|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?"
I don't necessarily disagree.
But it's a far cry from, "Hey, can I suggest a new race?" to "If I'm going to build a human wizard, I'm replacing the bonus feat with..."
The fact that I was responding to the latter of those two statements informs the context of my previous post.
(Also, I must be a much less permissive GM than most, because I would absolutely not allow your Spartan race, even if it is only 7 RP. To me, the mechanics of that race don't match the fluff at all. A race of highly-trained soldiers with no other racial abilities is a race with no racial traits and lots of fighter levels. Same goes for any "naturally good at [character class]" race. To me, those aren't races. Those are character builds that should be defined by class levels and class archetypes.)
To be fair, many races already walk or outright cross the line between physical and societal. That said, I agree that racial traits should be kept as close to the physical side of things as possible. Even the human's adaptability and skilled traits could actually physical in nature, owing to the flexibility of the mind.
My preference is that the racial traits be purely physical (rather than societal), but have the society look down on people who don't meet their requirements. Decide to be a wizard in a society of warriors? Prepare to be ridiculed, if not outright hunted or exiled.
To say, these rules are for GMs only is a misnomer I feel.
Look, I'm going to let you in on a secret. I agree with everything you just said. But I'm going to keep responding to things with "GM Tool GM Tool GM Tool."
Why? Because, even in your example, it is something only used with significant GM oversight. The GM could have said no for any reason. "No custom races," "No, it doesn't fit my campaign," or "Your Sparkle-Elf is too powerful" would all be fine answers, since you are asking for a special privilege. Just because God is letting you play with his forge doesn't mean he doesn't get to watch you closely. Your Spartan race is fine, as it is very much the sort of race a GM would create. Various thematically linked abilities, that is not designed as an extension of a specific character build.
If we say "this is a player tool," however, things become very different. Saying no to someone's specifically designed, overpowered race would be like saying "No, you can't use Power Attack," "Scimitars don't exit in my campaign" or "Diviners are too powerful, do something else." A GM is still free to do it, but there is a different tone. It is distinctly house ruling, and can create discontent much more easily than in the first example. Rather than closely watching a special privilege, you are the nosey parent constantly looking over your child's shoulder and correcting them.
Plus, it is easier than entering into long discussions every time someone presents a new ridiculous race as evidence the system is broken and needs heavier restrictions.
While I agree this is a GM tool, it needs to be priced and balanced to be a useful tool. I think the extra feat is at a good place at 4, but far to many other things are off on the cost.
|
|
While I agree this is a GM tool, it needs to be priced and balanced to be a useful tool. I think the extra feat is at a good place at 4, but far to many other things are off on the cost.
Agreed on all points. I think this may (at least partially) be a symptom of "all core races must be 10" design choice, which there is already a lengthy enough thread on.
You can either pretend that "level 1" is the END GAME and make "+1 Feat" into an AWESOME GAME WINNER!!! It doubles your feats!!!
For race, level 1 is, in fact, the end game. It represents front-loaded benefits for character creation, which is why the extra feat has always made humans the most mechanically popular race in 3rd edition and beyond.
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.
Once you start asking about the race's mechanical effect across all 20 levels, you've pretty much moved beyond the point of race, and into the realm of class, feats, and items, which are what character progression has traditionally been about. Race should not have a progressive mechanical benefit and, in fact, should become less important over time in everything but fluff... it should, in fact, become relatively unimportant by about level 5 if we're going to use core races as a baseline.
These rules are a GM/game designer tool, not a player tool.
While a good theory, it isn't GMs who will be putting this into play most often and everyone knows it. We know it, particularly, because this won't be the first "play monsters as PCs" official supplement for the dungeons and dragons franchise, and the last one was seen more frequently in the hands of players than GMs. While it is great to say "The GM can just say no" the fact is that GMs shouldn't want to say no, and most don't - they want to say yes to their players so long as doing so does not heap tons more work on him or her as GM, and once you slap the official seal of Paizo approval on a system, there's more reason for GMs to say yes to anything that follows "official Paizo rules" for something.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
To be fair, many races already walk or outright cross the line between physical and societal. That said, I agree that racial traits should be kept as close to the physical side of things as possible. Even the human's adaptability and skilled traits could actually physical in nature, owing to the flexibility of the mind.
My preference is that the racial traits be purely physical (rather than societal), but have the society look down on people who don't meet their requirements. Decide to be a wizard in a society of warriors? Prepare to be ridiculed, if not outright hunted or exiled.
just wanted to point out that my 'Theatrical Spartan' race really just dropped the bonus feat. Heck, it's been argued elsewhere that Linguist is over costed compared to the default, and if you drop Eternal hope for Hardy I can add in SKilled for 10 points total. Almost exactly like a human. Is my 'hollywood Spartan' a powerful race? For its role yes. Does it fit the fluff? Yes. (sure he screams 'warrior type' Um, Spartan! But he'd also make a good everything but a cleric)
As for the 'wizard in a society of warriors' that's an old trope. Using social factors to balance might work in the short term, but will get contrived quick. "Wait, I was picked on by the Shoanti for being a wizard in a world of barbarians, but now that we're in Tian Xian, I'm still picked on for it? By people who don't even know what a Shoanti is? We're getting into a 'fluff to balance mechanics' issue. Anyone can do that. but it's the subtlty vs ham handed thing.
I do think the feat should 'only' be three points, and now am thinking the linguistic array should be 1.
While I agree this is a GM tool, it needs to be priced and balanced to be a useful tool. I think the extra feat is at a good place at 4, but far to many other things are off on the cost.Agreed on all points. I think this may (at least partially) be a symptom of "all core races must be 10" design choice, which there is already a lengthy enough thread on.
I can agree on that, I think humans are at 6 or 7, Half-elves and elves are around 10 (give or take 1), Half-orcs are about 8 or 9. But these numbers are my opinion.
|
|
I do think the feat should 'only' be three points, and now am thinking the linguistic array should be 1.
I think that Xenophobic should be -1 (can't speak common without spending a skill rank is a problem for players, especially the 2+int crowd), Normal should be 0 and Linguistic 1 (but only if you have a racial language in addition to common). The feat is good at 4 (it IS quite versatile), but skilled should only be 3 since it's roughly equivalent to a locked feat (often being compared to toughness).
This leaves human at 7 (linguistics being 0 for them since they have no racial language). They are only picked as often as they are because no matter what they can do at least a decent job of the class you want. Certain classes do better with a given race (like a ray-specialized elf wizard taking full advantage of their + to stats and racials), but sometimes there is just no easy combination. And that's where human comes in.
Humans might actually need a +1 ability for having access to a very nice array of favored class abilities, though. This would put them back up to 8.
