RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
So I've seen several posts indicating that people don't understand why a wider variety of starting languages should be worth any points. I thought I'd share my understanding of why Xenophobic is actually the worse option.
I think the intent of the system is to design races that multiple people might use. Of course it's going to break if you let each player build a custom race that exactly fits their playstyle and class. So if you were just building a one-off race for some reason that has everything you want, and will never be seen again, then by all means take Xenophobic and pick only the languages you were going to take anyway.
To me, the intended use of the system is much more for the GM to expand his or her world's available PC race options. In that case, the more expensive language choices are indeed better because the GM is picking which languages are options for that race.
Short version: if you tried to minmax a race in one of my games and you took Xenophobic just to save a point, your choices would look something like Terran, Boggart, Gnomish, and Vegepygmy sign language.
There is still some abuse possible with Int penalty races unlikely to have bonus languages anyway.
I think it works well for reflecting an isolated race. In our games languages are important so I agree with the RP costs.
Great point about the system’s intent. It requires some self control on the part of the user. I propose Rule 0.5: Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. If you start with a cultural roleplaying concept and pick abilities based on what fits within the given framework this version of the rules seems to work quite well.
There should be some tweeks I think, but basing future changes on what subversive min/maxers can wring out of the rules will not improve the product IMO. I’d like the focus to stay on adding more of the options that people want and clarifying the wording instead of who can abuse the framework harder wankery. Yawn.
But now that I have let myself get sucked in... I really don’t see how 1 extra RP from Xenophobic for a dumb race constitutes abuse. Languages are one of those things that may not come into play often, but when they do they come big. If you can’t justify spending 1 RP on them, you should probably just officially houserule them all into common.
Presumably, the purpose of this system is for a GM to easily create vaguely balanced new races. If that is the case, it is necessary that abilities be balanced against each other in a reasonable way. Extra possible languages simply aren't balanced against any of the other 1 or 2 RP selections. The system just doesn't have the granularity for that. Without changes to the system itself (multiple different RP pools, increased granularity, or something else), language choice really needs to just be made free.
I think every race should get one free language with any additional languages costing RP.
I will admit I only did a quick skim read so that may be how it already works.
|
My thought is that they are simply overcosted. I'd drop the standard array package to 0RP (it is the standard right?), any linguist array to 1RP (since we are apparently not using fractions).
Also I'd drop the xenophobic array entirely. I mostly want my players to roleplay, though setting the xenophobic array as an advanced trait that costs 0RP might achieve the same goals.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say drop costing of languages entirely. It's not part of racial balance for gameplay.
I’ve seen plenty of gameplay situations where being able to communicate with someone is just as powerful if not more so as being able to bite them for example. Then extrapolate that to an entire race or culture… it is huge.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I've seen gameplay situations where someone's hair colour decided the fate of a planet. Incidental stuff like that is not a key part of balance. It's well-accepted that rare uses of unimportant abilities can change things drastically, but the thing to remember is that it's extremely rare and thus can't be considered a major part of a design.
Languages already known before you include your starting int modifier should cost RP. Languages that can be learned due to starting Int should start with a a limited number. What that number is I don't know, but since learning languages allows you to use not take Linguistics which is a resource it should be accounted for. This may be something best left to the GM, but I would not just leave it unaccounted for.
Also, we're forgetting the point that even 4 int xenophobes can drop one point in Linguistics to speak with the rest of the party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aren't Bonus Languages determined by Intelligence score anyway?
Honestly, that alone made me call into question the entire validity of this particular piece.
Language selection is just more like a cultural reflection, no? Who race X tends to associate with, live near, etc.
This is one thing I never conceived of when torturing my own Race Pointing system. Brilliantly done...except I would have had '0' as the middle state with +1/-1 for the other two. But in a non-RP game, I can see this being a waste.
Aren't Bonus Languages determined by Intelligence score anyway?
Honestly, that alone made me call into question the entire validity of this particular piece.
Language selection is just more like a cultural reflection, no? Who race X tends to associate with, live near, etc.
This determines what bonus languages a race can take at 1st based on their Int. All the base races have the same thing already.
