What's the chance that we'll see a second playtest document that is built upon the altered premises, if you do take that road?All we really need to do is alter some "offending" point costs, and not treat all the core races as 10 points, If the dwarf comes out as 11 (but is still considered a standard race) and the halfling comes out as 7, then the basics of the system will not necessarily change, only a few of the ability points.
If we do a second playtest, the major change you will see is some point tweaking.
IF!?
Mate, isn't that round 1? Shouldn't we get round 2 and 3?
We love those playtests, we help you out, we sort things out, we...we...we NEED IT! GIVE IT TO US!
I think it is a good idea.Does anybody who doesn't work for Paizo think all core races being 10 is a good idea?
(not me, just to make it clear)
For clarification, do you mean:
1. It is a good idea to assume they are all equal and price abilities accordingly.
Or
2. It is a good idea to change them to make them all equal.
I was asking 1.
What's the chance that we'll see a second playtest document that is built upon the altered premises, if you do take that road?All we really need to do is alter some "offending" point costs, and not treat all the core races as 10 points, If the dwarf comes out as 11 (but is still considered a standard race) and the halfling comes out as 7, then the basics of the system will not necessarily change, only a few of the ability points.
If we do a second playtest, the major change you will see is some point tweaking.
IF!?
Mate, isn't that round 1? Shouldn't we get round 2 and 3?
We love those playtests, we help you out, we sort things out, we...we...we NEED IT! GIVE IT TO US!
LOL!
*Points to Xum*
"What he said."
It would be nice to see how the final values all interrate before it goes, but still, this is only what? A few days into the playtest? Surely a round 2 will be forthcoming.
It would be nice to see how the final values all interrate before it goes, but still, this is only what? A few days into the playtest? Surely a round 2 will be forthcoming.
I think a reversal of one of the core premises of the system is pretty good results for day 2 of testing! :D
Could you add to your list of change considerations unlinking racial abilities? I think it makes for a much more fun and varied toolbox if you don't have to be type-dwarf to pick up Hardy, for example.
That was on our list of things to look at from the beginning. We put some requirements in there just to see how they would fly. Some of them will go away. Some of them probably will not, or will get a rehash in the final version.
While some of you seem against this, one of the things we want this system to do is to create different versions of existing races. We want people to make snow elves, half-dwarves, and goblins from Akiton and so on. Because of that some subtype requirements will probably stay, allowing specific iconic features to stay within their race. But we will have robust options for creating entirely new race abilities also.
I will point out that right now Hardy is not dwarf only, it just requires a +2 bonus to Constitution, which is a little different than what it seems some people are assuming about that particular and problematic racial ability.
What's the chance that we'll see a second playtest document that is built upon the altered premises, if you do take that road?All we really need to do is alter some "offending" point costs, and not treat all the core races as 10 points, If the dwarf comes out as 11 (but is still considered a standard race) and the halfling comes out as 7, then the basics of the system will not necessarily change, only a few of the ability points.
If we do a second playtest, the major change you will see is some point tweaking.
IF!?
Mate, isn't that round 1? Shouldn't we get round 2 and 3?
We love those playtests, we help you out, we sort things out, we...we...we NEED IT! GIVE IT TO US!LOL!
*Points to Xum*
"What he said."
It would be nice to see how the final values all interrate before it goes, but still, this is only what? A few days into the playtest? Surely a round 2 will be forthcoming.
That's Paizo speak. Like a while back when James Jacobs made a comment about IF they did a Bestiary 3...
Even if something is a sure bet, if for some reason it doesn't come to pass, they don't want everybody saying "but you said!".
If the costs are left like they are, every new player race will be "hardy", because it's just too good to pass up for 1 RP.Not every race. Only every race with a +2 bonus in Con, at least by the current draft.
