2 traits? Some of the favored class options from the APG are pretty good, but other races get neat options too. Heck, some races get more bonus feats than humans do, like Weapon Familiarity, etc.

Maybe a Human Adaptability racial feature? It lets you spend a Hero Point and switch out your bonus feat for a different bonus feat, or switch out your bonus racial skill ranks for different skill ranks. Spellcasters could use this to change a known or prepared spell.

But then you have to play with Hero Points, which not all groups do.

Hmmmmm.....

Why should Humans have to "Trade anything in" to be improved to the point that they are always available as a favorable and attractive Race to play? They are the only Core Race that doesn't get a laundry list of bonuses, and frankly, from a game mechanic stand point (and let's face it, since the dawn of 3E, racial choices have been absolutely influenced by mechanics - even moreso than 1 and 2E, with their racial/class restrictions) Half Elves are a better choice to play than Humans - they get a no-penalty +2 to an ability score, they are immune to magic sleep, get a list of bonuses and low light vision. Dwarves are even better suited due to their stability and racial abilities. Face facts - everyone makes their class/race choices based entirely on mechanics over roleplay potential. We all argue that we don't, but let's be honest, here - if your party needs a Cleric, you're more likely to take a Half Elf or a Dwarf than you are a Human. Why? +2 WIS (and +2 CON if you're a Dwarf), baby. Sure, a Human can toss that +2 in to WIS, but short term gains absolutely determine the long term results of any campaign - and the laundry lists that the non-humans get are always going to be more appealing. One extra Feat is great at low levels, but as the game progresses, the second +2 that every other race gets (save Half Elves/Orcs) will have more lasting effects than the Feat. Skill points? With the new rules, one extra point is one additional Class Skill at full bonus, sure, but again, not as much of a game changer as being immune to magical sleep, or the ability to fight an additional round as though disabled when reduced to 0 HP, or +2 to several "This Race Makes The Best (Classname)" related skills (Halflings and Rogues, anyone?).

Why should Humans have to trade things in? Why not bring them up to the same level as all the other races instead of making them once again pay for being "the most adaptable, populous" of the races?

Don't want to give them another +2 to ability? Sure, fine. I can see that giving them a +2 without a commensurate -2 to balance it out (Bringing them to a net 0 on the second score, like the other races) might have some abuses. So how about something like:

+2 to one Ability Score
+1 Skill Point at 1st Level and every Level after that
+1 Feat at 1st Level
+2 Racial Bonus to 2 Class Skill Checks (Chosen at 1st Level)
+1 Racial Bonus to one of the following: One Saving Throw, Initiative, Armor Class

Neither of those last two are game breaking - Every other race gets Skill bonuses and Save bonuses. Most of them get some kind of Combat/Armor bonus.

Suddenly Humans are attractive again - they once again take up their role of adaptable, responsive, and more to the point - customizable.

Sure, I could easily be seen as part of the Human Equalization Front (an accusation I cannot deny, 'cause let's face it, Humans get no love), but really, are these ideas all that much different from those put forward by Set and others? I don't think so. They're not unreasonable, overall.

(Not calling you out at all, Set, just offering up counterpoints! :D )

-Edit-

I see Nightflier already hit on one of my points. Woo!


I would increase all the core races so people can use tiefling, aasimar, etc. without it being "unbalanced".

Humans, half elves, half orcs would gain a +2 to one physical stat and a +2 to one mental stat.

Elves +4dex +2int -2con

Dwarves +4con +2wis -2cha

Gnomes +2dex +2con +2cha -2str

Halflings +4dex +2cha -2str


Dragon78 wrote:

I would increase all the core races so people can use tiefling, aasimar, etc. without it being "unbalanced".

Humans, half elves, half orcs would gain a +2 to one physical stat and a +2 to one mental stat.

Elves +4dex +2int -2con

Dwarves +4con +2wis -2cha

Gnomes +2dex +2con +2cha -2str

Halflings +4dex +2cha -2str

Note the dwarf is tilted too much to the physical side of the stat blocks, therefore will be more likely used in a combat heavy classes.

(4 CON = +4 Physical Balance, +2 WIS, -2CHA = 0 Mental Balance)


jemstone wrote:
Why should Humans have to trade things in? Why not bring them up to the same level as all the other races instead of making them once again pay for being "the most adaptable, populous" of the races?

I will certainly grant (Jemstone) that humans as written do not have terribly exciting abilities. However, I disagree strongly that they're not at the "same level as all the other races". Pathfinder looks reasonably balanced to me.

jemstone wrote:
I've played in literally hundreds of D&D games since I started playing in 1981, across four editions, and in all but two of them (not counting my own), Humans - who should be the "most populous, most adaptable" race of the game world - always end up increasingly marginalized and played less and less as more and more sub-races enter the scene.

