As it stands now, someone could grab extra feat twice, don't know about you, but some classes are very feat starved, 2 feats at level one from race alone is too good perhaps?
I think it is good where it is. Four points is quite a lot, and many cheaper abilities give powerful bonuses no feat can replicate. I'd much rather have darkvision and a prehensile tail than a feat any day.
I don't think you can take the same ability twice, but I could be wrong. :/
EDIT: *looks it up* Rather, I think it must specify whether or not you can take it more than once.
EDIT EDIT: Another funny thought. IF you could take Adaptability more than once, you could start with over a dozen feats at first level. xP
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think you can take the same ability twice, but I could be wrong. :/
EDIT: *looks it up* Rather, I think it must specify whether or not you can take it more than once.
EDIT EDIT: Another funny thought. IF you could take Adaptability more than once, you could start with over a dozen feats at first level. xP
Except for the fact that a Standard Race may only take 3 choices from any trait section, Advanced Races get 4 choices and Monstrous Races get 5.
So a Standard race may take Adaptability 3 at most.A monstrous race only gets 5 not a dozen.
@Nemitri you are looking at this as a Player Tool it is not, it is a GM tool that is used to design races. The GM has the last say as to if a Race designed with this tool is allowed.
I don't think you can take the same ability twice, but I could be wrong. :/
EDIT: *looks it up* Rather, I think it must specify whether or not you can take it more than once.
EDIT EDIT: Another funny thought. IF you could take Adaptability more than once, you could start with over a dozen feats at first level. xP
Except for the fact that a Standard Race may only take 3 choices from any trait section, Advanced Races get 4 choices and Monstrous Races get 5.
So a Standard race may take Adaptability 3 at most.
A monstrous race only gets 5 not a dozen.@Nemitri you are looking at this as a Player Tool it is not, it is a GM tool that is used to design races. The GM has the last say as to if a Race designed with this tool is allowed.
Ah, very true. 3 tops for a standard race.
...but my point remains: unless it explicitly states "This ability can be taken more than once. Its effects stack." or "This ability can be
taken up to three times." or something like that, I assume you can only take it one time.
I don't think you can take the same ability twice, but I could be wrong. :/
EDIT: *looks it up* Rather, I think it must specify whether or not you can take it more than once.
EDIT EDIT: Another funny thought. IF you could take Adaptability more than once, you could start with over a dozen feats at first level. xP
Except for the fact that a Standard Race may only take 3 choices from any trait section, Advanced Races get 4 choices and Monstrous Races get 5.
So a Standard race may take Adaptability 3 at most.
A monstrous race only gets 5 not a dozen.@Nemitri you are looking at this as a Player Tool it is not, it is a GM tool that is used to design races. The GM has the last say as to if a Race designed with this tool is allowed.
Ah, very true. 3 tops for a standard race.
...but my point remains: unless it explicitly states "This ability can be taken more than once. Its effects stack." or "This ability can be
taken up to three times." or something like that, I assume you can only take it one time.
Which is why it costs 4 points which when building a race really cuts into your choices.
Remember this is a GM tool, my players will likely not use it, they will instead get to choose from races I design. So unless you as the GM want a broken Game then make Races with Adaptability multiple times.
I don't think you can take the same ability twice, but I could be wrong. :/
EDIT: *looks it up* Rather, I think it must specify whether or not you can take it more than once.
EDIT EDIT: Another funny thought. IF you could take Adaptability more than once, you could start with over a dozen feats at first level. xP
Except for the fact that a Standard Race may only take 3 choices from any trait section, Advanced Races get 4 choices and Monstrous Races get 5.
So a Standard race may take Adaptability 3 at most.
A monstrous race only gets 5 not a dozen.@Nemitri you are looking at this as a Player Tool it is not, it is a GM tool that is used to design races. The GM has the last say as to if a Race designed with this tool is allowed.
Ah, very true. 3 tops for a standard race.
...but my point remains: unless it explicitly states "This ability can be taken more than once. Its effects stack." or "This ability can be
taken up to three times." or something like that, I assume you can only take it one time.Which is why it costs 4 points which when building a race really cuts into your choices.
Remember this is a GM tool, my players will likely not use it, they will instead get to choose from races I design. So unless you as the GM want a broken Game then make Races with Adaptability multiple times.
I'm trying to argue that I believe Adaptability, Bonus Feat, etc. can only be taken once. Ever. I was just trying to make a point that Bonus Feat could be the least of your concerns if abilities could be taken more than once. But they can only be taken once. So no breaking the game that way. :P
Bah, maybe I misinterpreted your words in a confrontational way. Anywho, as you said, it's more of a GM tool than anything else. Not too many GMs will allow players to craft and min/max their own races. Races are generally an established presence in a campaign world, so most aren't thrown into a game carelessly.
No problem I did not take it as confrontational I'm just trying to discus these rules as they were intended. Now rather than increasing price I do agree that traits that give feats should be reduced to 1 at Standard, 2 at Advanced and 3 at Monstrous. I think that would be fair.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh yeah, I kinda missed the point this is for mostly for DMs (but what if your DM is a munchkin XD?)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh yeah, I kinda missed the point this is for mostly for DMs (but what if your DM is a munchkin XD?)