If it actually gave you extra languages, I might consider it. But it doesn't, the number of languages is determined by your int score. Then the ability is completely and entirely mitigated by a rank in linguistics.
I am more actively opposed to languages costing points than I am to having favored bonus options cost points. It is needless complication and quite arbitrary.
You are paying for an option that you're not always or even often going to choose. And if you didn't choose it first level, you can always drop a rank in linguistics...
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
If it actually gave you extra languages, I might consider it. But it doesn't, the number of languages is determined by your int score. Then the ability is completely and entirely mitigated by a rank in linguistics.
I am more actively opposed to languages costing points than I am to having favored bonus options cost points. It is needless complication and quite arbitrary.
You are paying for an option that you're not always or even often going to choose. And if you didn't choose it first level, you can always drop a rank in linguistics...
I keep seeing people say that you can just drop a point in linguistics-I just want to point out that many characters with an Int penalty may only have one skill point at first level, two if they use their favored class bonus. It is a bit of a penalty to have to spend half your starting skills on being able to speak Common.
I suppose one unanswered question is what happens when a characters Int bonus exceeds the number of available starting languages - how does a Xenophobic 20 Int character work? I'd be tempted to say that any excess bonus languages are lost.
Again, I want to say that I think custom building exactly the race you need for your PC right now is not the right way to use this system - you are designing a species, one that should exist as multiple individuals of various occupations and character classes.
I keep seeing people say that you can just drop a point in linguistics-I just want to point out that many characters with an Int penalty may only have one skill point at first level, two if they use their favored class bonus. It is a bit of a penalty to have to spend half your starting skills on being able to speak Common.I suppose one unanswered question is what happens when a characters Int bonus exceeds the number of available starting languages - how does a Xenophobic 20 Int character work? I'd be tempted to say that any excess bonus languages are lost.
Again, I want to say that I think custom building exactly the race you need for your PC right now is not the right way to use this system - you are designing a species, one that should exist as multiple individuals of various occupations and character classes.
I guess that argument might hold for xenophobic being a penalty, simply because of common. Of course you could have a person in your group who is a translator and happens to know multiple languages including yours, as players usually party in groups.
However, when you compare it to the difference between standard array and linguist array: no character is likely to know 8 or more languages off of int alone, and putting ranks into linguist gets you any language without restriction anyway putting the difference between the standard and linguist array negligent.
Having languages is nice, but I've never actually seen more than maybe 6 languages get used in within a single campaign, and half of those were for only 1 session.
the thing to remember is that it's extremely rare and thus can't be considered a major part of a design.
My point is that it is not extremely rare or incidental. That is why I said “plenty”. There is a reason you spend resources on languages and don’t on hair color. You don’t understand or accept that. That is fine, but that is still the way it is. It is the way it should be as far as I’m concerned. You disagree. That is fine too.
The thing for you to remember is stating something as fact and a fact are two different things. Languages are a part of the game’s design. You don’t think it is a major part and I agree. Where we differ there is that you consider 1RP ‘major’, I don’t. I also don’t consider the other standard 1RP options ‘major’ or even significantly more powerful on average than the option of extra languages. Note, it is not only about how many languages a character actually has, but how many options are available for them the choose from.
All that said, it is mostly this:
Again, I want to say that I think custom building exactly the race you need for your PC right now is not the right way to use this system - you are designing a species, one that should exist as multiple individuals of various occupations and character classes.
The purpose is not to build a race of adventurers, much less certain classes. Most people of any given race have NPC classes and it evolved as such.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I guess that argument might hold for xenophobic being a penalty, simply because of common. Of course you could have a person in your group who is a translator and happens to know multiple languages including yours, as players usually party in groups.
However, when you compare it to the difference between standard array and linguist array: no character is likely to know 8 or more languages off of int alone, and putting ranks into linguist gets you any language without restriction anyway putting the difference between the standard and linguist array negligent.
Having languages is nice, but I've never actually seen more than maybe 6 languages get used in within a single campaign, and half of those were for only 1 session.
Perhaps we just play in different styles of campaign, then. I was going to say that I consider the "any" bonus languages to be a strong option when picking a race for a high-Int character, but that's not precisely true. When I've built a high-Int character of a race that doesn't get "any" for bonus languages, I feel bad about my restricted choice. That's more accurate.