And CON is the only stat, that while everybody likes getting it`s benefits, you can`t really min-max ANY character around solely that stat. James Jacobs felt similarly when a similar topic came up in another thread: More than +2 to a stat seems to fall outside the +0 LA player race guidelines, BUT CON is probably the only stat that you COULD pull of a +4 bonus to while still able to call the result a +0 LA player race. I don`t know if that will be integrated into this system or not...
Choosing a race that puts a +2 into CON means not putting a +2 into something else. For melee types, +2 STR and CON is a great combination... but if there`s a rule saying only one + into physical stats and one + into mental, with the - being `free` to go anywhere, you really don`t run into problems like that.
IDEA: besides a `global` point cost, have a `swing point` cost. abilities/benefits which COULD be overwhelming together have `swing points`. the ability has it`s normal point cost, but if the total `swing points` go over a threshold, the build becomes illegal... OR there is a `swing penalty` adding more regular points (if you have too many abilities that just a bit better than their point cost). possibly tied into a system that recognizes synergies between abilities, and if your swing points WITHIN THAT GROUP goes over the threshold, it becomes illegal/suffers extra point penalty...????
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
While some of you seem against this, one of the things we want this system to do is to create different versions of existing races. We want people to make snow elves, half-dwarves, and goblins from Akiton and so on. Because of that some subtype requirements will probably stay, allowing specific iconic features to stay within their race. But we will have robust options for creating entirely new race abilities also.
I'm sorry, but I am having a difficult time understanding this. Nobody is against using the system to create different versions of existing races. We just don't see how requiring only elves get "Elven Magic" helps that. I can decide to include that feature in a new Snow Elf race, or decide to leave it out. The prerequisite is irrelevant to making sub-races. All it does it is prohibit me from making "Arcane Dwarves" with the same ability, even if it is a perfect fit for them. Yes, I can choose to ignore the prerequisite. But if everyone does, what is the point of using a line of text on it in the first place?
This is why I, and others, would love to see you "file off the serial numbers" and go for a fully modular system. Instead of "Elven Immunities," have an "immunity to sleep" ability and a "+2 vs. School" ability. You can recreate the Elven Immunities ability, or make your own "Slugfolk Immunities" from the same base. It is more robust and versatile, and in no way impacts the ability to create all the Snow, Moon, or Pudding Elves of your dreams.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry, but I am having a difficult time understanding this. Nobody is against using the system to create different versions of existing races. We just don't see how requiring only elves get "Elven Magic" helps that. I can decide to include that feature in a new Snow Elf race, or decide to leave it out. The prerequisite is irrelevant to making sub-races. All it does it is prohibit me from making "Arcane Dwarves" with the same ability, even if it is a perfect fit for them. Yes, I can choose to ignore the prerequisite. But if everyone does, what is the point of using a line of text on it in the first place?
This is why I, and others, would love to see you "file off the serial numbers" and go for a fully modular system. Instead of "Elven Immunities," have an "immunity to sleep" ability and a "+2 vs. School" ability. You can recreate the Elven Immunities ability, or make your own "Slugfolk Immunities" from the same base. It is more robust and versatile, and in no way impacts the ability to create all the Snow, Moon, or Pudding Elves of your dreams.
This is interesting, actually. Go look through the many player-made races here, silly or serious. Count how many of them are unique and stand alone and how many are racial variants.
What's more important? What the players want out of the system or what the designers want the players to want out of it?
Could you add to your list of change considerations unlinking racial abilities? I think it makes for a much more fun and varied toolbox if you don't have to be type-dwarf to pick up Hardy, for example.What's the chance that we'll see a second playtest document that is built upon the altered premises, if you do take that road?All we really need to do is alter some "offending" point costs, and not treat all the core races as 10 points, If the dwarf comes out as 11 (but is still considered a standard race) and the halfling comes out as 7, then the basics of the system will not necessarily change, only a few of the ability points.
If we do a second playtest, the major change you will see is some point tweaking.
I second this motion. This is just as important, in my opinion.