I am on the opposite end of the spectrum, actually. 4 pts is way too high for just a feat. Especially given other racial bebefits.
Most feats can not come close to a LOT of lower priced abilities.
It should be lowered in cost, imo.
Oh yeah, I kinda missed the point this is for mostly for DMs (but what if your DM is a munchkin XD?)I am on the opposite end of the spectrum, actually. 4 pts is way too high for just a feat. Especially given other racial bebefits.
Most feats can not come close to a LOT of lower priced abilities.
It should be lowered in cost, imo.
I usually pick human just for that extra feat, trusty me, you are underselling feats.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Oh yeah, I kinda missed the point this is for mostly for DMs (but what if your DM is a munchkin XD?)I am on the opposite end of the spectrum, actually. 4 pts is way too high for just a feat. Especially given other racial bebefits.
Most feats can not come close to a LOT of lower priced abilities.
It should be lowered in cost, imo.
I kind of wish it was 3 points. It's *not* the same as adaptability (a relatively fixed feat) but I don't know if it's on par with, say shield and mage armor twice a day each. Or even skilled for that matter.*
*
While I can see 3 points, I am fine with it costing 4. Especially given the added versatility over gaining a specific narrow focus feat.
While I can see 3 points, I am fine with it costing 4. Especially given the added versatility over gaining a specific narrow focus feat.
Likewise. While that extra feat isn't always amazing, sometimes it allows you to get deeper into a feat chain than you otherwise could have.
Obscure example:
Master of Many styles monk
1st level feat: Dodge
Bonus Feat: Crane Style
1st level Bonus Monk Feat: Crane Wing (Skipping other prereqs)
2nd level Bonus Monk Feat: Crane Riposte
...otherwise you'd have to multiclass to get Crane Riposte or wait until much later. :3
Nah. Not convinced. It's 1, and only 1 feat ... compared against the whole long laundry list of racial powers?
No - not even *close* in value.
*Maybe* if feats were still at 1/3 levels like 3.5 did it (ie: more rare), however, with the direction PF took, the progression dropped to 1/2 levels (1, 3, etc), so they've made them "more common" now, and therefore less valuable.
Feats are NOT that powerful, or that vaulable in PF's own paradigm shifts from 3.5 - present.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
... but feats are interesting and fun, and they define your character. Archers who start from 1 don't want to wait an extra level to be "online", they want point blank / precise from the outset, with rapid at 3. Weapon masters want that combat expertise / improved trip right away.
Humans are popular because most games start from 1 and end around 10; and humans get to play more of those levels fully functional.
There is a reason they end up the most popular race; flexibility in feat chains for early levels is huge.
... but feats are interesting and fun, and they define your character. Archers who start from 1 don't want to wait an extra level to be "online", they want point blank / precise from the outset, with rapid at 3. Weapon masters want that combat expertise / improved trip right away.
Humans are popular because most games start from 1 and end around 10; and humans get to play more of those levels fully functional.
There is a reason they end up the most popular race; flexibility in feat chains for early levels is huge.
No argument. It is a good human feature -as they get +1 more feature (earlier) than all other races ... at the cost of a whole slew of racial boons others get. It is a fair trade, but still leaves humans wanting by comparison.
More interestingly, though, I read the above assessment and I am not thinking about how much better humans are, but rather how screwed melee classes are. An archer needs to invest 2 feats (impossible for all but humans at 1stthe level) to be "online"? Meanwhile casters are good to go from the word go.
I see only greater reason, then, to devalue what a feat is worth by comparison.
Again, my assesment comes from the games baked in value assessment of feats popping up at 1/2 levels. It is a relatively "cheap" resource to the system itself. Keep in mind, too, that it is not like the system values feat x differently from feat y, mind you. They arw all just "+1 feat" and that is it.
... but feats are interesting and fun, and they define your character. Archers who start from 1 don't want to wait an extra level to be "online", they want point blank / precise from the outset, with rapid at 3. Weapon masters want that combat expertise / improved trip right away.
Humans are popular because most games start from 1 and end around 10; and humans get to play more of those levels fully functional.
There is a reason they end up the most popular race; flexibility in feat chains for early levels is huge.
No argument. It is a good human feature -as they get +1 more feature (earlier) than all other races ... at the cost of a whole slew of racial boons others get. It is a fair trade, but still leaves humans wanting by comparison.
More interestingly, though, I read the above assessment and I am not thinking about how much better humans are, but rather how screwed melee classes are. An archer needs to invest 2 feats (impossible for all but humans at 1stthe level) to be "online"? Meanwhile casters are good to go from the word go.
I see only greater reason, then, to devalue what a feat is worth by comparison.
Again, my assesment comes from the games baked in value assessment of feats popping up at 1/2 levels. It is a relatively "cheap" resource to the system itself. Keep in mind, too, that it is not like the system values feat x differently from feat y, mind you. They arw all just "+1 feat" and that is it.