Except this isn't a "play monsters as PCs" system. Savage Species was a list of monster classes and feats that a PC can use, while we're playtesting guidelines for creating new races. Similarly, the Spell Compendium was a list of spells PCs could use, while the Ultimate Magic spell creation guideline were guidelines for creating new spells.
Savage Species included guidelines on how to figure out the level adjustment for monsters (and we can use that as a synonym for races that weren't in a published supplement) in order to use them as character races, and the monster classes were not a list of "here's what's available" they were examples to use when developing your own racial class. You only remember the picklist because that's what it was most used for - rarely was it GMs developing anything, it was players citing it as an official supplement and using things out of it.
There are an entirely different levels of entitlement for "Here are character options" (player tool) and "Here are guidelines for creating new character options" (GM tool).
All character options are subject to GM approval, nomatter where they come from. Because of that, any supplement that says "players with GM approval" are player options until the GM says otherwise. The fact that they are published in an official paizo product means they are accepted, by default, rather than rejected unless there is good justification, as with 3PP.
GMs don't need balance tools, frankly. Balance is whatever they say it is. A GM can toss in an overpowerful race and there are no repercussions, because hey, it's his or her game world. It's players that need balance tools to help them create and present something that will be most likely to be accepted by the GM as acceptable.
To be fair, many races already walk or outright cross the line between physical and societal. That said, I agree that racial traits should be kept as close to the physical side of things as possible. Even the human's adaptability and skilled traits could actually physical in nature, owing to the flexibility of the mind.
My preference is that the racial traits be purely physical (rather than societal), but have the society look down on people who don't meet their requirements. Decide to be a wizard in a society of warriors? Prepare to be ridiculed, if not outright hunted or exiled.
This actually brings up an interesting notion for some house-rules: What if we break up the existing races into "racial" and "social" packages? You'd need to do some re-jiggering of, well, every race in your setting... but you could build things so that, say, the base races get 8RP of physical abilities (representing their actual race), and then another 6RP of social package (representing how they were brought up).
And then you'd have rules that cover things like, a gnoll raised among orcs gaining orcish weapon familiarity, or an elf raised by wolves gaining bonuses to survival at the cost of languages and weapon familiarities, or exactly what does / doesn't change when you get reincarnated...
(Apologies for the tangent, but I thought this was worth sharing.)
I think extra feats are really powerful, but 4 points seems fair for one feat. Each additional free feat should cost more to make sure it is not abused. I would say 50% increase each time it is chosen, so the second feat would cost 6 points, and the 3rd would cost 9...
You can either pretend that "level 1" is the END GAME and make "+1 Feat" into an AWESOME GAME WINNER!!! It doubles your feats!!!For race, level 1 is, in fact, the end game.
No. It's not. It's the entry point to playing THE REST OF THE GAME. What's more, the rest of the game ... IN A LEVEL BASED SYSTEM.
Designing a "race" is not the game. The "game" is level progression, adventures, saving the day, and becoming more competent as you progress in your story.
For "race", level 1 is just the foundation of the game, and thus, why over-valuing ANY ability is such a problem. For that matter, under-valuing is just as troublesome.
The premise that level 1 = "be all/end all" of race is ludicrous.
It represents front-loaded benefits for character creation, which is why the extra feat has always made humans the most mechanically popular race in 3rd edition and beyond.
Umm ... based on what? Your personal game experiences? Your own magical talents for somehow knowing how all people played the game at all tables? Omniscience maybe?
You're making a huge claim there.
You're also coupling it with an unspoken "munchkins play humans only" sort of mentality or tone.
Not selling me on the validity of the argument or claim in either case.
Once you start asking about the race's mechanical effect across all 20 levels, you've pretty much moved beyond the point of race, and into the realm of class, feats, and items, which are what character progression has traditionally been about. Race should not have a progressive mechanical benefit and, in fact, should become less important over time in everything but fluff... it should, in fact, become relatively unimportant by about level 5 if we're going to use core races as a baseline.
2 different things entirely here are being presented.
1) mechanical effect of race being irrelevant to class level.2) Race having progressive impact in play akin to class levels.
On point #1 - I actually agree with that. HOWEVER, that's not what the other camp is saying either. The other camp is arguing that the level 1 value (class/level based metric here) has SO much more impact that it's TOTALLY worth 4 RP's. This, in light of the fact that it progressively is devalued, and the other 4 RP sample abilities we have are, pointedly, NOT losing effect over time, or relevance. Let's go to Fortunate (or whatever). It's 4 rp's and it's giving +2 to all saves always. Forever. No feat can do this. At best, it can get 1 of those things to happen (+2 to 1 save), and this is giving a +2 to all 3. That's like a 3 feats to 1 value. So, if we say a "+1 feat" is worth 4 RP's, then that ability *should* be more like 12 RP's on it's own. However, the existing document says it's 4 RP's. That, is just flat out crazy.
On Point #2 - I'm not arguing for races to have a progression with level at all. What I've done is point to the SYSTEMIC value of a feat and shown that the SYSTEM doesn't really give a lot of value to "+1 feat" inherently once you get outside of this race-builder system.
In fact, the designer's entire premise was challenged, and they've acknowledged that they did something wrong in assuming that "all races are worth 10 RP's" and that in this process they WILL be re-evaluating the values that have been assigned to abilities. That part of the argument's been won already - go playtesters!!! Go Paizo for listening to the fans!!!
Now, back to the point of the moment - the very fact that "+1 feat" was assigned a 4 RP value IN THE FIRST PLACE is 110% suspect because of the stated design premise (ie: that all races were equal and of a 10 RP value). Everything on EVERY race's make up is up for re-pricing and raised eyebrows. Why? Because the original premise that LEAD to the current #'s in the document were arrived at from an entirely flawed starting point.
Again, by way of comparison, at what point does +2 to ALL saves become irrelevant? Especially when you consider stacking limits, etc? At what point does Flight become irrelevant? Or Tiny? Or "insert 4 RP ability from the existing .pdf"?
It's all the same end-point. The other 4 RP value abilities are providing SIGNIFICANTLY more in terms of mechanical benefits and performance than ANYTHING "+1 feat" can approach.
While a good theory, it isn't GMs who will be putting this into play most often and everyone knows it.
No. No I do not know this.
As the one who mostly GM's, I can't tell you how many times I have said, "No." Why? Because it just didn't fit the game we were playing at the moment.
This is a GM tool. It's been stated by the designers that THEY intend it to be a GM tool. More importantly, though (to put the nail in the coffin of "this is for players primarily"), is that they have also said this is absolutely NOT for PF Society play, or to be used in it. At all.
To reiterate: this is a GM tool. The designers are intending it to be used this way. They are preventing it's use entirely in organized play.
Those of us who plan to play test it should be doing so from the intended design goals - as a GM tool.
