Initial feedback after creating a half dozen races


Advanced Race Guide Playtest

Silver Crusade

A couple things that I noted from creating several test races.

There's no 'minimum points' for various racial classifications (standard, advanced, monstrous). So, as I pointed out to my GM who was making races with me, I can just claim to be making all monstrous races and still make something that's balanced 10 pts while getting access to all racial features.

There's no Fast-Healing or Regeneration option for Monstrous races. So, you can't really create a Troll analog using this when trying to make an ancient race of super-trolls bent on taking over the world.

There's no low level DR options (as some have mentioned in other threads). Also, DR vs Silver would be fun for some race concepts.

I'd like some more Magical Racial Abilities, especially having something with a more nature/Druidic slant to it. I was really looking for something like this when trying out the Plant type.

There's no intimidate option in Skill and Feat Abilities.

I'd also like to see some darkness weakness in the Weakness abilities section. Or a race that sees worse in low light conditions instead of better. A spell-scarred race type that can't cast traditional magic safely.


Gregg Reece wrote:
I'd also like to see some darkness weakness in the Weakness abilities section. Or a race that sees worse in low light conditions instead of better. A spell-scarred race type that can't cast traditional magic safely.

A wider range of interesting weaknesses would be good, but it's also important that these are weaknesses that affect the race no matter what kind of character they are.

For example, if we have the following as an option:

Spell-scarred (-4 RP)
You take 1d6 damage per spell level whenever you cast a spell.

If you're playing a non-spellcaster, that's just free points to spend on more strength or skills, etc. It's a non-weakness if it doesn't affect you.

Silver Crusade

Umbral Reaver wrote:
Gregg Reece wrote:
I'd also like to see some darkness weakness in the Weakness abilities section. Or a race that sees worse in low light conditions instead of better. A spell-scarred race type that can't cast traditional magic safely.

A wider range of interesting weaknesses would be good, but it's also important that these are weaknesses that affect the race no matter what kind of character they are.

For example, if we have the following as an option:

Spell-scarred (-4 RP)
You take 1d6 damage per spell level whenever you cast a spell.

If you're playing a non-spellcaster, that's just free points to spend on more strength or skills, etc. It's a non-weakness if it doesn't affect you.

Agreed.

And for that specific example, perhaps "any time you either cast a spell or have any non-healing spell cast upon you"?

I like the idea of darkness-weakness being available for some plantfolk.


That would make it more broadly applicable and more suited to be a weakness, as it would be hard to make a character that can ignore it completely. Dunno how many points it's worth right now. The whole costing system is still wonky.


It's definitely very breakable, in terms of being able to put 10 points in and come out with wildly variable power levels. That said, I'm fine with it. It's up to a DM to say no to utter cheese and there is a warning at the beginning of the section for that very reason.

I need to play with it a bit more before I have a fully formed opinion, and I've only made standard races so far. I am a bit surprised at how low-point tieflings are, since there was such a huge deal about nerfing them to make them playable with base races and they wind up having 1 whole extra RP. That suggests something might be undercosted that tieflings get.


Remember:

Not all GMs are experienced. Some may use the rules expecting a certain result and be disappointed when they find their creations are wildly unbalanced. A sensible and comprehensive guide to go along with them is very important.

Also, the total racial value is not the sole indicator of its power. Synergy and anti-synergy in abilities have a very strong effect on the end result. A 5 point race that has abilities that all focus on casting better might be far more powerful than a 15 point race that has a more vague and dispersed spread of abilities.


Umbral Reaver wrote:

Remember:

Not all GMs are experienced. Some may use the rules expecting a certain result and be disappointed when they find their creations are wildly unbalanced. A sensible and comprehensive guide to go along with them is very important.

Also, the total racial value is not the sole indicator of its power. Synergy and anti-synergy in abilities have a very strong effect on the end result. A 5 point race that has abilities that all focus on casting better might be far more powerful than a 15 point race that has a more vague and dispersed spread of abilities.

Agreed. In the hands of inexperienced GMs and/or players, these rules are very much double-edged swords. Either a guide or at least a strong warning that these are best used by experienced players/GMs would be a good idea.


Umbral Reaver wrote:

Remember:

Not all GMs are experienced. Some may use the rules expecting a certain result and be disappointed when they find their creations are wildly unbalanced. A sensible and comprehensive guide to go along with them is very important.

Also, the total racial value is not the sole indicator of its power. Synergy and anti-synergy in abilities have a very strong effect on the end result. A 5 point race that has abilities that all focus on casting better might be far more powerful than a 15 point race that has a more vague and dispersed spread of abilities.

+2

The last thing we need is a slew of races which upon cursory glance we can remark "Oh look, an entire race of wizards."


Sean FitzSimon wrote:
Umbral Reaver wrote:

Remember:

Not all GMs are experienced. Some may use the rules expecting a certain result and be disappointed when they find their creations are wildly unbalanced. A sensible and comprehensive guide to go along with them is very important.

Also, the total racial value is not the sole indicator of its power. Synergy and anti-synergy in abilities have a very strong effect on the end result. A 5 point race that has abilities that all focus on casting better might be far more powerful than a 15 point race that has a more vague and dispersed spread of abilities.

+2

The last thing we need is a slew of races which upon cursory glance we can remark "Oh look, an entire race of wizards."

Elves? :D


Alienfreak wrote:
Sean FitzSimon wrote:

The last thing we need is a slew of races which upon cursory glance we can remark "Oh look, an entire race of wizards."

Elves? :D

But for the grace of a con penalty, there went the core races. :p

Shadow Lodge

Pedantic wrote:
But for the grace of a con penalty, there went the core races. :p

Laughed while drinking milk. Milk up nose. Damn you :)

I agree with these rules being potentially destabilizing in the hands of inexperienced GM's, but they are advanced optional rules so maybe a warning about this to inexperienced GM's. The warning would need to mention things such as potential synergies and potential abuse by simply letting a certain kind of player loose on them.

Personally I wouldn't let my players anywhere near these rules. If they have an idea they can run it by me and I'll make something. If they don't like it we can talk it over and they can make suggestions, but thats all they'd be, suggestions.

Grand Lodge

Hecknoshow wrote:


Personally I wouldn't let my players anywhere near these rules. If they have an idea they can run it by me and I'll make something. If they don't like it we can talk it over and they can make suggestions, but thats all they'd be, suggestions.

I thought the same but we got together last night and chatted about it and they all 'demanded' to be able to make races... so I said "Great"

Followed by "But you do not get to make a character of that race until I use it against you in our current campaign."

Sails Deflated a little

Silver Crusade

Yeah, the Standard, Advanced, and Monstrous categories don't really help with deciding if something is balanced or not. You can build broken things using any combination of those rules or make a perfectly balanced playable race out of the monstrous and advanced categories.

I like the rules, but definitely not for the inexperienced or faint of heart GM.

Shadow Lodge

Ravenbow wrote:

I thought the same but we got together last night and chatted about it and they all 'demanded' to be able to make races... so I said "Great"

Followed by "But you do not get to make a character of that race until I use it against you in our current campaign."

Sails Deflated a little

Genius!

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Advanced Race Guide Playtest / Initial feedback after creating a half dozen races All Messageboards
Recent threads in Advanced Race Guide Playtest