Main problem with feats is jus that, they have completelly diferent power levels, even those without level requirements.
Too many absurd or just plain bad pre-req. Without those bad pre-requisite feats however the humans do get a better use of their extra feat.
I remember the time when you would get 1 or 2 levels of fighter just to get pre-req feats, and I still see it happening, that's a problem that cannot be solved in this edition, and will never be solved until Feat inflation stops.
|
|
And I agree with this. I do think there should be a trait that says "you are treated as having Combat Expertise, but do not gain the benefits of this feat". Same with dodge, power attack, pBS, and improved unarmed strike. Some of the feats they lead to (tactical fighters) do not really want those prereqs, but they have to grab them. The feats should be overpowered because they are later in a chain, but they aren't.
So as long as these prereqs exist, humans and their +1 feat will be the race of choice.
The interaction with int-dump and the +1 skill point (7 int human getting 2 skills/lvl) is another noteworthy boon of humans, but doesn't come in quite as often as that "get further along in doing what you were built to do".
But I agree, at least in terms of racial powers, those especially of elves and dwarves far overpower "just one feat". In fact, if elves and dwarves had the flexible stat of humans I'd say few would pass up all of those bonuses just for one feat. But the flexible stat also makes humans appealing; getting an 18 for 10 build points is probably their greatest feature.
Main problem with feats is jus that, they have completelly diferent power levels, even those without level requirements.
Too many absurd or just plain bad pre-req. Without those bad pre-requisite feats however the humans do get a better use of their extra feat.
I remember the time when you would get 1 or 2 levels of fighter just to get pre-req feats, and I still see it happening, that's a problem that cannot be solved in this edition, and will never be solved until Feat inflation stops.
ok ... so if there is an acknowlwdged feat value issue, how is it a good thing to value feats higher than their actual in-system value?
Point being: I am not seeing how it is beneficial to a race building system to charge an outrageous premium on a general purpose mechanical artifact of little inherent (ie: feat = feat, and 1 feat/2 levels) value.
Main problem with feats is jus that, they have completelly diferent power levels, even those without level requirements.
Too many absurd or just plain bad pre-req. Without those bad pre-requisite feats however the humans do get a better use of their extra feat.
I remember the time when you would get 1 or 2 levels of fighter just to get pre-req feats, and I still see it happening, that's a problem that cannot be solved in this edition, and will never be solved until Feat inflation stops.
ok ... so if there is an acknowlwdged feat value issue, how is it a good thing to value feats higher than their actual in-system value?
Point being: I am not seeing how it is beneficial to a race building system to charge an outrageous premium on a general purpose mechanical artifact of little inherent (ie: feat = feat, and 1 feat/2 levels) value.
You misunderstood me mate. I'm on your side.
I'm considering my own old way of building races here, where 10RP is worth one level or ECL. In that 'system' 3 feats were worth 10 points or 9.The feat issue is one of NEED. Many builds NEED feats that they don't want to,k or will hardly (if ever) use, combat expertise for instance. And that just plain sucks, bear in mind too that there is a certain number of feats that you can take at first level, so the more "extra feats" you have at first level the less powerful it is.
I think 4 points is fine for a feat, you are playing for near countless options and flexibility after all.
Now skilled on the other hand is well over priced.
I think 4 points is fine for a feat, you are playing for near countless options and flexibility after all.
Now skilled on the other hand is well over priced.
Um ... no. You are paying for "+1 feat"and which has the SAME value at every odd #'d level in the game.
@Xum: my question was not directed at you so much as taking the point you mentioned and bringing it up as it has been used in this thread so far - as a justification for why "+1 feat"and is SOOOOOO much more powerful than X, Y, or Z because of "choice" and such.
I am fully with your observation, though. ;-)
Um ... no. You are paying for "+1 feat"and which has the SAME value at every odd #'d level in the game.
This has zero to do with it. How powerful is it next to other abilities of the same cost. 3 feats of your choice at level one can be very powerful compared to two or one feats.Many abilities are not as good later on in the game, but they does not mean they should cost less.
What you should look at is this in line with the powers of the same cost for level 1? A farmer? a expert? Most of the race are not 10th level wizards or 15th level fighters or 8th level clerics, with enough cash tied up in magic items to float a small kingdom. An extra feat just gives that race and every member of that race a huge edge in what ever field they choose.
|
|
You're not refuting that human is the most taken race just for that extra feat though.
Face it, without changing game mechanics, almost all martial builds and a growing number of caster builds want more feats to feel more "complete". Summoning options, better metamagic make mages desire these before. You don't want to wait those two extra levels to get online; you want it now, and later you'll get a different support feat.
Once you are 9 or so human starts to lose value. Until then, that extra feat is what everyone wants; far more than the good-but-generic boons of other races. At 4 points as a player if I could design my own race I would rarely pass up an extra feat; some builds I might pay 5-6. This says it is possibly undercosted, but not overcosted.