Now, value in RP's of the feat is irrelevant. If you like it at 4 RP's (to anyone), then what do *you* think should be the RP value of Flight? Or Fortunate (or whatever it is called)?
For me, if Feats stay at 4 RP's of value, then Fortunate better be 12 RP's. That thing is doing the work of no less than 3 feats!
I think extra feats are really powerful, but 4 points seems fair for one feat. Each additional free feat should cost more to make sure it is not abused. I would say 50% increase each time it is chosen, so the second feat would cost 6 points, and the 3rd would cost 9...
I'm not a fan of this, as I just think feats are systemically "weak" or "low value" overall.
However, in context of race-building, I think it's a solid idea to inherently limit potential abuse of a "cheap" resource being stacked up like that.
Or, just enforce a "This ability can only be taken 1 time for any given race" with maybe another line of "This ability can not be combined with similar abilities that grant feat-like properties."
Something like that.
To be fair, many races already walk or outright cross the line between physical and societal. That said, I agree that racial traits should be kept as close to the physical side of things as possible. Even the human's adaptability and skilled traits could actually physical in nature, owing to the flexibility of the mind.
My preference is that the racial traits be purely physical (rather than societal), but have the society look down on people who don't meet their requirements. Decide to be a wizard in a society of warriors? Prepare to be ridiculed, if not outright hunted or exiled.
This actually brings up an interesting notion for some house-rules: What if we break up the existing races into "racial" and "social" packages? You'd need to do some re-jiggering of, well, every race in your setting... but you could build things so that, say, the base races get 8RP of physical abilities (representing their actual race), and then another 6RP of social package (representing how they were brought up).
And then you'd have rules that cover things like, a gnoll raised among orcs gaining orcish weapon familiarity, or an elf raised by wolves gaining bonuses to survival at the cost of languages and weapon familiarities, or exactly what does / doesn't change when you get reincarnated...
(Apologies for the tangent, but I thought this was worth sharing.)
I like this idea. I will look over it again in detail later on.
I think extra feats are really powerful, but 4 points seems fair for one feat. Each additional free feat should cost more to make sure it is not abused. I would say 50% increase each time it is chosen, so the second feat would cost 6 points, and the 3rd would cost 9...I'm not a fan of this, as I just think feats are systemically "weak" or "low value" overall.
However, in context of race-building, I think it's a solid idea to inherently limit potential abuse of a "cheap" resource being stacked up like that.
Or, just enforce a "This ability can only be taken 1 time for any given race" with maybe another line of "This ability can not be combined with similar abilities that grant feat-like properties."
Something like that.
Some feats are weak. Power attack is pretty powerful, and has a large affect on DPR. Bouncing and Persistent spell are pretty good also. The skill focus feats provide a good bonus. Feats are pretty powerful, and have a large impact on a character, and I mean individual feats, not just feats as a whole. Putting a limit on feats is another idea, but my idea allows for freedom of choice while making making it less likely abuse will occur.
For me, if Feats stay at 4 RP's of value, then Fortunate better be 12 RP's. That thing is doing the work of no less than 3 feats!
You're ignoring the value of flexibility. Which would you rather have: +2 to all saves, or three feats of your choice? Obviously the latter option is far superior. In fact, even *two* feats of your choice is still a vastly stronger option; you can use those two to shore up your weakest saves if that's what you want, or you can use them to improve your offense, or... etc.
4RP is for any feat the player wants to take.
If we assume that price is correct, then some specific feat (chosen by the GM at time of race creation) ought to be worth 1-3RP. (And explicitly called out as having that range to it. A skill focus to, say, any craft or profession skill, is worth a lot less than Endurance or Alertness, which in turn is worth less than things like Improved Initiative. I don't expect the system to provide a price for every feat; I do expect it to acknowledge that they're not all necessarily equal.)
Which would put Fortunate at around 6RP - it can't be worth much more than that, though. Why? Well, if you're trying to make a gish, or an archer, or really any actual build that's focused more on offense than defense, the feat will be of more use to you than the saving throw bonus. For a heavily defense-focused build, Fortunate would be better than the feat, of course. Which all suggests that the two are at least ballpark equivalent in value. Within, oh, maybe 50% or so.
I like this idea. I will look over it again in detail later on.
Thanks!
|
|
I like this idea. I will look over it again in detail later on.To be fair, many races already walk or outright cross the line between physical and societal. That said, I agree that racial traits should be kept as close to the physical side of things as possible. Even the human's adaptability and skilled traits could actually physical in nature, owing to the flexibility of the mind.
My preference is that the racial traits be purely physical (rather than societal), but have the society look down on people who don't meet their requirements. Decide to be a wizard in a society of warriors? Prepare to be ridiculed, if not outright hunted or exiled.
This actually brings up an interesting notion for some house-rules: What if we break up the existing races into "racial" and "social" packages? You'd need to do some re-jiggering of, well, every race in your setting... but you could build things so that, say, the base races get 8RP of physical abilities (representing their actual race), and then another 6RP of social package (representing how they were brought up).
And then you'd have rules that cover things like, a gnoll raised among orcs gaining orcish weapon familiarity, or an elf raised by wolves gaining bonuses to survival at the cost of languages and weapon familiarities, or exactly what does / doesn't change when you get reincarnated...
(Apologies for the tangent, but I thought this was worth sharing.)
I briefly worked on doing this exact thing, but for a completely point based system. Every race had a list of things you had to take to be part of that race (such as a thing that boosted constitution for dwarves), and then some things that had to be taken to be considered a "proper" member of that race (which would include things like dwarven battleaxe proficiency).
You could only take some abilities IF they were taken because of your race (the stat-boosting one being a good example, natural armor being another example). This was basically the only reason to take a race.
You're ignoring the value of flexibility.
Not at all. I'm granting "flexibility" the same leeway it's given within the SYSTEM. You know what that is? "+1 feat" period.
It doesn't get much more flexible than that, does it? That's what I'm placing the value at, and leaving it right there.
My take, "Here's a feat - take what you want with it." In other words, my value is absolutely DESIGNED around the idea that Feat = Feat. What feat you insert is irrelevant. I'm basing the value around the same systemic value it has in the game.
4RP is for any feat the player wants to take.
If we assume that price is correct, then some specific feat (chosen by the GM at time of race creation) ought to be worth 1-3RP. And explicitly called out as having that range to it. A skill focus to, say, any craft or profession skill, is worth a lot less than Endurance or Alertness, which in turn is worth less than things like Improved Initiative.
I must stop you RIGHT THERE. Where, in the system do YOU see ANY kind of distinction made that says "Skill focus is less of a feat than Power Attack, therefore Power Attack costs 2 Feats in stead of just 1 Feat" or anything of the sort?