While some of you seem against this, one of the things we want this system to do is to create different versions of existing races. We want people to make snow elves, half-dwarves, and goblins from Akiton and so on. Because of that some subtype requirements will probably stay, allowing specific iconic features to stay within their race. But we will have robust options for creating entirely new race abilities also.I'm sorry, but I am having a difficult time understanding this. Nobody is against using the system to create different versions of existing races. We just don't see how requiring only elves get "Elven Magic" helps that. I can decide to include that feature in a new Snow Elf race, or decide to leave it out. The prerequisite is irrelevant to making sub-races. All it does it is prohibit me from making "Arcane Dwarves" with the same ability, even if it is a perfect fit for them. Yes, I can choose to ignore the prerequisite. But if everyone does, what is the point of using a line of text on it in the first place?
This is why I, and others, would love to see you "file off the serial numbers" and go for a fully modular system. Instead of "Elven Immunities," have an "immunity to sleep" ability and a "+2 vs. School" ability. You can recreate the Elven Immunities ability, or make your own "Slugfolk Immunities" from the same base. It is more robust and versatile, and in no way impacts the ability to create all the Snow, Moon, or Pudding Elves of your dreams.
+1!
QFT as, frankly, it's pretty well articulated and I have nothing else to add. Well stated, Mort.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What you're instead telling me is that, in some sense, I'm having "badwrongfun" because I want to have a race of halflings that have elven magic (or whatever other subtype-only ability).
That is not what I am saying at all. I think we can have a system that has both, frankly, and if at the end, you disagree with some of the prerequisites we put on an ability, and choose to disregard them, I promise I'll never come to your house, point, and say, "you are doing it wrong!"
Does that sound fair?
I love you guys, I really, really do, and I appreciate all the wonderful feedback you give, but can we tone down the hyperbole just a smidgeon? Thanks!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love you guys, I really, really do
Do ya? DO YA!?
THEN GIMME MY SECOND ROUND PLAYTEST, DAMN IT! :)
Okay folks, got it. You want us to reassess some of the abilities, and you don't care if the points of all core races add up to 10 points. I will put that on the list of strong considerations for the final iteration of the system.
Thank you for the feedback. We hear you. We want to create a system that you all will like and your GM will use to create new races for the game, so this aspect of the system will be reexamined given the arguments you all put forward.
Six years ago we put together the Race Creation Cookbook for 3.5 OGL and it also was a point based system. Instead of one solid number for a "balanced" race, we had a number range (for our system it was roughly 25 points), for your book it could be 3 to 5 RP points. While it would not be "perfect" it would give you leeway when dealing with the "balance" issue.
I love you guys, I really, really doDo ya? DO YA!?
THEN GIMME MY SECOND ROUND PLAYTEST, DAMN IT! :)
I know your joking, but settle down man. You're freaking me out. ;)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is not what I am saying at all. I think we can have a system that has both, frankly, and if at the end, you disagree with some of the prerequisites we put on an ability, and choose to disregard them, I promise I'll never come to your house, point, and say, "you are doing it wrong!"
Does that sound fair?
I love you guys, I really, really do, and I appreciate all the wonderful feedback you give, but can we tone down the hyperbole just a smidgeon? Thanks!
Seriously, NOBODY is arguing that we can't have both, if by both you mean totally new races as well as interesting subraces. What we are saying is that subtype restrictions do nothing but remove options. They are a bit like 2e racial restrictions. Why can't a dwarf be a wizard? Because they can't, that is why. Why can't Tree Elves speak to trees? Because they can't.
If you are already asking that people just ignore it, why include it in the system in the first place? I know page space is a serious consideration for you guys. Those repeating prerequisite lines could give a line of advice, insight, or flavor. An ignored rule wastes space, while it is ticking that little OCD voice in certain people's heads "you are houseruling. You shouldn't be houseruling. What would the great god RAW think?"