Most of my PCs are humans because that extra feat lets me do what I want to do faster. All of my games start from 1, and as I play primarily PFS end at 11. I want as much as I can get as quickly as I can.
Even my mono fighter, with feats every level, took human for that extra feat. It's better than any other races offered for him, especially as a trip expert.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
In review, I still think it should be three points, but it also comes into design.
Extra Feat is much more powerful than adaptability (not just because skill focus isn't the best feat out there). The difficulty in comparing the two is Extra Feat benefits everyone, where a 'spend X RP, get Y feat' is more customized.
For example, is Spell Focus (pick a school) only worth 1 RP? Sure it's useless if you're playing a fighter, but if we're talking about player designed races, it's doubtful you'll see that combo exist. Is Improved Init only worth 1 pont? etc.
Bear in mind, gentleman, that when you get an extra feat you can choose anything that you qualify for. If you get a specific feat that has pre-req you get it even if you don't. It' brings a complicated math to the equation, I know. But that's the way it's suposed to be.
I think some feats should cost less anyway. But it's complicated to do so considering the costs so far.
In my groups we ALL get an extra feat at first level, and in ALL games I played (since 3.5 came out) a LOT of players when making their chars said .... "I have an extra feat... what do I get?"
All I'm saying is, yes, it helps but it's much less valuable as you assume it is, at first level the options aren't as AWESOME as you would believe.
It does not have to be super awesome, just super useful to The race not to a class, not to your min/maxing players but to the race as a whole. How useful is that free any feat?
Pretty freaking useful. It puts the average member of that race ahead of other races in the profession they choose. Your farmers have an advantage, your blacksmith, your city watch, your scholars, and yes your fighters, wizards and what have you.
The feat is pure racial flexibility and should cost.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
It does not have to be super awesome, just super useful to The race not to a class, not to your min/maxing players but to the race as a whole. How useful is that free any feat?
Pretty freaking useful. It puts the average member of that race ahead of other races in the profession they choose. Your farmers have an advantage, your blacksmith, your city watch, your scholars, and yes your fighters, wizards and what have you.
The feat is pure racial flexibility and should cost.
Fine... say what I mean better than I do. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am on the opposite end of the spectrum, actually. 4 pts is way too high for just a feat. Especially given other racial bebefits.
Most feats can not come close to a LOT of lower priced abilities.
It should be lowered in cost, imo.
Gotta agree with TSiD on this one. If Skill Focus (Adaptability) is worth only 1, quadrupling the cost just to get to choose a feat is too much. Yes, getting to choose is nice and maybe worth 1 extra point - but 3 extra? No way. To be honest, I think Adaptability should be raised to 2; then, 3 points (that is, 1 point more) would be about right for a bonus feat of choice.
But, then, I've already talked a bunch about this here.
This has zero to do with it.
No. That's exactly the point of it. The SYSTEM, once you begin and PLAY from level 1 - level infinite, the SYSTEM tells me "+1 feat = +1 feat" at every point and turn.
It tells me, also, that in changing from +1/3 levels (3.5) availability to +1/2 levels of availability that the feat, as a game mechanic of value has been made more common, and is, therefore, less valuable in the first place. When a race got +1 feat in a game that ONLY handed out 7 feats over a 20 level progression I'm looking at that as a 8/7, or 114% of what other races receive and that's over 20 levels, mind you (ie: not really worth much at too many given points). As that changes in PF, and there are now 10 feats over the same 20 level progression, I'm now looking at 11/10, or 110% of feats.
I do not deny it being of value. It *is* however, incredibly OVER-valued. Especially in PF's framework. There would be a stronger case of leaving it at a higher value IF this was still a 3.5 product ... but it's not a 3.5 product.
How powerful is it next to other abilities of the same cost.
THIS is pretty much what matters most, actually. No disagreement ... however, let's look at some 4 rp abilities, then, eh?
*At 2 rp you can be a monstrous humanoid and get Darkvision, as well as now be a "monstrous humanoid" and maybe qualify for critter feats, too. It's not 4 rp's, but at 2 rp's, it's *already* more useful than ANY feat available. {yes - this is hyperbole, so don't get crazy trying to prove 1 feat can "win da' gamez" now.}*4 rp's can get you Advanced Modifiers (ignore the pre-req's, just focus on the value of points here). +4/+2/+2/-2. Again - DWARFS the impact of "+1 feat"
*You can be Tiny and get the 4 RP's of that. +2 dex (note - in addition to whatever racial stats you have going anyway), and the other benefits (and then they account for 0 in space occupation ... and this counts for nothing against them. Provoking AoO's in order to enter a target's square and attack - this sucks ... yet it, too, is priced at 4)
*Duergar Immunities are valued at 4. Immunity, IMMUNITY to very common conditions and threats ... at 4 rps. THAT certainly dwarfs a "+1 feat" effect in so many way's it's not even funny.
*Fortunate - +2 racial bonus on all saving throws. Again ... show me the feat can grants you a bonus on anything more than 1 save, and I'll eat my words on this one.
