| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since VoodooMike posted a great Race Building Guide over here last year, which I particularly like, I figured I'd write up a comparison to the current playtest rules. Unfortunately, I ran out of time yesterday to work on it, and probably won't have a chance any time soon to finish it or do any really detailed analysis, so I'm posting what I have, and someone else can pick it up and continue.
Keep in mind, that VM's guide (VMG) is not as extensive as the new guide (ARG), and uses a lot of "Something around this power level" values. It's also calibrated on the assumption that the core races are 10 points each (although Halflings are only worth 5 under it).
I'll break this down in the order that the ARG has it.
Type Trait: VMG does not address racial types directly. However, the abilities you would get from each racial type would get scored, although constructs and undead are too much for it to cleanly handle. I used the half-construct and half-undead instead. Here's how much each type's abilities would cost under VMG (displayed as (ARG cost / VMG cost) )
Synopsis: Very close, except plants which are way too cheap in ARG.
Size Trait: Once again, VMG doesn't specifically address size. I can't even do a good comparison, because the +2 size bonus could cost anywhere from 4 points (if the race would otherwise have a penalty to that stat) to 10 points (if it's stacking on top of an existing bonus), and the size penalty could be from -1 to a -4.
Base Speed Trait: ARG give this a -1. VMG gives it a -4.
Ability Score Modifiers Trait: Another fairly easy-to-compare set. Both sets break the physical and mental down into two separate categories. The VMG assumes that each race has +2 to a stat of one category, and both a +2 and a -2 to the other category (Designated: +2::+2/-2). Any adjustments from that cost or provide points. Once again, the costs are (ARG/VMG)
Synopsis: Most of the discrepency comes from the weight that VMG places on boosting a +2 modifier to a +4. If someone could double check my math, and/or run some deeper analysis of this, that would probably help clarify the differences. My suspicion is that VMG weighs the status of other stats in the same category more than the ARG does.
Language Trait: VMG doesn't address language at all, nor give it any weight.
One limiting factor in the ARG is that you're limited to 3-5 abilities, while the VMG lets you have as many as you want (within your chosen budget). That makes VMG points more valueable here, since you can't be caught with points you can't spend under that system.
Ability Score Bonuses: These are all a flat +2 to a stat for 4 RP under ARG. Under VMG, each step could cost anywhere from 4 (if applied to a penalty stat) to 10+ (if applied to an existing bonus). Since in ARG they also cost a slot, they're probably roughly even.
Defense Racial Abilities As before, (ARG/VMG) for costs.
Oh, boy! I was wondering when someone would come up with this comparison...
I can say i tried both systems when creating races, and, surprisingly, they ended up with quite close results.
That's important to point out that VoodooMike considers any size bigger than Medium to be completely off for playable races, while the ARG takes this option into consideration.
I've also been waiting for someone to mention VoodooMike. This should be interesting.
Have you guys tried to make a new race using both systems? I actually did, and came up with quite equivalent results, but with some different traits.
Additionally, i'm really curious to know what is VoodoMike's opinion about the ARG. I guess he's quite disgusted for the allowance of Large-size player races... =)
I remembered that thread but did not remember who created it.
I remembered that thread but did not remember who created it.
It was a thread created by VoodooMike. There's a link to it in Bobson's post. Really worth checking it out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
VoodooMike doesn't much like the ARG system, for a couple of reasons.
First and foremost, it acts to break pre-made content, which was my specific intent to avoid when writing my own guide (I should mention that I failed on a few points!). I'm a firm believer that any LA0 race that requires the GM to revamp his campaign is a bad race. This means that if the race you build with your guide in some way causes a problem with, say, prefab adventure paths that are made to work, generally, with pathfinder, then your guide is trash.
Similarly, race should not overlap class. Your race should not, in any way, overshadow the ability of any of the classes unless you're in some way paying equal character development resources to achieve it. This was the basic premise of "racial levels" in the past, but even those were misguided, in my opinion, for several reasons (which go beyond the scope of this posting).
Ricardo brings up my distaste for sizes other than medium and small - I maintain this in relation to LA0 races at first level, which is what my guide was written for. A size large humanoid race typically has a 10 foot reach (ARG just arbitrarily ignores this, making you pay extra points for the reach that pretty much all the size large humanoid-shaped creatures have inherently) which is a nutty benefit at level 1. Similarly, your character has to constantly use squeezing rules to deal with the standard 5-foot wide tunnel, and any campaign that has, say, an entrance that is so small that medium characters have to squeeze, is now out for you. That's why I "just say no" to Large.
My rule of thumb for this sort of thing would probably be "if every member of the party plays this same race, does it significantly and immediately alter the game in an important way?"
Flight (this is a place where my guide, at least in its original posted format, fails as well) is also a content-breaker at first level. Unless the GM designs his content around the player's ability to fly, it will ruin certain obstacles and encounters. For this reason, I don't believe flight should ever be a level 1 ability. The earliest that flight should be available is about level 5, which is when content already has to deal with it since wizards can cast "fly".
Second (yes, that was all the first objection), the system involves a ton of looking up because it is based on pick-lists more than anything else... so you get all the hassle of a point-based system combined with all the clunkiness of a pick-list system. I don't find the pricing to be intuitive, nor do I understand why they choose to clump certain things together under a single price value, or give certain things the prerequisites they do. That doesn't mean I'm right, of course, just that I don't see the point(s) of it.
Third, I think the ARG will result in the same thing Savage Species did: a lot of drooling munchkins and a lot of unhappy GMs. It's all very well and good to say that the race building rules are a GM tool, but GMs don't actually need a tool to do things with their own campaign - what they think is ok is automagically ok. Instead, what typically happens is when a company releases an official supplement, players feel it is gospel, and most GMs, who want to say yes to their players, will say "ok" to the players using the supplement, and when those players wreck things in pursuit of personal power (as, lets face it, is pretty typical) the GM will grow tired of running the campaign, and next campaign will disallow the supplement to the dismay of those players, and so on.