That doesn't exist - at all. Why? Because the extent of "value" is "+1 feat" period. This basic D20/3.x/PF framework simply doesn't put feats on a graded scale. *At best* you have pre-req's, but those do not function in the same way at all because any 1 of them within the chain has the value of (wait for it ...) "+1 feat" period.
The system does NOT, it POINTEDLY does not grade the feats on any sort of a scale at all.
Why, then, should the race builder suddenly start introducing artifacts of design, like grading of feats, when the underlying system it is designed to interact with does no such thing?
I think what you propose has merit ... but in, say, Pathfinder 2nd Edition. It has NO place in a PF 1e race building tool-kit. The paradigms are incompatible.
I don't expect the system to provide a price for every feat; I do expect it to acknowledge that they're not all necessarily equal.
Nonsense.
Show me where ANY feat is not just "+1 feat" in value, then? {Existing within the system, not the admittedly faulty PF listed values that the company says it is going to rework and revalue.}
What you want, while nice and admirable for FUTURE design of the game, is 100% incompatible with the existing underlying game mechanics.
Which would put Fortunate at around 6RP - it can't be worth much more than that, though. Why? Well, if you're trying to make a gish, or an archer, or really any actual build that's focused more on offense than defense, the feat will be of more use to you than the saving throw bonus. For a heavily defense-focused build, Fortunate would be better than the feat, of course. Which all suggests that the two are at least ballpark equivalent in value. Within, oh, maybe 50% or so.
So, your now associating "value" to specific builds?
That's a terrible idea.
The value needs to be assigned to the game mechanics it is connected to in the system.
Assigning value according to specific builds is just a bad, bad plan.
|
This actually brings up an interesting notion for some house-rules: What if we break up the existing races into "racial" and "social" packages? You'd need to do some re-jiggering of, well, every race in your setting... but you could build things so that, say, the base races get 8RP of physical abilities (representing their actual race), and then another 6RP of social package (representing how they were brought up).
And then you'd have rules that cover things like, a gnoll raised among orcs gaining orcish weapon familiarity, or an elf raised by wolves gaining bonuses to survival at the cost of languages and weapon familiarities, or exactly what does / doesn't change when you get reincarnated...
(Apologies for the tangent, but I thought this was worth sharing.)
I've brought this up several times since the book was announced, and strongly suggested it would be a big improvement to separate race and culture in D&D, so you can more easily support the "human raised by dwarves" and have the mechanics to back it. I didnt get any sort of official response though. We'll see if it gets any notice in this book.
I'd like to see it though.
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.
No just because they're more common doesn't mean that they're worth less. You're assuming they have economical value which they do not. The matter of the fact is an extra feat helps start feat tree's faster, and qualify for things far more faster than others.
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.No just because they're more common doesn't mean that they're worth less. You're assuming they have economical value which they do not. The matter of the fact is an extra feat helps start feat tree's faster, and qualify for things far more faster than others.
An example would be the Frenzied Berserk PrC in Complete Warrior, it required feats to take that class and only required BAB +6 (remember this is 3.5, a level 6 1/2orc barbarian had 3 feats, while a human could have 4 and take the class next level.)
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.
You are incorrect.
Some feats are clearly more valuable then others, and more powerful then others.Because they get feats quicker, humans reach those valuable and desired feats quicker. Indeed, they may, at level 20, have a highly desired and powerful feat the character next to them does not have, because that one feat just wouldn't fit into the build.
So, the value of the feat is that of the LAST feat the human has taken, that the race next to him could not take. Ergo, in terms of power, the value of that 'one feat' actually rises with time, because the feats the human is taking ahead of the other races are getting stronger over time.
Being able to take Quicken Spell at 9 instead of 11 is a nice benefit.
Being able to afford the two Critical feats to max out your crit-based fighter is nice, or getting it two levels earlier then the person next to you.
The human is going to end up with 1 feat, a high level feat, more then another race. At level 1, that's a low level feat, but from then on, other races are playing catch-up. Just like the sorc is poo-pooed for lagging a level behind the wizard, the other races lag two levels behind a human.
Many benefits of other races (dark vision, low light vision, etc) can be purchased with gold. Some are clearly stronger then the feats allowed (+2 all saves? REALLY? Eesh) and don't make sense.
But the absolute value of the feat actually rises over time in comparison to other feats, while at the same time the 'relative' value of it being a feat may fall amidst mounting numbers of feats. This is like saying Teleport isn't valuable, because I already know fifteen other spells, and Wish doesn't mean anything, because I've got forty other spells by the time I get it...worthless.
That's the argument you are making. It really doesn't fly.
====Aelryinth
You're ignoring the value of flexibility.Not at all. I'm granting "flexibility" the same leeway it's given within the SYSTEM. You know what that is? "+1 feat" period.
It doesn't get much more flexible than that, does it? That's what I'm placing the value at, and leaving it right there.
My take, "Here's a feat - take what you want with it." In other words, my value is absolutely DESIGNED around the idea that Feat = Feat. What feat you insert is irrelevant. I'm basing the value around the same systemic value it has in the game.
4RP is for any feat the player wants to take.
If we assume that price is correct, then some specific feat (chosen by the GM at time of race creation) ought to be worth 1-3RP. And explicitly called out as having that range to it. A skill focus to, say, any craft or profession skill, is worth a lot less than Endurance or Alertness, which in turn is worth less than things like Improved Initiative.I must stop you RIGHT THERE. Where, in the system do YOU see ANY kind of distinction made that says "Skill focus is less of a feat than Power Attack, therefore Power Attack costs 2 Feats in stead of just 1 Feat" or anything of the sort?
That doesn't exist - at all. Why? Because the extent of "value" is "+1 feat" period. This basic D20/3.x/PF framework simply doesn't put feats on a graded scale. *At best* you have pre-req's, but those do not function in the same way at all because any 1 of them within the chain has the value of (wait for it ...) "+1 feat" period.
The system does NOT, it POINTEDLY does not grade the feats on any sort of a scale at all.
Why, then, should the race builder suddenly start introducing artifacts of design, like grading of feats, when the underlying system it is designed to interact with does no such thing?
I think what you propose has merit ... but in, say, Pathfinder 2nd Edition. It has NO place in a PF 1e race building tool-kit. The paradigms are incompatible....
This argument is the same as "Spell=Spell", completely ignoring that the power, versatility and requirements of spells are generally improving by level, and getting to better feats faster is a good thing...and humans will do that.
===Aelryinth
You are incorrect.
Some feats are clearly more valuable then others, and more powerful then others.
1) I most certainly am absolutely correct. The system makes no distinction from 1 feat to the next. They are all "+1 feat" period.
2) Let's not talk past each other here.