*Damage Reduction
*Elemental Immunity
*Spell-like Ability - this can only use 2nd level spells, but it's free. Show me the feat that lets you just bust out with a spell for no good reason? {note - it's only 2 RP's on this one}
*Flight. 4 rps, and you can fly ... FLY, mind you.
There are more (examples in both directions), too, but it's not that relevant. The point is "+1 feat" =/= 4 rp's in terms of the other things that say "4 rps" are telling us they do for effects and mechanics.
It's crazy. +1 feat is NO WHERE NEAR the ability to fly. At all.
3 feats of your choice at level one can be very powerful compared to two or one feats.Many abilities are not as good later on in the game, but they does not mean they should cost less.
Now you're talking about specific class potential to make use of "+1 feat" then?
That should have nothing to do with the inherent value of the feat itself.
What you should look at is this in line with the powers of the same cost for level 1? A farmer? a expert? Most of the race are not 10th level wizards or 15th level fighters or 8th level clerics, with enough cash tied up in magic items to float a small kingdom.
Powers of the same cost (I'm assuming the documents RP values, yes?) = no. Hell no, not even close.
Farmers and experts? Last time I checked, racial choices matter most for PC's. Are you suggesting that they be balanced against potential NPC class power nerfing?An extra feat just gives that race and every member of that race a huge edge in what ever field they choose.
No ... it gives them "+1 feat" and that's it. They could be a farmer with a passion for sword play and pick up Weapon Focus.
Or any other reason you want to insert a feat for, it can be inserted ... because you know what? It's just "+1 feat" no matter how you cut it.
You're not refuting that human is the most taken race just for that extra feat though.
Do I have to? It's your experience, clearly. Do you presume to speak for "all who have ever played the game of all games Pathfinder" and therefore, are THE one true voice of authority on the matter?
I'm not, nor am I claiming to be. Humans get to have "+1 feat" as a racial feature. I'm not arguing about that, or that it's useful. I'm arguing about the value cost assigned to the thing. It's WAY off-kilter and I'm calling a spade a spade when I see it.
[For the record - I've played MANY games where there was not a human in sight. Doesn't mean much of anything, though - NOR am I claiming it should.]
Face it, without changing game mechanics, almost all martial builds and a growing number of caster builds want more feats to feel more "complete". Summoning options, better metamagic make mages desire these before. You don't want to wait those two extra levels to get online; you want it now, and later you'll get a different support feat.
Yes ... many would like the opportunity to pick up "+1 feat" I'm sure. However, in the end, even if they did, you know what they would have?
Take a guess ...
"+1 feat"
Once you are 9 or so human starts to lose value. Until then, that extra feat is what everyone wants; far more than the good-but-generic boons of other races. At 4 points as a player if I could design my own race I would rarely pass up an extra feat; some builds I might pay 5-6. This says it is possibly undercosted, but not overcosted.
So basing the value of "+1 feat" should revolve around the fact that by 9th level it's impact has been diminished, and it will only continue to diminish from there, correct?
You *do* realize that practically makes the case for me. It's OVER-valued in the low levels, and then it's insignificant past level 9. Totally insignificant and worthless in, say, the way that Flight could be taken at level 1, and by level 9, it's also insignificant and of minimal value. Or ... maybe +2 to all saves? Or "insert any other 4 rp value ability from the .pdf that you want to analyze".
You're measuring the value of the feat by what it can combine with, and not by what the SYSTEM tells us they are valued at. That's wrong-headed, IMO, for this sort of a project. You are putting in FAR more value to the thing than it truly has. Not every choice will be about optimization in this, and the system shouldn't be designed around that.
If you're worried about player abuse - well, then, that's EXACTLY why this is a GM tool product.
Most of my PCs are humans because that extra feat lets me do what I want to do faster. All of my games start from 1, and as I play primarily PFS end at 11. I want as much as I can get as quickly as I can.
Irrelevant. It's anecdotal at best. All it proves is your personal preferences.
Put me in the camp that believes that Human Feat costing 4 RP is just right, if anything it's other abilities that are undervalued. Hardy, Adaptability, and Gnome Magic should cost at least 3 RP not just 1 RP. Feats and feat like things should cost 3 RP. Being able to assign that feat to something to benefit your character whatever it may be should cost a little more (so +1 RP) coming up to 4 RP.
Everything Racial has a higher importance in the low levels. That's just how the game runs.
EDIT: Almost anything, Human's extra skill point every level effectiveness incurs throughout the lifetime of the character. Still it's at the power of a feat (Similar in effect to Toughness).
Put me in the camp that believes that Human Feat costing 4 RP is just right, if anything it's other abilities that are undervalued. Hardy, Adaptability, and Gnome Magic should cost at least 3 RP not just 1 RP. Feats and feat like things should cost 3 RP. Being able to assign that feat to something to benefit your character whatever it may be should cost a little more (so +1 RP) coming up to 4 RP.
Everything Racial has a higher importance in the low levels. That's just how the game runs.
EDIT: Almost anything, Human's extra skill point every level effectiveness incurs throughout the lifetime of the character. Still it's at the power of a feat (Similar in effect to Toughness).