I'm sure it'll be peachy for some people, but it could and should have been designed with not letting that happen in mind. I really do think the onus is on Paizo to make better and more conservative design decision than the 3rd party contributors specifically because whatever they release is an official part of the game - people default to accepting paizo products as usable, while people default to rejecting that 3rd party additions are usable... and that's something that makes all the difference.
Fourth... what the hell is with the language stuff and its pricing?
So yeah, that's the short response on the topic (short by my standards, of course!). I'm disappointed in the ARG's system.
(I should mention that I failed on a few points!)
Ok, self-criticism is always welcome, but i fail to see where your guidelines fail. I've made intensive use of them, and they work quite well, at least for me.
Flight (this is a place where my guide, at least in its original posted format, fails as well) is also a content-breaker at first level.
Mate, i think the conclusion should be the opposite. Flight IS a game-breaker at 1st level, and your guide is crystal-clear about it. The ARG circumvents this by restricting it to "advanced" races, although it's not clear what advanced race really means. Is interesting to point out that reach is restricted to advanced races as well.
About the Large-size-without-reach subject, maybe its intetions is allowing centaur-like races, but in its present format, the rules fail on it as well. Although, without the 10-ft. reach, Large (tall) size doesn't seem to be as great as an advantage.A size large humanoid race typically has a 10 foot reach (ARG just arbitrarily ignores this, making you pay extra points for the reach that pretty much all the size large humanoid-shaped creatures have inherently) which is a nutty benefit at level 1.
Your oppinion is that the developers "squeezed" the rules in order to allow Large size for LA 0 races, is that correct?
Ok, self-criticism is always welcome, but i fail to see where your guidelines fail. I've made intensive use of them, and they work quite well, at least for me.
Don't get me wrong - I do think the original race building guide works well in general, but there are parts of it that should be removed or changed, such as certain non-land movement speeds. It's not a simple matter of my being humble (its not a trait anyone who knows me would ascribe to me, trust me) but rather the fact that I wrote that guide in about two hours some random afternoon, and have given it greater thought in the year or so since then.
Mate, i think the conclusion should be the opposite. Flight IS a game-breaker at 1st level, and your guide is crystal-clear about it. The ARG circumvents this by restricting it to "advanced" races, although it's not clear what advanced race really means. Is interesting to point out that reach is restricted to advanced races as well.
I don't think the original guide makes it clear at all - I think I just listed it as a 4 point trait. It shouldn't be there at all, but rather be something you have to progressively buy the way winged flight was bought for dragonwrought kobolds in the dragon magic (or possibly the other dragon whatever) supplement from 3.5, with the level requirement placing the upgrades past the point where classes give a comparable ability.
About the Large-size-without-reach subject, maybe its intetions is allowing centaur-like races, but in its present format, the rules fail on it as well. Although, without the 10-ft. reach, Large (tall) size doesn't seem to be as great as an advantage.
Less of an advantage without reach, yes, though it only costs 1 extra point to get that reach. You still potentially break first level content by being an abnormal size, and you'd still be giving all your weapons a dice upgrade even without reach.
Your oppinion is that the developers "squeezed" the rules in order to allow Large size for LA 0 races, is that correct?
I'm not sure I'd say they squeezed the rules to do it. I think they're using a bad design philosophy. As I said, my objection is to certain abilities at level one, not to the idea that a character may one day possess those abilities.
I'm not sure I'm a big believer in "Level Adjustment" anymore, frankly. Some things can't be compensated for by LA - they're things that just shouldn't exist until the party level is at a certain average level.
I don't think the original guide makes it clear at all - I think I just listed it as a 4 point trait.
I recall you listed climbing and swimming speeds in your guidelines, with no flying speed. I don't think either of them (climb/swim) are game-breaking.
Less of an advantage without reach, yes, though it only costs 1 extra point to get that reach. You still potentially break first level content by being an abnormal size, and you'd still be giving all your weapons a dice upgrade even without reach.
I also recall that, back in 3.5 Ed., there were two categories of Large-size creatures: Tall (i.e., giants and similar), and Long (centaurs fitting into this second one). Large(long) creatures didn't have extended reach, nor used bigger weapons than medium-sized humanoids. Maybe this difference is what the ARG is missing. Additionally, in the present format of Large (Tall), you're trading damage for AC (+2 STR, +1 CMB/CMD, average 1-2 damage due to weapon dice increase, for -2 Dex, -1 BAB, additional -1 AC, and -4 to Stealth checks); you hit harder, but you're hit more often as well.
I'm not sure I'm a big believer in "Level Adjustment" anymore, frankly. Some things can't be compensated for by LA - they're things that just shouldn't exist until the party level is at a certain average level.
Maybe there are some discordant voices about LA, but my perception is that the majority of people here seems to agree with you (myself included).
As I said, my objection is to certain abilities at level one, not to the idea that a character may one day possess those abilities.
I agree that these abilities you mention may fit better as racial feats, with level requirements. The complete Large(tall)/extended reach package comes to mind.
4 point racial abilities:
up to 30 foot fly, burrow, climb speed or up to 50' swim speed
Ok, my mistake, you did mention flying speed(I think i misread this. XD).
Nonetheless, that's easily corrigible, IMO. Perhaps, just burrow, climb, and swim at half base speed would do fine.One solid point of VoodooMike's guide is about the stats, which are way more flexible, customizable, and balanced than in ARG.
About the language stuff: yeah, i agree! IMO, standard array should cost 0 points (since is standard, chrissakes...), linguist array sould cost 1, and xenophobic array should cost -1.