To clarify #2: YOU know that some feats are "better" and I know that some feats are "better", BUT (and this is the crux of the matter) the SYSTEM makes no such distinction about the value of a feat. To the system: Feat = Feat = Feat, period.
So, it's not that I disagree with your assessment that Feat A is better than Feat B, it's that SYSTEMICALLY there is no difference between A and B regardless of whatever in-game value we assign to it to claim that Feat A is "stronger" or whatever than Feat B. To the system, they are both just "+1 feat" and that's it.
To propose that the race-builder makes subjective values of the worth of a Feat while the main system itself continues on following it's own non-value-based paradigm (ie: +1 feat = +1 feat) is just a bad design idea. It doesn't play with the other mechanical constructs of the system proper that the race-builder system is supposed to be feeding into.
If it is designed with a different paradigm, then it's going to provide different values. In particular, values that to not equate out to what the SYSTEM proper expects and interacts with.
This is like saying Teleport isn't valuable, because I already know fifteen other spells, and Wish doesn't mean anything, because I've got forty other spells by the time I get it...worthless.
No, not at all. This example, by the SYSTEM is assigned qualitative values. Teleport is a 5th level spell. It is unavailable by default unless you choose it as your only "+1 spell" learned as a wizard, or one of very finite spells as a sorcerer. It is accessible only at X levels, and will continue in frequency of casting potential according to spell capacity as it grows.
Wish, however, is a 9th level spell - this is THE most powerful spell of all types of spells. It has entirely different effects than Teleport, and it is appropriately more highly valued and restricted as a spell.
Spell types have nothing to do with the points I've been making.
This argument is the same as "Spell=Spell", completely ignoring that the power, versatility and requirements of spells are generally improving by level, and getting to better feats faster is a good thing...and humans will do that.
Spells improve with level-based riders (mostly - not all). However, that is the SYSTEMIC metric that is used in the value of the spells.
Regarding Feats, and systemic metrics, all we have is "+1 feat" period. It makes no distinctions on what specific feat is taken, and feats don't have "levels" or anything like that. Hell, most do not even have a level-based rider of improvement like spells do. Yet, despite all of that, the system still tells us, "You hit level (odd number), pick +1 feat to add to your repertoire."
There is no subjective value, in the system that runs the game, about the value of a feat.
This isn't about arguing that "+1 feat" is not useful, or gives humans an edge - it does. However, it's still just "+1 feat" even for that advantage.
I must stop you RIGHT THERE. Where, in the system do YOU see ANY kind of distinction made that says "Skill focus is less of a feat than Power Attack, therefore Power Attack costs 2 Feats in stead of just 1 Feat" or anything of the sort?
That doesn't exist - at all. Why? Because the extent of "value" is "+1 feat" period. This basic D20/3.x/PF framework simply doesn't put feats on a graded scale. *At best* you have pre-req's, but those do not function in the same way at all because any 1 of them within the chain has the value of (wait for it ...) "+1 feat" period.
Hogwash. By your logic, it's "balanced" for one race to offer Skill Focus: Craft (Basketweaving), while another offers One Feat of Player's Choice.
The value of any given feat is not just "+1 feat period". It can't be. And sure, the current system doesn't explicitly tell you "Hey, taking spell penetration as a paladin is probably not that great an idea" - but the idea that all feats are of exactly the same value is ludicrous. Hey, I know! I'll take power attack on my sorcerer! That's just as good as taking spell penetration, right? I mean, +1 feat is +1 feat! Period! So it doesn't matter which one I pick, right?
Now, the value of a given feat is rather less clear-cut when you're designing a race, since an individual could be of any class. But there are still some options that are clearly more valuable than others.
[edit] Ninjaed by Epic Meepo, who has rather better examples / arguments. [/edit]
Where, in the system do YOU see ANY kind of distinction made that says "Skill focus is less of a feat than Power Attack, therefore Power Attack costs 2 Feats in stead of just 1 Feat" or anything of the sort?From the fighter archetypes in UC:
"At 1st level, a dragoon gains both the Mounted Combat and Skill Focus (Ride) feats as bonus feats. This ability replaces the 1st-level fighter bonus combat feat."
"At 1st level, a unarmed fighter gains the Improved Unarmed Strike feat and any single style feat (see Chapter 3) as a bonus feat... This ability replaces the bonus feat at 1st level."
"An unbreakable gains Endurance and Die Hard as bonus feats. This ability replaces the fighter's 1st-level bonus feat."
That's the system, as presented in the official Paizo PRD, saying flat out that two pre-selected feats are less valuable than a single feat you are free to choose from a long list of options.
That should be the case, being able to choose any feat should cost more than having a fixed feat.
|
|
<good examples snipped>Epic Meepo,
We could also add Adaptability vs Human bonus feat too as an example.
I believe the purpose of the examples was to show ones that had explicit costs *before* the ARG.
(Unrelated to quote:)
Also, I would like to note to everyone here: An extra feat is only worth the amount of your most valuable feat IF you needed that extra feat to get there. I don't know about you, but all the human characters I've played end up taking at least one feat that's "nice" but not required, not part of the main chain and would have been skipped if not human. In that situation the extra feat is worth no more than the "nice to have" feat, plus the value of having a couple extra levels of any "style-defining" feats I was able to pull forward until that time.
You're focusing on the extreme power game situation, in which relatively little extra power is gleaned (compared to other 4RP things, or even 3RP things such as SR11+level). Four points is a totally appropriate price because no matter how awesome that next feat is you were either gimped on previous feats as a price (for some feat chains), or you could have done better overall with other racial things that are geared towards your character. The only reason adaptability is okay at 4 points is because although you *could* do better with other racial things, you could also do worse. Adaptability has a reliably decent return, where other racials could be either useless or character-defining (given the same ability).
"At 1st level, a dragoon gains both the Mounted Combat and Skill Focus (Ride) feats as bonus feats. This ability replaces the 1st-level fighter bonus combat feat."
"At 1st level, a unarmed fighter gains the Improved Unarmed Strike feat and any single style feat (see Chapter 3) as a bonus feat... This ability replaces the bonus feat at 1st level."
"An unbreakable gains Endurance and Die Hard as bonus feats. This ability replaces the fighter's 1st-level bonus feat."
That's the system, as presented in the official Paizo PRD, saying flat out that two pre-selected feats are less valuable than a single feat you are free to choose from a long list of options.
Ok ... admittedly I wasn't looking at Archetypes - just class structure.
Hmm ... so, this would imply that 2 "feats" defined is = to 1 feat of choice, then?
Roughly a 2:1 value.
In the race builder we have defined feats showing up at 1 RP, and then the human "+1 feat" showing up at 4 rp's.
That's still not adding up right to me. It's TOO highly valued there.