And we love you too. It is hard not to come off like a bit of a jerk on the internet, especially when criticizing someone's work. I'll apologize for me, and anyone who would care to be included in the group. The system is good, we are just passionate about making it great.
EDIT: Or just read Kevin, above. I really like what Kevin, above has to say.
|
@Kevin, I'm going to have to break the fun good times of everyone vs SRM by suggesting that +10 move speed all the time is in fact too good for a standard race. Defiantly if the fast movement is only costing 1BP.
I actually quite like Sprinter and consider it a good option for races that I want to feel faster than human. See my lionfolk.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Man, if only we could always be so unified. :)
I'm still hoping that pre-reqs by racial subtype and creature type get dumped for the most part, and that we get more support for unusual body types.
I want to be able to make a Standard Race with satyr-like hooves. I want to have lamia-matriarch-shaped people. I want some reasonable option for four-armed races, at least something supporting that aesthetic without being overpowered. Want tiny gecko people and tiny plant people. Want people with tentacles instead of arms. Etc etc etc.
For many of us who have wanted stranger races and have always been told that the official setting doesn't really support them, this is our one official outlet coming from Pathfinder. Please don't let Tolkien purism or whatever else one wants to call it shackle what this system could be.
That said, I'm really glad you guys are listening. A turnaround on one of the cornerstones of the system on the second day of the playtest has me really hopeful about what this system could be. :)
Okay folks, got it. You want us to reassess some of the abilities, and you don't care if the points of all core races add up to 10 points. I will put that on the list of strong considerations for the final iteration of the system.
And this is why I love Paizo :)
Now that's taken care of, it's time to go tinkering and create some races!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@SRM:
You said it yourself the base races are only somewhat balanced.
None of them is a 22 while another is a 6.
But one of them could be an 8 and the other a 12, and the rest inbetween and they're still "somewhat balanced".
That way if a GM comes up with a new race at 11 he knows, that it's in the same area as the rest of them.
The problem is that you take "all core races" as baseline, but they already are of different power levels to each other.
Take humans as baseline at 10 RP for example, and THEN build it around that. If a race comes out at 8 RP in the end, ok, if at 12, ok...
And if a core race actually comes out at 4 then, you probably should give it a boost instead of finding ways to justify why some other things they have cost 6 RP to get it to 10.
No offense taken. I would add though that Mutants and Masterminds successfully made d20 into an effects based system just fine, so it's not out of the scope of design. It just requires a lot of work.
They did and they didn't, though. They *did* use the skeleton of D20 to create a point-based system.
They did NOT use D&D (and PF's) same framework to price things out, nor did they use the same standard expectation of value to do this either.
M&M basically did it right - they came up with a pricing scheme first, and then took things apart within their desired pricing scheme.
Still, what I was talking about was the desire to have basically and effects based "snap shot" of the system, kind of a master blueprint that could be referenced. It wouldn't be something to use for players, but rather a GM tool.
Not a bad idea, but pointless unless connected to something substantial and with relevance.
One big problem with the current system is that the lack of granularity misses some great chances at letting races have some evocative and fun powers.
Sure. So ... what? Go the M&M rout to tack on things like "super-speed" or what have you? I'm for adding things ... to a point. It's D&D at it's heart, not "insert super's game of choice" where there are a whole slew of "powers" to pick and choose from to make anything from say slithering man-snakes (yaun-ti) up to Kryptonians. To be blunt: I do NOT want supers, or anything that comes too close to "supers" in my D&D.
I don't want rules for "ruby optic blasts" to come from a creatures eyes, nor rules for pricing that out ... at all.
I guess my point is that there has to be a line drawn that says, "so far and no further" ultimately.
If you were to have a listing of all of the core spells priced out along a metric that valued them in terms of combat, then you'd be able to see far more clearly the huge variation in effects within the system.