I think this is the crux of the matter. Humans are supposed to be the default game world's dominant species. On the other hand, if humans were one of seven perfectly balanced racial choices, you could expect 1/7th of characters to be human (if it's really true that players strictly focus on mechanics). So, if you want most of the characters in a typical party to be human, you need to not merely make humans equal but to give them a mechanical advantage.

On the other hand I know I, personally, won't usually play a generic fantasy human unless you blatantly gimp the non-humans so that they're obviously mechanically inferior. (Or, alternatively, the GM could come up with a campaign concept in which human characters are not just generic but actually have interesting backgrounds.)

I'd like to have more flexibility in the stat bonuses of elves (and gnomes and "halflings") so that I can play my conception of an elf. Yes, that would mean that I'm less likely to play a generic fantasy human, and extended over the rest of the party it's likely to mean most of the party won't be human characters. If the price of making the game more fun for the players is that most of a typical party won't be human characters, I think that's a good bargain.


Thorri strikes to the heart of my argument. Rather well actually. I love the people on these boards. You folks rule. :)

Thorri Grimbeard wrote:


I will certainly grant (Jemstone) that humans as written do not have terribly exciting abilities. However, I disagree strongly that they're not at the "same level as all the other races". Pathfinder looks reasonably balanced to me.

Reasonably, yes. Enough to satisfy the requirements you mention below? I'm not so sure.

The +1 Skill Point for Humans is good, yes. It means you get more Class Skills and you can continue to keep them all at Max.

However, I contend that it is NOT equivalent to the +2 Racial Bonus most other Races get.

To flog the Halfling Rogue to death, let's compare him at 1st Level to a Human Rogue, on just a couple of points. We'll assume that they both have a 16 Dex, and have both purchased Acrobatics, Perception, and Climb.

At 1st Level, a 16 Dex Human with 1 point in each of those Skills will have:

1 (Rank) + 3 (Class) + 3 (DEX) = 7 in each of those Skills.

Comparatively, the Halfling will have a 9 in each of them. For the duration of their careers, the Halfling will always be better than the Human.

The same goes for Wizards (Elves), anything relating to Crafting (Gnomes), and so on and so forth.

Is Pathfinder more balanced in these regards than previous editions of 3.X? Absolutely. But as can be demonstrated, and as you suggest later, there is no firmly entrenched mechanical reason to pick a Human over the other races in any given game.

In 1E and 2E, you had Race/Class restrictions, Level Caps (thankfully gotten rid of in 2E), and other reasons not to play Demihumans. In 3E, it's almost like they overcompensated and swung too hard back the other way - going so far as to now need to find ways of convincing people to play Humans.

Which is kind of ironic, really.

Thorri Grimbeard wrote:


I think this is the crux of the matter. Humans are supposed to be the default game world's dominant species. On the other hand, if humans were one of seven perfectly balanced racial choices, you could expect 1/7th of characters to be human (if it's really true that players strictly focus on mechanics). So, if you want most of the characters in a typical party to be human, you need to not merely make humans equal but to give them a mechanical advantage.

On the other hand I know I, personally, won't usually play a generic fantasy human unless you blatantly gimp the non-humans so that they're obviously mechanically inferior. (Or, alternatively, the GM could come up with a campaign concept in which human characters are not just generic but actually have interesting backgrounds.)

I'd like to have more flexibility in the stat bonuses of elves (and gnomes and "halflings") so that I can play my conception of an elf. Yes, that would mean that I'm less likely to play a generic fantasy human, and extended over the rest of the party it's likely to mean most of the party won't be human characters. If the price of making the game more fun for the players is that most of a typical party won't be human...

I suppose the question I'd have about your wanting to play your conception of an Elf would be whether or not it would be the same conception as your GM would have - but I suspect that there'd be discussion going on, so that all works out. :)

For my part, I generally enforce Game-World restrictions, rather than any sort of arbitrary gateway to playing a Demihuman. For example, in my long-running Loris campaign, the Haran and Ulehu races (why, no, I don't have the typical "Base 7"...) are not automatically assumed to be literate. Even in the Great Nation in which the games take place, where the Church mandates 3 days a week, 6 hours a day, of classroom education for all children ages 5 to 16, the Haran and Ulehu are not assumed to be literate. They're shadow people, they exist under Humanity's foot. While the Law and the Church say that they are Citizens and Blessed Under The Sight of the Gods, they simply aren't afforded the same consideration and opportunity as any Human would be. Can they spend a Feat to get literacy? Sure! But it's a definite drawback to playing the character. "What do you mean, I can't read? I'm a Rogue!" "I mean you can't read, Bob. You can pick pockets with the best of them, but it's all chicken scratch to you! That's why all the tavern signs also have pictures on them."