Again, though, it's relative values overall, so the "4" is irrelevant and can be changed to whatever is most convenient. I want to see the value of other 4 rp values being compared to "+1 feat" and re-priced according to something MORE in line with their actual value.
However, at 2 rp's, there's that Monstrous Humanoid that basically is giving you Darkvision. That, to me, sounds about fair for "+1 feat of your choice" then.
The salient point remains, though - at 4 rp's it is WAY too pricey (at current price values in the .pdf that are all being changed as stated by the company designers anyway).
Hogwash. By your logic, it's "balanced" for one race to offer Skill Focus: Craft (Basketweaving), while another offers One Feat of Player's Choice.
The value of any given feat is not just "+1 feat period". It can't be. And sure, the current system doesn't explicitly tell you "Hey, taking spell penetration as a paladin is probably not that great an idea" - but the idea that all feats are of exactly the same value is ludicrous. Hey, I know! I'll take power attack on my sorcerer! That's just as good as taking spell penetration, right? I mean, +1 feat is +1 feat! Period! So it doesn't matter which one I pick, right?
Now, the value of a given feat is rather less clear-cut when you're designing a race, since an individual could be of any class. But there are still some options that are clearly more valuable than others.
[edit] Ninjaed by Epic Meepo, who has rather better examples / arguments. [/edit]
Irrelevant. You want subjective values applied when the system makes no such distinction.
There's a difference between a feat choice that is of use to a class, and "+1 feat" granted systemically. The system makes this distinction, not me. I'm just pointing out the obvious, or what you want to look past to try and insert subjectivity into the system.
At all points I measure it against the systems standards and expectations.
According to Epic Meepo's cite, and the archetypes (which I did overlook) the value of "chosen" feats compared to "open" feats is a 2:1 ratio.
So, ultimately, even WITH that in play, my point still stands - 4 rp is too much to charge for the benefit it provides (as evidenced by the chosen feats having a 1 rp value).
First off, I'd like to say that feats may not all be equal. However making a distinction now will only upset the balance in other places. The best we can do is almost or pretty much a feat.
The truth is that most people would rather have money than get more expensive presents (that they can't return), unless of course the presents are exactly what they want (which would be what they'd spend the money on and then some).
What we end up arguing is whether or not the man living happily in his poor home living with his own decisions should be taxed as much as the miserable henpecked millionaire who's choices are made by his domineering wife.
"An unbreakable gains Endurance and Die Hard as bonus feats. This ability replaces the fighter's 1st-level bonus feat."
Technically, the Unbreakable looses proficiency with Tower Shields as well, so effectively it looses two feats for two feats at 1st level.
The same holds true for the Dragoon (looses Tower Shield proficiency) and the unarmed fighter (looses medium armor, heavey armor, and shield proficiency, but gains all monk weapons).
That said, armor and weapon proficiencies are hard to value given the options PCs have as they advance.
Edited.
"An unbreakable gains Endurance and Die Hard as bonus feats. This ability replaces the fighter's 1st-level bonus feat."Technically, the Unbreakable looses proficiency with Tower Shields as well, so effectively it looses two feats for two feats at 1st level.
The same holds true for the Dragoon (looses Tower Shield proficiency) and the unarmed fighter (looses medium armor, heavey armor, and shield proficiency, but gains all monk weapons).
That said, armor and weapon proficiencies are hard to value given the options PCs have as they advance.
Edited.
wow! I guess I need to check things when presented, then. Pretty dishonest to leave that out.
I am back to my original position.
Ion Raven phrases it best that feat = mostly a feat is probably as good as it should get.
The feat is nice for every class and at every level, it allows you to gain feat trees faster, allows you to better specialize and give you a versatility you can not easily replace with magic items.
The end point being if you so choose you can waste the feat, but if you want then you easily become better at your job then any other race of the same stats and level.
Speaker isn't gonna change his mind no matter what you say to him, let it go.
|
|
I'm sorry, did you just call me a liar?
I was attempting to politely answer your question in a way that didn't rub the fact that you're demonstrably wrong in your face. But since my honesty is now in question, I guess I have to give the full version of my argument and make your own claims look patently absurd:
On 1st level, the unarmed fighter loses 5 feats: one fighter bonus feat, Armor Proficiency (medium), Armor Proficiency (heavy), Shield Proficiency, and Tower Shield Proficiency.
Also on 1st level, with no other changes on that level whatsoever, the unarmed fighter gains 18 feats: Unarmed Strike, one style feat (without having to meet its prerequisites), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bo staff), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (dan bong), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (double chained kama), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (emei piercer), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (fighting fan), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (kama), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (kusarigama), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (kyoketsu shoge), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (nine-section whip), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (nunchaku), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (rope dart), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (sai), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (seven-branched sword), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (shuriken), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (siangham), and Exotic Weapon Proficiency (urumi).
So there you go, right from the PRD. Four fixed feats and one combat feat equal seventeen fixed feats and one style feat. So limiting a feat choice from the list of all combat feats to the list of all style feats is only offset by thirteen fixed feats. Either that, or Exotic Weapon Proficiency is worth less than one-third of any other feat. Take your pick. Either way, your argument that all feats and feat choices are equal is flat out wrong.
*slow clap*
I've never thought proficiencies should be worth whole feats either. At least, not weapon proficiencies. Armor and Shield proficiencies have direct AC benefits (assuming you can buy the armor/shield), but weapon proficiencies generally offer almost no benefit over the ones you already have. The difference between Nunchaku and a club is minimal for most characters, for example.
|
|
Exotic Weapon Proficiency is worth less than one-third of any other feat.
That's my stance. I dont think weapon proficiencies are worth feats, with the exception of "All Martial Weapons" as a single feat.
All feats are not created equal. I agree with that wholeheartedly. I also think that the weaker feats should not be listed as feats, since well "Its a Trap!" sums up my feelings about Cleave, and a number of other weak feats.
But speaker-in-dreams made one good point: "Any one feat" is nowhere near as good as "fly". I'm gonna say that "any one feat" isn't worth "four fixed feats" without taking into account which specific feats youre talking about.
However it doesn't make much sense to start taking that into account now, when every other section of the rules ignores it completely. unless we're going to start taking it into account in the other sections as well.
I'd suggest, that because some feats are terrible and not worth a feat, either one of the two should happen.
A) Feats should be ranked on their own points system. Pick the most powerful feats, and then rank all the feats below them in terms of how good they are in comparison. Ideally, let people make their arguments on each one and then let a large pool of well-informed people vote on its value.
Instead of getting "a feat" every odd level, you get "X Feat Points" every odd, or even every level. You then buy feats with those points.
So when I buy cleave, I'd essentially get some other crappy feat for free. Like a couple exotic weapons or something. You get the idea.