I once played wizard who ended up speaking 23 languages, and used every one of them at least once. But this was a setting (Ravenloft) where there were several human languages and no real "Common," much like Europe.
My point is that it is not extremely rare or incidental. That is why I said “plenty”. There is a reason you spend resources on languages and don’t on hair color. You don’t understand or accept that. That is fine, but that is still the way it is. It is the way it should be as far as I’m concerned. You disagree. That is fine too.
No, I agree that it affects the game. I was using a bit of hyperbole to show that anecdote can say anything you want it to and does not help the argument at all. The point is that I do not agree that having a larger starting selection of languages is worth two points. And that having fewer actual starting languages gets nothing in return. I would set languages per setting and culture and leave it at that. The effect is too minescule to count and if a player wants to spend on linguistics, that's their choice. Skill points are a separate issue from race points.
Perhaps we just play in different styles of campaign, then. I was going to say that I consider the "any" bonus languages to be a strong option when picking a race for a high-Int character, but that's not precisely true. When I've built a high-Int character of a race that doesn't get "any" for bonus languages, I feel bad about my restricted choice. That's more accurate.I once played wizard who ended up speaking 23 languages, and used every one of them at least once. But this was a setting (Ravenloft) where there were several human languages and no real "Common," much like Europe.
Languages are very setting dependent, which is supported by your post. Most players have common. The mass majority of races other than human also have a racial language (starting off with two instead of one) including orcs. If you're saying one should pay more to start with more languages, than why is it that humans are paying more to start with less?
It's worse than that. Humans, for example, are charged extra to start with fewer languages and get an unrestriced bonus list. Is the bonus list really worth that much that it's better than starting with two languages?
Ooops! Just stumbled over this thread. I posted something somewhat related to it, but rather than repost here, I'll just provide this handy link.
As relates to the Linguist trait, I really have to go with Umbral Reaver on this one. The average human has less languages than the average member of most other races, not more. So what are they paying for? A long pontential language list is meaningless, with an average Int (or less), and certainly isn't worth as much as Adaptability or Climb (etc.), anyway.
It's worse than that. Humans, for example, are charged extra to start with fewer languages and get an unrestriced bonus list. Is the bonus list really worth that much that it's better than starting with two languages?
We allow Humans to take Common and one of the Human Languages in our Golarion campaign making them equal to every one else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i would suggest one of 2 things.
Drop common entirely
or Limit Common into a trade/business language.
common was intended as a trade/business language first, little else. i would say it works fine for explaining basic concepts, but explaining something a little more complex would require another language.
with Common, you can for example, pick out which carpet you want from the carpet dealer.
but as an example, you cannot use it to explain newtonian physics or anything along those lines.
We allow Humans to take Common and one of the Human Languages in our Golarion campaign making them equal to every one else.
I have done this for a long time, too.
Frankly, I think the Common tongue should have gone the way of the alignment languages. How many characters even bother with the Linguistics skill?
Frankly, I think the Common tongue should have gone the way of the alignment languages. How many characters even bother with the Linguistics skill?
Since linguistics is also used to translate and decipher ancient languages, there are actually some pretty good uses to it in addition to getting extra languages.
Aquan, Auran, Ignan, and Terran are quite useful for a character that does much summoning of elementals. Vegepygmy is quite useful to allow party members to communicate without others understanding (or often even knowing communication's happening) and for cases where you can't speak but can move enough to tap/click/etc. If the GM doesn't let you communicate meaningfully in Vegepygmy in combat, Treant or the like can make a reasonable battle code your foes are unlikely to understand.
|
|
good stuff
That's a great campaign option. What were's actually talking about is a campaign neutral rulebook though.
Which is exactly why Common should be removed as a default language; it presupposes a setting where the whole gameworld was once under the control of one empire, or where explorers have already set up trade routes accross the whole of the globe.