No. Again - it's NOT an effects-based system. M&M got away with this because they did away with spells entirely. Their whole system replaced the D&D system in this case.
We're not even close to suggesting this in a "racial build rules" product. Not by a long-shot, so it's the wrongest approach to take, IMO, because it's just constantly fighting up-hill to do so UNLESS you radically alter the entire premise of how PF magic functions. That, is just beyond the scope of this project as I understand it.
You could get a mathematical measurement of, say the difference between Speak with Animals and Enlarge Person. There is a huge gulf between the two as being level 1 powers, but with the current system all you can do is spend 1 point and give a race the ability to cast these spells one time a day.
No -there *is* no gulf there. The system tells us they are both level 1 effects. End of story.
That one has in-combat application and the other not so much is irrelevant to that metric. Again, the system that exists is NOT effects-based. The difference of choosing the 1 over the other has nothing to do with "effects-based" nature of the spells, though - it has to do with the content of the spell. On the one hand, you have a magical race that somehow (maybe defensive mechanism? maybe mating rites? who knows?) gains in size on a limited basis (1/day, only a few rounds). The other magical race has an ability to truly speak with animals. These things are valuable not because of the "effects-based" nature of the spell, but for the character they establish of the race in question.
The thing is that you could give a race the ability to speak to animals at-will and it wouldn't have anywhere near the impact on play compared to being able to enlarge...
Oh yes it will, or it should anyway. I think I would vastly prefer the "speak at will" ability myself. I could talk to EVERYTHING everywhere I went and get information that no one else is going to ever know about, and from the perspective of animals, too - it would be interesting and rewarding as an RP experience, IMO.
I'll take that any day over just getting bigger.
Even if enlarge at will vs. speak at will - I still see the same sort of trade-off. The one is useful only for combat, and it carries penalties as well as bonuses, too. The other - man, it's just opening up a whole world of role-play potential.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Man, if only we could always be so unified. :)
I'm still hoping that pre-reqs by racial subtype and creature type get dumped for the most part, and that we get more support for unusual body types.
Actually, I wouldn't mind the option spending additional RP (1 or 2) to avoid Prereqs. As long as it was a low amount.
So Elven Magic cost X, or X +1 if not an Elf is fine.It encourages Elven subtypes but allows anyone to do it.
Want to be tiny but not Fey? Add 1 or 2 more RP.
You could go further like allow non-Standard abilities for more RP:
Want to Fly but not be Advanced: add 1 or 2 points.
I mean, Fly is clumsy manueverbility anyways (unless upgraded), not like they will be good at it.
Six years ago we put together the Race Creation Cookbook for 3.5 OGL and...
Bought this! Used This! Loved This! I adjusted some numbers due to campaign considerations, but really loved it. Hoping this one works, too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First off: Yay! >:3 I grinned from ear to ear when I read that Stephen has taken our pleas. I really do love Paizo. :)
Second off: If they do go the way of balancing things in accordance to themselves and the power levels, perhaps they could add in a section at the end to allow GMs to create abilities of their own and compare it to similar abilities to judge the cost.
My view is something like this:
4 RP: Strong Ability ie.(Bonus Feat: It's customizable and even starts a feat chain, Fortunate)
3 RP: Feat Like Ability ie.(Adaptability: choice is limited even though it is a feat, Hardy, Gnome Magic, Skilled, Orc Ferocity)
2 RP: Weak Ability ie.(Spell Resistance to a particular school, Elf Magic, Halfling Luck , Elf Immunities, Dark vision)
1 RP: Trait Like Ability ie.(+2 to a particular skill, Hatred, Low Light Vision)
0 RP: Minor Situational Abilities ie.(Hooves, Greed, any other abilities that have little benefit and are just as likely or more to create issues, anything to do with languages)
EDIT: Also, although it's up to GM discretion, maybe have a limit on how many abilities you can add to your race
Totally agreed, the whole point cost is built upon a flawed assumption.Yes - "flawed assumption" is a big, BIG eye-sore to me looking at this.