B) You figure out how good you think a feat should be. Look at the most powerful ones for your upperbound. Again, I'd suggest educated voting to decide the values.
Go through, grab all the really s%&*ty feats. make them better. Have people re-vote on those. Keep going until every feat is within 90-95% to 105-110% of your target power.
Now, a feat truly is a feat, is a feat.
B would be more elegant, but would be a major overhaul of ALL the books. A would make a better stopgap solution, short of rewriting the whole system.
I believe SKR wrote something similar to A for D&D 3.0[Edit: Here it is! Feat Points]. you may not agree with his individual prices, but thats the basic idea.
Right now, most of the system treats feats as equivalent, even though we all know they're not, and a few parts of the system acknowledges that theyre not equivalent (such as the free-hand fighter archetype).
[Edit 2]Hmm: Alot of SKR's logic could be applied to pricing the racial abilities.
|
|
I was looking at what a single non-selectable feat is worth, over HERE.
Interesting to note: 5 Weapon Proficiencies from any category, chosen by the player is worth one feat. Presumeably that means one weapon proficiency is worth 1/5 of a feat, but maybe not.
There were alot of other things I inferred the value of based on the value of feats. It really helped that toughness is a feat, by the way, thats what tied everything together, and let me take it much farther than I thought I could.
|
|
Interesting to note: 5 Weapon Proficiencies from any category, chosen by the player is worth one feat. Presumeably that means one weapon proficiency is worth 1/5 of a feat, but maybe not.
It occurred to me the pacing matters too. Thats 5 weapons of choice, each from any category you want, but spread over 20 levels. One every 4 levels, with reduced penalties for the weapon youre working on in between.
As I mentioned in the other thread, if you get them all up front, I can see paying a bit more, for less. But not 5x more, which is why weapon proficiency feats suck. I could see a feat for 3-4 weapons.
I'm sorry, did you just call me a liar?
Actually, no. It's more like "fool me once ... fool me twice" as I'm looking at it now.
Essentially, you came in and said, "Hey - the Archetype does a 2:1 trade, so the system *does* say that choice in feat is more valuable than fixed feats."
I found that interesting, and valid - I re-thought this (again, since the system did it), and came back with adjusted perspective from this information that I'd just forgotten to account for.
Thraxus, then, popped in and said you left out other trade-offs, and that your assessment wasn't fairly stated.
I then (foolishly I might add) assumed HE was right, when I had just finished ASSUMING you were, likewise wrong. I did this with no verification of my own in either case. So, there's the fool me twice piece.
Seriously - big misunderstanding there, and I *will* be checking everyone's claim of "system says X" now to see it for myself, and THEN I will respond.
I don't think even Thraxus was trying to call you a liar as he mentions the inherent disparity of weapon and armor feats specifically as a sort of defense against even what he brought up.
I was attempting to politely answer your question in a way that didn't rub the fact that you're demonstrably wrong in your face. But since my honesty is now in question, I guess I have to give the full version of my argument and make your own claims look patently absurd:
My claims are based around the way the system functions. Period.
When you showed evidence of feat value IN THE EXISTING SYSTEM, I then reevaluated it from that standpoint.
I'm not beyond reason, or arbitrarily making statements.
On 1st level, the unarmed fighter loses 5 feats: one fighter bonus feat, Armor Proficiency (medium), Armor Proficiency (heavy), Shield Proficiency, and Tower Shield Proficiency.
Check.
Also on 1st level, with no other changes on that level whatsoever, the unarmed fighter gains 18 feats: Unarmed Strike, one style feat (without having to meet its prerequisites), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bo staff), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (dan bong), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (double chained kama), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (emei piercer), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (fighting fan), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (kama), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (kusarigama), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (kyoketsu shoge), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (nine-section whip), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (nunchaku), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (rope dart), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (sai), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (seven-branched sword), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (shuriken), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (siangham), and Exotic Weapon Proficiency (urumi).
Yeah ... that's quite a lot. All the "exotics" and then the whole Monk weapon list. Seems very strange as a whole, though. It also stands out alone to me, since no other archtypes seem to approach this level of "free feats" handed out.
I think it's the "including exotic monk weapons" that skews this, though.
Otherwise, the intent in layout seems to imply that the sacrifice of the armor and shield proficiencies is = to all monk weapons, even the exotic ones. It's really, REALLY strange, and I can't really look at it as anything but an anomaly - something that skirted past the designers notice, or that the designers looked at as SO insignificant so as not to matter - implying some sort of lesser value for Exotic Weapon Proficiencies - which we all KNOW to be true, but the system still prices it at "+1 feat", so you can't really get away from it, even though that seems to be the point of this particular design for this archetype.
It's certainly the best thing to point out, though, as ludicrous. It's also, the *only* thing to point at, really. Most other things within archetypes (keep in mind archetypes, themselves are both new to the system, and essentially experimental) don't come *close* to this degree of "imbalance" so to speak.
What I really take away from this is that Unarmed Fighter is just a "special snowflake" or something and doesn't quite fit in with the others. It's not overpowered despite the wording and implications you make up there about so many feats in play, and that's kind of reflection of inherent 3.x imbalance that PF has inherited and that neither system has really attempted to address.
On the "tone this down" end, all of the monk weapons proper are not part of the "all EWP" statement. They fall under "monk weapons" statement. In itself it's more like a weapon group (all simple, all martial, monk, etc). Still, with any given supplement a new monk weapon can pop up, and because the system says, "Exotic Weapons = +1 feat to learn 1 weapon" this skews the entire archetype sideways big time, and not in a good, or reasonable fashion if we're looking to it for guidelines on the value of feats.
It's an outlier on the design floor. It's the exception, not the rule, and therefore less valid in using as a measure of the system proper.
Is it bad regarding "feat" allotment? yes. As bad as you claim? Not so much, but it's still terrible, and its' still not true to the majority of the other archetypes out there.
So there you go, right from the PRD. Four fixed feats and one combat feat equal seventeen fixed feats and one style feat. So limiting a feat choice from the list of all combat feats to the list of all style feats is only offset by thirteen fixed feats. Either that, or Exotic Weapon Proficiency is worth less than one-third of any other feat. Take your pick. Either way, your argument that all feats and feat choices are equal is flat out wrong.
Only, this holds true for this one archetype alone - not the majority of archetypes. Those (the majority) are much more modest in their concessions and adjustments. Most, actually, just do 1:1 exchanges, even of feats.
You can't point to the one, "bjorked" archetype and claim the whole system does this.
You need to look to the averages and how it behaves overall. Overall, archetypes do not do what this one does that you managed to find.
ALL of this stated, I'm not beyond saying that versatility *can* count for something. It's just not 4x the cost of no versatility worth of something.