The bolded emphasis (mine) in the statement above I can get behind easily, actually.
If people want Feats to cost 4, I'm good with that. HOWEVER, everything else needs to sky-rocket by comparison. Seriously, the point I'm against is the price disparity in the first place. Whether "+1 feat" is 4 rp, or 2 is largely irrelevant. It's the matter of things being priced appropriately for the effects that they grant in-game.
|
This has zero to do with it.No. That's exactly the point of it. The SYSTEM, once you begin and PLAY from level 1 - level infinite, the SYSTEM tells me "+1 feat = +1 feat" at every point and turn.
It tells me, also, that in changing from +1/3 levels (3.5) availability to +1/2 levels of availability that the feat, as a game mechanic of value has been made more common, and is, therefore, less valuable in the first place. When a race got +1 feat in a game that ONLY handed out 7 feats over a 20 level progression I'm looking at that as a 8/7, or 114% of what other races receive and that's over 20 levels, mind you (ie: not really worth much at too many given points). As that changes in PF, and there are now 10 feats over the same 20 level progression, I'm now looking at 11/10, or 110% of feats.
You are missing a very important factor here. We are not always 20th level characters. The majority of players begin as a 1st level character with 1 feat. The bonus feat raises it to 2 feats, a 100% increase. As you level the value drops each time a feat is gained. At 9th level the norm is 5 feats; the trait now offers a 20% increase. At 12th level (maximum for PFS which is worth considering) the norm is 6 feats; the trait now offers a 16.6% increase. It has been asserted (in other places and my personal experience reflects this assertion) that most games are between level 7-10. This means for most players the benefit will never drop below a 20% increase in feats. Where feats are the most defining aspect of a character aside from class choice.
So, should I start with a 100% increase in feats which eventually dwindles to 20%? The trait is VERY powerful for low level builds and for the vast majority of players does not diminish significantly. This of course assumes every feat is a +1 feat typed power bonus, but in reality it is much more complex. In general your feat allows you to do something unique and interesting which makes your character more what you envision. BodyGuard, for example, allows me to utilize my AoOs in a new and interesting way. I would have been forced to wait until level three for this option with another race. Since I took Bodyguard at level one I now can get Improved Trip by 5th level instead of waiting until 7th, and GreaterTrip by 7th level instead of 9th. It cascades through the characters lifetime opening possibilities sooner; allowing the player to have these options longer during the game; and for most of us, allowing us to get abilities we would not have gotten otherwise. My character with Combat Reflexes, BodyGuard, Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, and Greater Trip gets the opportunity to pick up something other feat at 9th level and use it in the game which only goes until 10th level. This character will have many more feats he would like to take and are all competing for one spot, but the "core" of his build is in place and he now has the opportunity to do something else.
|
|
*grabs popcorn*
Seriously, though. 4 is about right. Racial features are generally more pronounced at low levels.
Sure, being a human lets you get a bit deeper in trees if used correctly, but remember: It's a level 1 feat. You can't ever use it for above-level-1 things. If that feat tree you're going for only has a single level-1 member, then congratulations on not getting any closer.
Compare this to a dwarf who gets a +2 to poison, spells and spell-likes (or, alternately, SR6+level) for 1 RP less. Or Fortunate which grants a +2 to all saves (equivalent to 3 feats) for the same price.
TL;DR - Humans get 1 feat and +1 skill point per level. Compared to the laundry list of stuff other races get, that's not really that impressive. People just pick human a lot because a human's racial traits are helpful for all builds (and requires less thinking to be helpful), where other racial traits are only sometimes helpful.
Damn, now i don't what to think, both sides in favor and against do have valid points!
You're still costing the feat wrong. The value of the feat is the Next Feat Taken that the guy next to you couldn't get.
That might mean Quicken Spell...extremely valuable.
It might mean Critical Focus, or a second Crit feat.
It might mean Desert Stalker (no penalty to Stealth while moving).
You can't value it as just a beginner feat, although that is valuable, too. For the common laborer, the ability to take Great Fortitude means they can, by the rules, work longer and harder then a dwarven peasant (endurance is a fort save) and are more resistant to disease. For an artisan, it means a skill boosting feat that their rivals won't get until levels later, giving them an edge in dealings.
For a high level character, it means getting a feat three levels before the elf next to you, or for a fighter, getting that extra crit feat two levels sooner and putting it to use.
So, the value of the extra feat is not the feat you take at level 1. It's the value of the feat you just took that someone else could NOT.
==Aelryinth
|
|
You're still costing the feat wrong. The value of the feat is the Next Feat Taken that the guy next to you couldn't get.
That might mean Quicken Spell...extremely valuable.
It might mean Critical Focus, or a second Crit feat.
It might mean Desert Stalker (no penalty to Stealth while moving).You can't value it as just a beginner feat, although that is valuable, too. For the common laborer, the ability to take Great Fortitude means they can, by the rules, work longer and harder then a dwarven peasant (endurance is a fort save) and are more resistant to disease. For an artisan, it means a skill boosting feat that their rivals won't get until levels later, giving them an edge in dealings.