Honestly, anyone that's seriously considering looking into all of this will be well served by looking at BESM d20's racial construction costs. They actually valued out the systemic values (by their own system's prices mind you) of the abilities and then priced everything out accordingly.
The point being - the methodology used was *exactly* the right way to approach an undertaking like this. Take it apart and see how it works (ie: system value points), and then put it together and see how it ticks with your tocks in place (ie: assignment value of individual racial constructions).
BESM d20 has an srd, but I'm not sure if the racial construction is included, I'd imagine it is, but I can't tell off hand.
In any case, to everyone really looking this over - look at BESM d20 for guidance on how this *should* be approached.
As of right now ... no. I can't back a system with such a faulty assumption up front.
Errr, even BESM d20 made some flawed assumptions and/or didn't have a fine enough point scale to use. It shows up most notably in the Class breakdowns (all Modern Class are miss-priced by skill points), lots of abilities valued at 2 or 3 points "just because". If you really want to see how BESM d20 shakes out you'll need to cough up about 20 bucks for a PDF copy of the BESM d20 Bestiary. Ian Sturrock and a host of contributing supports break down monsters in a BESM way. It doesn't come out as "clean" as one may think.
I also agree, no false assumptions. If you make up values in order to force races to be even you create an inherently unbalanced system. Part of the reason to explore a Point Value system is to quantify previously qualitative choices.
If you want to go the BESM route you really need to look at what 3e BESM's finer point scale brought to system. Just multiplying all the values by 10 gives more wiggle room for, "well this is just a smig better then this"
|
|
Second off: If they do go the way of balancing things in accordance to themselves and the power levels, perhaps they could add in a section at the end to allow GMs to create abilities of their own and compare it to similar abilities to judge the cost.
Yes please!
This would help a lot in terms of filling up thematic gaps.
I dont think races need to be equal either.
But does this all mean that a racist dwarf is in fact correct?
hehehe
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aassimar actually add up to 14. They're mistakenly priced at 13. Unless I missed something when I added up their costs.
It is a rip off at 13.
No way are they worth that much when you actually play one... they must be 13-14 in Zimbabwe dollars or something.
[eyes squinting] Speaker, I've spent about 10 minutes thinking about your last post. I think we might be talking past each other a bit. I guess I'm not communicating myself very well.
No, not really. (At least I don't think so - I understand perfectly what you're saying.)
You're saying "measure a combat effect and all things measured are to be based around combat." That line of thinking is *exactly* what 4e is based around.
No thanks. I do NOT want 4e to mix with my PF - at all. Never. I rejected 4e's approach and design premises once already, I'll drop PF faster than a hot potato if it starts trying to look like 4e, or adopts that kind of design methodology.
The existing game and rules are measured against their own spell levels and comparable effects - combat, OR non-combat, these things have been valued as "level X" effects for years. I see no reason to change it. In fact, I and many other ran away screaming from 4e in part because of this same sort of design shift.
It's a well balanced system, the #'s and crunch work well, but I can't stand 1 second of it. It was even painful just to read, IMO.
What you're proposing leads design in that same way. Again, I say, "No thank you."
Does anybody who doesn't work for Paizo think all core races being 10 is a good idea?
(not me, just to make it clear)
Not that I can see.
This is a momentous day in RPG board history. We are not divided and bickering. We aren't insulting each other and trolling. All are as one voice. Today, we stand together.
Good of you to point it out. I was wondering why I have been hiding behind the sofa all of last night.
Errr, even BESM d20 made some flawed assumptions and/or didn't have a fine enough point scale to use. It shows up most notably in the Class breakdowns (all Modern Class are miss-priced by skill points), lots of abilities valued at 2 or 3 points "just because". If you really want to see how BESM d20 shakes out you'll need to cough up about 20 bucks for a PDF copy of the BESM d20 Bestiary. Ian Sturrock and a host of contributing supports break down monsters in a BESM way. It doesn't come out as "clean" as one may think.
