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.
That's not quite true.
The Dwarven bonus of +2 to skills working with stone and metal is AT LEAST as valuable as Skill Focus...because he can ELECT to take Skill Focus. A Half-elf cannot elect to get his flat +2 bonus.
In other words, it's a flat, non-duplicatable racial bonus that CANNOT be emulated by another race. Dwarves will always be the best at high end working with stone or metal because of their racial bonus, and any feat another race can take, they can too.
That's why they are priced equally. A skill mastery feat as a bonus is nothing more then a feat taken from a limited pool...clearly less valuable then a feat from an unlimited pool, but it's also something ANYBODY can duplicate. The inimitability of the racial bonus to a skill is why it has an equal value. A human might be able to equal a dwarf for the first couple levels working with stone, but as soon as he runs out of applicable skill feats, the Dwarf is better...in his specialty.
==Aelryinth
|
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.
That's not quite true.
The Dwarven bonus of +2 to skills working with stone and metal is AT LEAST as valuable as Skill Focus...because he can ELECT to take Skill Focus. A Half-elf cannot elect to get his flat +2 bonus.
In other words, it's a flat, non-duplicatable racial bonus that CANNOT be emulated by another race. Dwarves will always be the best at high end working with stone or metal because of their racial bonus, and any feat another race can take, they can too.
That's why they are priced equally. A skill mastery feat as a bonus is nothing more then a feat taken from a limited pool...clearly less valuable then a feat from an unlimited pool, but it's also something ANYBODY can duplicate. The inimitability of the racial bonus to a skill is why it has an equal value. A human might be able to equal a dwarf for the first couple levels working with stone, but as soon as he runs out of applicable skill feats, the Dwarf is better...in his specialty.
==Aelryinth
Even so, the current system has you paying 1 RP per +1 for that luxury, which is still way overpriced. Especially if you use the "+1 to one of two skills" option, which amounts to 2 RP per +1, with a minor amount of choice for the player.
Better would be a 1RP trait for +2 to one skill, and a 2RP trait for +2 to one of 2-4 skills. The 1RP one is weaker than Skill Focus (or even the split-focus ones like Stealthy), but stacks with it. The 2RP one is less restricted, and costs more as a result (doubling costs for only one more option seems a bit much, but up to 4 seems reasonable).
It would be hard to abuse that too much since it could only be taken 3 times for a standard race (or at least, that's the guideline).
You are confusing issue here. The feat cost is fine, you are paying for flexibility no one else can match.
There's no confusion - unless we're talking past each other.
Paying for flexibility I can understand (to a point, and ONLY as relates to other feats, mostly). Paying WAY more for the effect of an open feat compared against other 4 rp-priced things is just too much and a flag gets raised.
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.
No - this has everything to do with the subject at hand. This is precisely why I even mentioned that there is a problem with how "+1 open feat" is being valued in the first place.
Let me again state that the value itself assigned to Feat is kind of irrelevant to me. It's the value in the .pdf for the race builder [u]as compared to other 4 rp abilities in that same race builder[/u] that prompted me to make the observation that something is wrong with the feat pricing in general.
My objection was based 100% upon (a) the existing prices in the .pdf, and (b) "+1 open feat" compared against other 4 rp priced abilities.
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.
No - it's the basis for stating the opposite (ie: that the "+1 open feat" is actually OVER-priced). All we have to go by are the existing .pdf values. That you're saying the cost of Flight is undervalued is a GOOD thing as I see it. It means we're actually saying the same thing, even if getting lost in semantics.
Again - the raw point value is kind of irrelevant to me. It's the interaction between other values of similar priced abilities that I take issue with. NOT the value of the open feat itself. Follow? [ie: you can call an open feat 10 rp's and make flight 10 rp's and I would STILL have this same problem because my issue is one of relative/comparative scale. The one (feat) is no where NEAR the effects of the other (flight/any other 4 rp ability, or 10 rp in this case).
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.
1st - you *did* catch the point that this is all stuff (in a 1st draft) that we've mostly in this thread agreed upon, right? You, yourself just stated that flight is underpriced. That's *exactly* what #2 says.
A feat, any feat, even with "early entry to a chain" assuming you go that way (which is not a guarantee since you can pick, literally, any feat you want - chain/tree, or otherwise), is just not equal to the 4 rp valued racial abilities out there. There are 1 point racial abilities that people have called out as being underpriced, same with 2, and 3 point ones. By comparison to THAT scale, even AS "early entry" value, it's just WAY out of wack with what those other 4 rp valued abilities provide. Again - AS things are currently priced. No feat can do that - at all. Even spell-type feats. What feat can grant you say, an extra level 3 spell? Or the ability to fly outright? None. Even in progression of feat chains - no end effect of any feat chain can compare with those effects. At all.
On point #3 - that's just the same things you all have been showing and talking about in this thread. That human "flexibility" or the "open" feat is better than a hard-coded/pre-selected feat. I'm agreeing with that, but not that it's in the neighborhood of x3 to x4 more. If anything, there was the archetype reminder that it goes into say a about a 2:1 value at most to close that gap.