There will always be a ton of ways to make Humans more appealing in any game world worth its salt. But mechanically, there are very, very few things making them any players first choice. I just wish there was an elegant and easily accepted way of fixing that.

Liberty's Edge

You know what makes human's the first tier choice?

Liberal use of mobs of peasants with pitchforks and torches.

Human dominated world + rampant racism = more human PCs.


Gailbraithe wrote:
Human dominated world + rampant racism = more human PCs.

Except that's not a solution if you want a human-dominated world without rampant racism.

Or indeed, if I'm reading some of these posts right, any sort of solution against people who pick things based on their mechanical effect rather than RP effect.

Of course it would be nice for once to go the other way and base the mechanics on the decline of humans in this RP sense and give them a single hat like everyone else.


SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
Gailbraithe wrote:
Human dominated world + rampant racism = more human PCs.
Except that's not a solution if you want a human-dominated world without rampant racism.

One of my points exactly. While the game world I frequently cite for my games does have an intrinsic and institutionalized degree of racism, it's also got a lot of egalitarian and altruistic aspects to it - people don't run around with pitchforks and torches chasing the Little People out of their homes - but the poor folks do end up the butt of "everyone knows" statements ("Everyone knows a lop-ear's only good for runnin' messages and whorin'," for instance), the not-so-infrequent victims of price gouging ("For you, Lady Amandor, ten Crowns. For you, runtie, twelve. Don't like the look o' yer face"), and the like. It's not everywhere, and it's certainly not everyone - but it's there.

This, however, is a roleplay aspect, and while fine for a game world where everyone sits down and agrees upon the various game-related restrictions on non-Humans at the outset, it's not so good for a Generic High Fantasy world like, say, the Forgotten Realms, or Golarion (And while I freely admit that Golarion is not a typical GHFW, it's still a GHFW. A damn good one, mind!)

SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:


Or indeed, if I'm reading some of these posts right, any sort of solution against people who pick things based on their mechanical effect rather than RP effect.

Exactly. To re-quote Thorri:

Thorri Grimbeard wrote:

I think this is the crux of the matter. Humans are supposed to be the default game world's dominant species. On the other hand, if humans were one of seven perfectly balanced racial choices, you could expect 1/7th of characters to be human (if it's really true that players strictly focus on mechanics). So, if you want most of the characters in a typical party to be human, you need to not merely make humans equal but to give them a mechanical advantage.

On the other hand I know I, personally, won't usually play a generic fantasy human unless you blatantly gimp the non-humans so that they're obviously mechanically inferior. (Or, alternatively, the GM could come up with a campaign concept in which human characters are not just generic but actually have interesting backgrounds.)

Emphasis mine, of course.

Thorri hits this on the head here. The very simple fact is that a large number (I hesitate to say "all," or even "most" - but a large number) of players pick their character race based on what is best suited for them to excel at the role they wish to fill within the party. Gameworld restrictions, or even Gameworld considerations, rarely enter into it. Do people make their choices for what race to play based on roleplay reasons? Absolutely!

But not in the same numbers as those who make them based on mechanics. I would go so far as to say that the order of operations for a large number of players these days is:

1 - Pick Role
2 - Pick Race that best fulfills that Role
3 - Develop Roleplay Reasons to be in Party

Is there anything wrong with this?

Absolutely not!

But there is also absolutely a bias toward picking mechanics over roleplay - as anyone reading through the bulk of this thread can easily see based on the sheer amount of discussion about what bonuses people think their own particular favorite Alternate Race.

And until there is a driving, unified and undeniable reason to pick a Human over every other race presented in any game book, mechanics will continue to have tremendous sway and influence over character building decisions.

I don't like it, and I don't rightly know how to fix it (although I think my suggestions above are viable and reasonable). But there it is.

SilvercatMoonPaw wrote:


Of course it would be nice for once to go the other way and base the mechanics on the decline of humans in this RP sense and give them a single hat like everyone else.

That's an interesting thought. I wonder what sort of stories you could come up with in a game world like that. Hmmmm.


I will always vote for more options over fewer, i would rather have more options that i have the ability to chose weather or not i will use them over fewer options anyday.


the idea that humans don't get enough is absurd. The +2 to anything as well as the bonus are both such attractive options that I find myself really missing them whenever I want to try playing a different race.