I also agree, no false assumptions. If you make up values in order to force races to be even you create an inherently unbalanced system. Part of the reason to explore a Point Value system is to quantify previously qualitative choices.
If you want to go the BESM route you really need to look at what 3e BESM's finer point scale brought to system....
Well, a few things:
1) I have not claimed it to be perfect - only that it's the approach to model. Price out systemic elements according to a scale of some sort, and then apply that value scale across the board to race X, Y, or Z. Compare that to the original stated design goals on THIS project of "every race WILL = 10 rp's and no more" and you will understand the nature of my putting forth that suggestion. It wasn't for perfect #'s matching - but rather the approach of itemizing out all the systemic elements 1st, and THEN comparing things back to the core of the system's creations (races, classes, etc).
2) I would disagree with "just because" mostly because I've looked at it and the values are pretty much comparable to the BESM attribute values that they put into the system. So, compared to itself, it's pretty consistent. Compared to "some other metric of comparison" it's not consistent. Since the game is BESM d20, internal consistency is what *I* was looking for, and it did that. I haven't claimed it's the one true breakdown or anything - just that for this current PF project, it's a good source to look to for inspiration in approaching this same project since both are point-based at their core.
3) If you want it really "grainy" then yes, the Bestiary and it's expanded scale will probably work better. However, do not get this confused with "effects-based" values while doing that. At it's core, that's what BESM is - an effects-based system. That is to say, it is measuring, independently what Magic Missile provides as an effect vs. what Sleep provides as an effect. This is not *at all* in line with D20's existing "level 1 spell = level 1 spell" metric. So, while adding granularity may add clarity in the effects-based model that is BESM, it's not particularly value-relevant to a project trying to assign system values to the PF/3.5/whatever model. In short, I don't really recommend that level of BESM analysis as it's measuring from a different point of reference than what PF requires.
Question: Am alone in NOT wanting to see a 4e-like "effects-based" value assigned to everything am I? I'm not the only one NOT wanting to see PF develop along the lines of 4e, right? Right???
Question: Am alone in NOT wanting to see a 4e-like "effects-based" value assigned to everything am I? I'm not the only one NOT wanting to see PF develop along the lines of 4e, right? Right???
For once, I am in complete agreement, even with myself. I have no need of a 4E flashcard game. Descent, Dungeon and other Boardgames fill that niche. A few years back, I had 3 females playing 3 Elves in my game, with totally different takes and styles of play. No simple flashcard game could ever attempt the subtle RP they inflicted upon me, the humble GM.
|
|
I would like to add my opinions to this thread
1) firstly thanks to Stephen for listening & agreeing to a change everyone has all agreed on - was amazing to see the unified agreeement.
2) I would like to add my voice to the request to remove racial prereqs - I would like to build say a cat race or a otter race to match the figures from Reaper to go along with my iconic minis
3) while I have yet to read much of the playtest I would like to request the ability to add extra features to our new races such as extra arms or legs without being large - eg large ant race (humanoid size) or lamia as someone esle suggested - we have a system with the Eidolon with adding arms etc can this be utilised as a base for the ARG book?
thanks again to putting out a playtest & actually listening & responding to your customers - really shows good customer service - helps with financial situation as well I bet
thanks
Cee
The model of effect-based design is 110% what 4e adopted. Establishing combat as the sole heart and core of the metric of "value" is also what 4eI adopted, so my concerns are based around that - emphasis on combat to the detriment of everything else that is not combat.
That said, I am detecting a subtle difference in what you are saying. I think you are talking about altering expected spell levels, yes? Challenging why spell of x effect is at y level, but not spell z, yes? If so, that is FAR more acceptable to me a proposal than "effect-based" rejiggering of the whole system. Revaluing spells and their level is entirely different from an effect-based design. The one works within expected standards, and the other reinvents the standards.