For a high level character, it means getting a feat three levels before the elf next to you, or for a fighter, getting that extra crit feat two levels sooner and putting it to use.
So, the value of the extra feat is not the feat you take at level 1. It's the value of the feat you just took that someone else could NOT.
==Aelryinth
This is only sure to be a valid analysis of the value for characters who can take at least 2 feats towards their feat tree at level 1 (possibly made harder due to classes with relevant bonus feats). I know this is generally true for two-weapon and ranged characters, but not sure how true it is of others.
Other characters may end up using that feat for something "nice", but that they wouldn't have otherwise taken (like Toughness). I know that when I play a caster I generally find myself in such a situation (if I pick human). As a martial character that extra feat is more useful (not so much if playing a fighter, though).
You are missing a very important factor here. We are not always 20th level characters.
Umm ... no. I didn't miss that at all. In fact, I counted on it - that's the 1st level at which you get a feat. Humans, as a racial feature get "+1 feat" more than everyone else. The higher the levels go (I chose 20 because level progressions only go so high, and epic rules have yet to be made official for PF at this time), the more IRrelevant that "+1 feat" becomes as a human feature.
20th level, as I used it, was just a snap-shot to establish what the value of Feats was as a baseline. The system awards them at X progression rate, over Y levels, and that was the extent of it.
You can't divorce the over-arching system design and how it values feats in favor of looking at 1 level in any given progression (at that, the 1st level, and the most insignificant level, frankly) and say that is the sum total of the "value" of a feat. That's not internally consistent to the system that exists outside of the race builder, and that is not going to play nicely with anything moving forward.
The majority of players begin as a 1st level character with 1 feat. The bonus feat raises it to 2 feats, a 100% increase. As you level the value drops each time a feat is gained. At 9th level the norm is 5 feats; the trait now offers a 20% increase.
So, you would rather design a race builder that assigns value NOT as the over-arching system actually functions, but rather - reduce it's value to "how something functions at level 1 and level 1 only" is that it?
That's ridiculous. There is no long-term understanding of how the feats function "in system" as the system progresses. Or, are you adding to a rider there that the race builder should also only assume existence for all values at a level 1 and level 1 only progression - ever?
That's equally silly to me. It's a level-based game. *Of course* characters will get better.
You can either pretend that "level 1" is the END GAME and make "+1 Feat" into an AWESOME GAME WINNER!!! It doubles your feats!!!
OR
You can look at how feats function in the long haul of the game's life and look to what value the system itself assigns, and design the race builder along those lines.
So, should I start with a 100% increase in feats which eventually dwindles to 20%?
Here we are again.
You're pricing the "+1 feat" as though it's value is the BEST EVER in the race builder, and then continuing on, KNOWINGLY saying that it's value is not even close in the long-run of the game to what this race builder says it is.
How you can write, read, and understand that to NOT be inherently contradictory is beyond me. I look at it and it leaps out, "something is wrong here!"
The trait is VERY powerful for low level builds and for the vast majority of players does not diminish significantly. This of course assumes every feat is a +1 feat typed power bonus, but in reality it is much more complex.
Now you're back on making a POINTEDLY subjective value based around a level 1 impact of a game mechanic that clearly provides diminishing returns, and then insisting that because the level 1 impact is so great, it should stand side by side with the ridiculous advantages of, oh, I don't know, let's say Flight (particular feature is irrelevant - pick any 4 rp ability and the point remains the same).
More, this is a level-based game. It's a game where you KNOW for a fact that "level 1" is not even *close* to the sum-total of where you will end up (unless you die at level 1 that is). Progressive leveling is what the entire game revolves around, and you're trying to justify an inflated price to a game resource that we know is just not that special, or all that unique.
Getting +1 more of the SAME things that everyone else has anyway isn't much to write home about. It is nice, and it is an advantage, however, you HAVE to consider the in-game value of this thing. Systemically, it tells us that it's just NOT that valuable a character resource - it isn't.
Note: this doesn't say that feats can't do nice things - they can. But nice things on the level of the other 4 rp-value examples we have? No - not even *remotely* close to being THAT nice in the least.
I think the more important thing is what Ion Raven put down. ...if anything, it's other abilities that are undervalued.
That's where the meat of this discussion will be. As I said, the whole basis of my objection to 4 rp's is by comparing it to other 4 rp abilities.
Again - I could care less what the final value of it is in the abstract. Hell - make it a 10 rp ability for all I care. HOWEVER, I want to know what the other abilities are getting priced out at. That's where my objection resides. You can't put a "cheap" (systemically speaking) feature like a feat on some grand pedestal for things that are systemically providing FAR superior benefits than anything that "cheap" resource can possibly achieve on it's own.
So ... fine. Let's say 4 rp's is fine for "+1 feat" ... where should Flight be rated if 4 rp's is "just a feat" essentially?
You're still costing the feat wrong. The value of the feat is the Next Feat Taken that the guy next to you couldn't get.