FUN FACT: Human fighters are the only player race/class combo that can start out with Spring Attack at level 1.

Dodge (HD 1), Mobility (Bonus), Spring Attack (FTR 1)


'Rixx wrote:

the idea that humans don't get enough is absurd. The +2 to anything as well as the bonus are both such attractive options that I find myself really missing them whenever I want to try playing a different race.

FUN FACT: Human fighters are the only player race/class combo that can start out with Spring Attack at level 1.

Dodge (HD 1), Mobility (Bonus), Spring Attack (FTR 1)

However they were the only race to lose a racial trait.

Before you go saying they didn't lose anything, what if all races got:

Low-Light Vision, Adaptability, Elf Blood, Elven Immunities, Keen Senses, Skill Focus, and Multitalented, and a specific race I think we know of gets nothing more.


Spring attack requires a base attack bonus of +4.


'Rixx wrote:

the idea that humans don't get enough is absurd. The +2 to anything as well as the bonus are both such attractive options that I find myself really missing them whenever I want to try playing a different race.

FUN FACT: Human fighters are the only player race/class combo that can start out with Spring Attack at level 1.

Dodge (HD 1), Mobility (Bonus), Spring Attack (FTR 1)

The idea that humans don't get enough is dependant on one's point of view.

Sure other races get more stuff, but hardly adaptable (save for the half-elf bonus feat of skill focus) and those racial bonuses, don't match up to the Skilled part of human at high level play (at 20th level its 20 bonus points, but the racial bonuses will top out at about 8). Yeah the bonus feat is bad in that you only get one feat, but good in that its one feat that you can get earlier or have more flexibility in feat selection later in the game.


jemstone wrote:
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
Of course it would be nice for once to go the other way and base the mechanics on the decline of humans in this RP sense and give them a single hat like everyone else.
That's an interesting thought. I wonder what sort of stories you could come up with in a game world like that. Hmmmm.

Either "nil" because non-humans would just be stand-ins for the human cultures you're not putting humans in the role of, or you'd get a more persistent sense of "they aren't us" because it's a lot harder to argue similarity.

Personally I just suggest it because I'm tired of humans being special: it feels like someone ego-tripping, and I hate ego-trips.


SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
jemstone wrote:
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
Of course it would be nice for once to go the other way and base the mechanics on the decline of humans in this RP sense and give them a single hat like everyone else.
That's an interesting thought. I wonder what sort of stories you could come up with in a game world like that. Hmmmm.

Either "nil" because non-humans would just be stand-ins for the human cultures you're not putting humans in the role of, or you'd get a more persistent sense of "they aren't us" because it's a lot harder to argue similarity.

Personally I just suggest it because I'm tired of humans being special: it feels like someone ego-tripping, and I hate ego-trips.

All races, classes, skills, feats, etc have to be special in the game. If they are not, no one uses them. Humans are neither the best choice or the worst, so I would say they are a unique and balanced race. Not to say some races in specific moments might be better or worse choices than humans though.

Dark Archive

This is what I use for Humans:

Humans gain a +2 bonus on one ability score of the player’s choice. Humans are the most diverse and versatile race of Norgir and demonstrate a wide range of physical and mental strengths and weaknesses.

Medium: As Medium creatures, humans have no special bonuses or penalties due to their size.

Human base land speed is 30 feet.

2 extra feats at 1st level. Humans are unrivaled in their ability to learn specialized tasks, and they feature many different talents.

8 extra skill points at 1st level and 2 extra skill points at each additional level. Humans are adaptive and uniquely competent in their chosen fields.

Weapon familiarity: Humans are not fully disassociated from the cultures of their forefathers. Humans may choose a single exotic weapon associated with his ancestor. He may treat that weapon as a martial weapon, rather than an exotic weapon.

Humans begin with 4 bonus ranks in one Craft or Profession skill of the player’s choice.

Racial Traits: In addition to the standard first level character traits, Humans may choose two additional traits from Human Racial Traits list.


nightflier wrote:

This is what I use for Humans:

Mechanically, I would never play any other race than human.

Even from a roleplay stand point, I would have to force myself to play a different race in your games.

Anything that does that is OP, in my opinion.


Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:
Humans are neither the best choice or the worst, so I would say they are a unique and balanced race.

Humans have no hat: they aren't assigned a monoculture and racial traits to go along with it. Therefore they are more special than all the other races because they can potentially be all the other races, or at least have a very similar culture making the races rather redundant.

201 to 250 of 548 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / "Advanced Race Guide" Wish List All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.