In either case it is beyond the realm of "10 pts for core" of this thread, and more a concern for PF 2e than anything else. ;-)
This thread has basically served it's purpose, no? Time to press other issues in the playtest system (like racial prereqs).
The model of effect-based design is 110% what 4e adopted. Establishing combat as the sole heart and core of the metric of "value" is also what 4eI adopted, so my concerns are based around that - emphasis on combat to the detriment of everything else that is not combat.
So you don't want every core races to be shoe horned into 10's but you won't want an more objective measure for them either?
Guess you need to get a copy of 3e Tri-Stat BESM (not the Monster Manual, which is only an example of how properly apply d20 BESM). There is nothing wrong with an Effect driven system. Effects are how any game works. How much beer does the Barbadian drink before he gets drunk? How was the King's speech received by the Peasants. How does shape sifting into a Flying Squirrel compare to an Elephant. What does it take pick up a goon and shake him till weeps like a small girl? Take all of those as the end Result and find equivalent things. Getting peasants to kiss your boots can be done many different ways but the end result is the same, they kiss your boots. That's 3e BESMs focus.
4e's problem is they called a baseline in combat and then didn't expand that to non-combat. They kinda-sorta-tried with Rituals and Skill Challenges but it didn't work well. There are also thematic issues I take beyond the mechancis of 4e (which I actually don't object as much to, well aside from Monster Mechanics being split from player mechanics.)
I would also point out that BESM always values Skill Sets differently based on the setting you're trying to use.
Guess you need to get a copy of 3e Tri-Stat BESM (not the Monster Manual, which is only an example of how properly apply d20 BESM). There is nothing wrong with an Effect driven system. Effects are how any game works. How much beer does the Barbadian drink before he gets drunk? How was the King's speech received by the Peasants. How does shape sifting into a Flying Squirrel compare to an Elephant. What does it take pick up a goon and shake him till weeps like a small girl? Take all of those as the end Result and find equivalent things. Getting peasants to kiss your boots can be done many different ways but the end result is the same, they kiss your boots. That's 3e BESMs focus.
4e's problem is they called a baseline in combat and then didn't expand that to non-combat. They kinda-sorta-tried with Rituals and Skill Challenges but it didn't work well. There are also thematic issues I take beyond the mechancis of 4e (which I actually don't object as much to, well aside from Monster Mechanics being split from player mechanics.)
I would also point out that BESM always values Skill Sets differently based on the setting you're trying to use.
no. I object to a full tilt effects-based redesign for 1the part of the system, and not another.
The BESM comments miss the mark entirely.
I absolutely want more grainy than 10anything baseline. The rest was directed to Mok's ideas on point balancing everything by breaking apart spell effects rather than operating within spell levels.
In other words, spell level 1is not the same value as spell level 2. I draw the line when spell level 1 is not equal to spell level 11is due to "effects-based" recalculation of value. Follow?
In NO way am I advocating "10's for every core race" as a valid metric. None.
In other words, spell level 1is not the same value as spell level 2. I draw the line when spell level 1 is not equal to spell level 11is due to "effects-based" recalculation of value. Follow?In NO way am I advocating "10's for every core race" as a valid metric. None.
I'm with you speaker. That kind of thinking is similar to the different values people put on different attributes. It's subjective and as the game is now, would only harm it. Such a process of putting different values on things that are treated equal in other places causes confusion and disrupts the rest of the game, at which point there would be something for everyone to find wrong and off. Then of course you would need to rebalance the rest of the game (4e) or just chop off the offending issue (racial creation).
On the other hand, I wouldn't mind a section that helps the GM adjudicate the cost of a custom ability.
Okay so it's immune to scrying ~ about the same power level as Elven Immunity to sleep
Shooting Laser Beams out the eyes ~ should be limited times per day, and about the same power level as a spell-like ability