No, wrong.
Show me where in the system is says, "Feat X is worth 3 units, and Feat Y is worth 1 only."
You can't.
You know why?
It is because THE SYSTEM itself has baked into the class structure "+1 feat" and really that's the extent of the value THE SYSTEM has. Period.
The system doesn't assign different values to different feats, yet that's sort of what you keep trying to mess with by including chains or anything like that.
The *closest* you can get is "pre-requesites" and those are not the same thing at all. Why?
...
Because the system says, "Character level (odd #) ==> +1 feat" and that is the extent of it.
|
|
@The Speaker in Dreams
I am not trying to price the feat based on how it plays at any particular level. I am trying to price it based on the overall impact to game balance. I compare it to the increase at various level ranges to illustrate that it does diminish in impact as the character levels. However, it is an extremely useful option and does allow the character freedom to grow faster. I believe it to be reasonably priced, but would like to see other traits such as Hardy, which has received a lot of criticism for its low cost, be increased in price.
I feel the flexibility of the bonus feat warrants it being on par with the more expensive traits while being less of a power bump. A min-maxer will look for the race with precisely the right set of traits for their build, but the human will always rate as among the top options for any build due to their extreme versatility. Being among the top options for anything should make you balanced right?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
These rules are a GM/game designer tool, not a player tool.
I'm going to have to quibble, if not outright disagree with you on this.
The code is more guidelines than hard and fast- wait wrong movie.
The rules aren't so much a game designer tool, as a world builder tool.
And Players are going to want to use them.
For example. DM wants to run a Greyhawk campaign.
"Can I play a shifter, like an Eberron Changling?"
*DM looks around for WotC IP-Ninja.* "Um sure, give me a background for the race and write it up."
*player whips out his notepad, already having planned on this.* "Here, Background is that they're relatives of the skulks, kind of an offshoot, trying to come back into society. They have..."
*DM tunes out player's talking, crunches numbers, decides to allow it.*
Everyone wins, Player gets his character, party gets a happy player, GM gets a new bit of background that he can use in his game.
Now it's true that it's a player creation. but how is that different from a player bringing in a Vanguard or a Damascarran and saying. "Can I play this instead of a Magus?"
The only flaw in SPCDRI's scenario (IMNSHO) is how his 'human wizard's' race evolved along those lines, and away from humans. (Well that and you can't take Hardy with Flexible, IIRC)
Let's build a 'Spartan' race.
Type Human
Speed Normal
Stats: +2 Con, + 2 Cha, -2 Wis (Spartans breed for health and have a powerful presense, but their inherent confidence makes them more likely to miss details)
STandard language array (could be xenophobic, but I felt only 'one step' down makes sense) (1 RP)
Greater Defensive Training (3 RP) Spartans are trained from youth in self defence
Stability (see Thermopoli) (1 RP)
Weapon Familiarity (Sword, Spear) (1 RP)
Eternal Hope (They believe they are descended from Heracles) (2 RP)
That's 7 points (if I added right) If we drop them to Xenophobic and/or replace Eternal Hope with Hardy skilled still fits in and we come in at 10 points. I happen to also think it fits the '300' stylized spartans. I can also 'fluff' them as being a seperate martial society where politics is another form of combat, and they believe they will (eventually) rise up and lead lesser humans to a golden age. I can see their use as a GM and a player.
To say, these rules are for GMs only is a misnomer I feel.
...
These rules are a GM/game designer tool, not a player tool.
I agree with Meepo
This is way more of a GM part than a player part in the book.
Why?
- Munchkins will power play it, you know they will.
- GMs are the ones who decide what can exist in their world, if a player wants a Gelfling, but Gelflings don't exist in that world, to bad so sad, your not playing that Gelfling.
Unless the player lets the GM verify it and that it's not a power grab, has a racial backstory that can fit into the world, and receives the OK from the GM.
- These rules exist so GMs can replace some player races with others. In my homebrew campaigns, I require that players take a race that has 50% or more Human DNA. so I need to replace the Elf, Dwarf, Orc, Halfling and Gnome with something else and that is what these rules are for.
- GM is the one who controls 99.99% of the world from A to Z including the cast of NPCs, the players only control the actions of their characters.
can this part be also for players yes, but only with GM approval and GM player cooperation on the race.
|
|
@Matt: While I agree with the idea that it is cool to have a player be able to bring in a cool race (such as Warforged) from another setting without extra work for DM, saying that this is not a DM tool is still misleading. Letting a player bring in a custom race requires no less oversight than them bringing in any custom content, whether that be feats, magic items, classes, what-have-you. Sure, you didn't have to write it, but you should still read it, think about its impact for a minute or two, then make a decision on whether to allow it.
Making a character is not a DM tool. Picking feats and spells from the core material is not a DM tool. Building new content is a DM tool, whether there are rules for that or not (see: Custom Magic Items in CRB, New Spells in UM and now new races in ARG).
Sure, players have good ideas, and those ideas may even be accepted in their complete and written form, but taking them in without examining them first is asking for trouble.