That's pure crazy. 2:1 seems ok to me. It's not that bad, and as I said before - by comparison an "open" feat seems about on the level with say Darkvision or a good few 2 RP types of abilities. Some still seem FAR better, and some 1 RP's are WAY too good for what they do, but hey - it's NOT a perfect pricing system yet.
Quick note here that we all have the same goal, right? A better system. Let's focus on that and less on tearing each other down, eh?
First off, I'd like to say that feats may not all be equal. However making a distinction now will only upset the balance in other places. The best we can do is almost or pretty much a feat.
I'm just quoting this for emphasis.
Of all things stated in this thread so far, it's really pretty much just distilled truth.
Pick, pick, pick and re-evaluate is just doing things that the inherent system didn't do in the first place.
I like Darkholme's idea (+1 man!), but it's beyond the scope of the race builder.
I like the other idea, though, in the other thread. using it not so much for absolute value, but more like to make a "yardstick" to measure against other things in the system - that's a good idea, but then it's a pricing scheme to MAKE a pricing scheme. Which is funny in itself, but a lot of effort to create something not inherently supported by the system.
I like Darkholme's idea best for approaching PF 2nd edition, though.
That is where that approach can REALLY shine and clean up a LOT of things in the game, IMO. The stuff that WoTC missed when they designed it, basically, but that PF never addressed and is still bonded to currently (and causing much of the disagreement in this thread).
|
|
My point is that its a yardstick based on other published paizo sources. Ideally they wont contradict what they gave us earlier with mismatched values here.
The prices I mentioned in the other thread; most of them show up in this ARG price guide. (pretty much anything but the class-specific stuff).
I'm hoping the prices are adjusted to be consistent with earlier sources. If you can get something as a feat, then it makes sense to price the benefit, when obtained in another method, the same as the feat.
They have most of the individual, non selectable feats priced as 2 points. I see one priced at 1.
That means the human bonus skillpoints are also worth two points (not 4). Skill Bonus is overpriced at two, because if the fixed skills are worth 2, then +2 to one skill is certainly worth less than "+3 to One skill, +6 if you have 10+ ranks.", which is what is worth 2 points, because thats what the preselected feats are worth. If the human skillpoint bonus truly worth 4 points, then all of the pre-selected feats are drastically undercosted.
I dont really care what number is attached to each thing individually, I care how they're priced in relation to eachother.
Thats the purpose of the yardstick I came up with. It shows a precedent backed reason why a number of things are priced too high or too low, and suggests whats reasonable for that price, based on the other prices Paizo has used.
I never thought this subject would escalate like this, maybe I'm wrong?
Make some hundred or so human subraces. Each of them trades the free feat for a single fixed feat!
Now they're not worth as much. :P
Make some hundred or so human subraces. Each of them trades the free feat for a single fixed feat!
Now they're not worth as much. :P
Pointless.
The salient point has been, "they still aren't as useful as races that can fly" the whole time. {note: this isn't to make Fly into the gold standard, but it's just a 4 rp sample to compare against the existing 4 rp assigned value of "+1 open feat" that we keep looking at.}
Yet, both have the 4 rp value (+1 "open" feat and flight).
I'm thinking that a sort of compilation of the things we agree on will be best at this point because I think a bit of confusion is stemming from focusing upon particulars and not the whole of "what is wrong" or "how it went wrong" myself. Instead, we're chasing down minutia that really isn't going to help the race builder overall.
Correct me if I'm off on this, but I'll try and list the things we are (mostly) in agreement on - no particular order:
1) There is a price disparity in the existing race builder system
2) Feats are worth far LESS than a good majority of the racial abilities, regardless of what feat you insert.
3) A "pre-selected" feat is worth less than an "open" feat (marginally here - it's still a feat).
4) Any racial ability that can replicate a feat should just be assigned the value of that same feat (for pricing consistency).
5) Humans were artificially inflated, by a LOT because of the faulty design premise that "all races = 10 points" from the get-go.
To this I add the following fact (ie: nothing that's been agreed upon yet, but it's a fact regardless): The D20 system that drives and operates PF does not make any distinction in value of Feat A vs. Feat B.
*This means that when a feat is provided/opened to the character, the character has free reign to grab whatever feat they want.
*Restrictions of "feat chains" are not a difference in feat value, but rather a sort of prescribed/forced evolution of feat choices.
--IE: To get Feat B, you need Feat A, but at no point does the system say Feat A is less than Feat B, only that the one is needed for the other. It does this by, at the time of selection, mentioning that Feat A = "+1 feat" and when it is time for Feat B, by spending the same "+1 feat" Feat B is also selectable and "paid for" with the same resource with no real distinction of the value of "+1 feat" for either one.
Make some hundred or so human subraces. Each of them trades the free feat for a single fixed feat!
Now they're not worth as much. :P
Pointless.
The salient point has been, "they still aren't as useful as races that can fly" the whole time. {note: this isn't to make Fly into the gold standard, but it's just a 4 rp sample to compare against the existing 4 rp assigned value of "+1 open feat" that we keep looking at.}
Yet, both have the 4 rp value (+1 "open" feat and flight).
You are confusing issue here. The feat cost is fine, you are paying for flexibility no one else can match. Fly however is two cheap, but that is an issue of underpricing something based off some vague idea of tiers which has zero to do with the subject at hand.
1) There is a price disparity in the existing race builder system
Yes we know this
2) Feats are worth far LESS than a good majority of the racial abilities, regardless of what feat you insert.
3) A "pre-selected" feat is worth less than an "open" feat (marginally here - it's still a feat).
This is simply incorrect as you are not looking at it at for what the feat is really worth. Its not a single feat you are gaining, its early entry into any feat chain or skill mastery at your chosin profession that no other race can match.
As long as you keep ignoring this fact you will never understand.
4) Any racial ability that can replicate a feat should just be assigned the value of that same feat (for pricing consistency).
Again no, as the feat is ANY feat you ever need to master a feat chain or skill above what any other race can hope to match at that level. A Pre selected feat would be worth much less.
5) Humans were artificially inflated, by a LOT because of the faulty design premise that "all races = 10 points" from the get-go
Yes we know this, however 4 points for the feat is not a part of what is over priced, skills now...ugh yeah look elsewhere it wasn't in the feat pricing.
|
|
I basically agree.
I dont think I have a problem with a selectable feat costing 4, if a fixed feat costs 2.
However, I agree that if a selectable feat is worth 4, then fly is worth more than four.
Likewise, if a non-selectable feat is worth 2, than alot of other abilities that are priced at 2 are hugely overpriced, because +2 to one skill period is crappier than +3 to one skill now, and +6 when you have 10 ranks.
I have a thread devoted specifically to that in more detail.