That is far from being the only model for a campaign, and so, should be dependent on the setting-writers making that an explicit feature of their world, not having it be a means for players to bypass the theme of an 'Explore the New World', 'Repel the Foreign Interlopers', or 'Slaves of the Alien Overlords' game.
|
good stuffThat's a great campaign option. What were's actually talking about is a campaign neutral rulebook though.Which is exactly why Common should be removed as a default language; it presupposes a setting where the whole gameworld was once under the control of one empire, or where explorers have already set up trade routes accross the whole of the globe.
That is far from being the only model for a campaign, and so, should be dependent on the setting-writers making that an explicit feature of their world, not having it be a means for players to bypass the theme of an 'Explore the New World', 'Repel the Foreign Interlopers', or 'Slaves of the Alien Overlords' game.
What about SCIFI settings where all the aliens speak common, err English? ;p
|
|
That is far from being the only model for a campaign, and so, should be dependent on the setting-writers making that an explicit feature of their world, not having it be a means for players to bypass the theme of an 'Explore the New World', 'Repel the Foreign Interlopers', or 'Slaves of the Alien Overlords' game.
What I'm trying to say (apparently poorly sense its not being groked) is that regardless of what form common takes in any particular campaign setting the core book gives it to all the PC races therefore it exists. This book is not the correct time to remove common even it were to be universally desired (which it is clearly not0.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
That is far from being the only model for a campaign, and so, should be dependent on the setting-writers making that an explicit feature of their world, not having it be a means for players to bypass the theme of an 'Explore the New World', 'Repel the Foreign Interlopers', or 'Slaves of the Alien Overlords' game.What I'm trying to say (apparently poorly sense its not being groked) is that regardless of what form common takes in any particular campaign setting the core book gives it to all the PC races therefore it exists. This book is not the correct time to remove common even it were to be universally desired (which it is clearly not0.
Am I the only one who remembers that long flow chart in Time of the Dragon?
I agree worlds w/o common should be an option touched on somewhere. (perhaps with a linguistic domain?) but the ARG* likely isn't the place.
*
I am more in favor of dropping and ingoring this feature as a "racial" characteristic entirely.
The game *already*very has bonus languages, AND Linguistics in play to deal with this.
It is superfluous and unnecessary to keep this in play. Even the xenophobic element is better explained as a choice, and not a "racial mental defect" or what ever it is meant to represent.
The whole thing is silly, imo.
House rule #1 at my table: linguistic arrays as part of racial builds are being tossed out on their ears.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Honestly, I can see the argument that having a limited list of bonus languages and getting common automatically is standard, that an unlimited list of any language as bonus languages might be worth 1 point, and that not getting common (in worlds that have a "common language" automatically is a penalty worth -1.
I'm not sure I agree with how it is set up as a required trait.
I feel it should be default Racial and Common (if available) and a fixed limited list of bonus languages. Then have it so you could option to spend 1 point to pick any language as a bonus or gain 1 point (-1 cost) for not getting common automatically (but it must take up one of the bonus language list slots).
Having a language barrier when communicating with other characters, possibly including you fellow PCs is a real penalty. It should be worth getting back a point.
The choosing bonus languages from any language instead of limited list is in my eyes questionable in being worth a point since this limitation is so easily overlooked or handwaved in actual play. Having it as an option would mean that it can still be handwaved at GM/group discretion. Additionally, very rarely have I seen someone not knowing a particular additional language be an issue in play. Everything is usually in common or one of the more prevalent (commonly chosen) languages.
I tend to agree with this sentiment. Languages are worth something, but the system as presented is possibly too granular for a 2 point spread-the difference between "any bonus languages you want" and "almost nothing to choose from" should not be 2 points; maybe half a point? But the system does not support half points.
A lot of the value of languages depends greatly on the campaign world. I've played in worlds where it was glossed over, and I've played in worlds where tongues is the best spell of its level. It's hard to assign a consistent point value for the ability that bridges these extremes.
I would still not put a price on it, but I don't think enough people are considering this:
Humans get 1 language (common) plus their choice of any bonus lanugage, for 2 points.
All other standard races get 2 languages (common + racial) plus their choice of a limited list of bonus languages for 1 point.
If I had to put a number on it, I would say starting with fewer languages (human) would be more significant a penalty than not being able to pick from the entire list in bonus languages.