To tie that back to my stance that the absolute value of the ability is irrelevant. Let's call "+1 open feat" a 10 rp value again. Then a "pre-selected feat" or simply "+1 feat" is going to have a 5 rp value (and maintain that 2:1 value point). Follow?
Note - that's just what the system seems to suggest with a few archetypes here and there, but it gets to the point of "open" being more valuable than "preselected" and provides a quick ratio for making a pricing guideline (2:1 in whatever final value is assigned).
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.
This is for point #4 where if the effect is replicated by a feat, it should be assigned the same value.
This in no way is mentioning "any feat" at all. In fact, this would be the "pre-selected" feat type because it's providing a predicted, and reproducable effect that a feat can also accomplish. So, I'm not following any of the objection here at all.
Mostly, it looks like you're also in agreement with the principals there, if not the semantics of the #'s (but that's not something I really care much about - if you want 4, that's cool with me - it's irrelevant, really).
Anyway, the point I'm at is just trying to find all of the "common ground" so we can move forward. #'s for me is "open ground" in that i don't really care where they end up as long as they are consistent and make sense (like if flight is to get jacked up to like 8 rp's, I'm good with that as it's not longer 4 rps, and no longer saying that "+1 open feat" is equivalent in effect to flight - because it's not even close).
|
Precisely SID.
I (and SID as well) are saying, the individual costs are irrelevent.
All that matters is how the abilities are priced in relation to eachother.
Is this 4 point ability about as good as that one? how about as good as those two 2 point abilities?
It doesn't matter if base races average at 10 points each, or 76 points each. What matters are the comparitive prices.
As for the skill bonus compared to the feats:
for 4 points, you can get +2 to 2 skills.
For 4 points, I can get +5 to 2 skills, which becomes +10 when I hit level 10.
Sure you can catch up and surpass me, but not without either:
A)Spending the extra rp to get the same benefits I did, meaning you just put 6 points into those two skills to beat me. I can put another two to get all three benefits as well, if I really want to.
B)Spending two of your limited quantity of feats that I get to spend somewhere else and don't have to worry about, because I already have them.
I can see paying a little bit extra for that extra stacking. But not taking stacking into effect, and assuming adaptability stays costed at 1, compared to the feat, your skill bonus is overpriced. You're paying 8x what you should be.
If adaptability joins the cost of the rest of the feats, you're paying (roughly)4x what you should be.
So if you're saying the price is that high to account for stacking, you're also saying that its reasonable to charge 8x (or 4x if you think adaptability is underpriced (and I do)) the value for racial abilities that stack with feats.
and I think both 4x and 8x are far too much for that stacking benefit.
Stabbity doom proposed charging 1 point for the skill bonus. If we raise adaptability to the price of other feats, then you pay double its value to stack it with feats. I think thats still unreasonably high, but its a hell of alot better than 4x or 8x.
|
|
For the people who are saying you should pay more for the benefit of stacking: How much more?
a flat number?
a %?
a straight up multiplier, like 8X?
How much is it worth to not have to spend one of my 10 feats I get from leveling on the bonus? (My guess: a bit less than the value of an open feat. Depends on if you wanted the fixed bonus feat or not, say, the value of a preselected feat: 2 points.)
if they equal out, then you shouldnt pay more for stacking with feats.
if the first group is more, you should pay a bit more.
if the second group is more, then the things I was saying were overpriced, are even more overpriced than I thought.
The idea behind a fixed feat is simple: You have a race that is good at a specific thing.
Anything else, it's ho-hum at.
Humans can be really good at ANYTHING. Only a race that is specialized is going to have a chance of being better then human.
The bonus feat for humans is good on ANY build.
A skill focus feat is good on SOME builds. On the rest, it's a 'meh' thing.
Generally, most skill boosting stuff is 'utility' stuff. Utility feats are inherently less valuable then feats you can spend on improved defense or especially improved offense that can apply to any class.
An open feat, from the purposes of survival, is also far, far more useful to lower level schmucks, who can put that feat directly to where its needed to get by and prosper...Endurance, Great Fortitude, a Skill focus (Survival, Profession, Craft). A racial bonus to working with stone and metal is only useful if you're working with stone and metal. It does crap if you're a farmer, herdsman, plains nomad, and the like.
The open feat of a human is built to reflect the fact that humans can and do live everywhere, and other races tend to stay in fairly fixed terrain that plays to their strengths (dwarves are emblematic of this).
===
As for costs with advanced races...meh. I'll let someone else number crunch.
===Aelryinth
It's daunting to even think of getting a word in on this thread, it's become so in depth. But if I may, just a few thoughts.
First, for those who are concerned about the point that feats become devalued over levels, and so an open feat should be cheaper, this makes it in no way different than most other racial traits. Most racial traits are fixed values, and become increasingly irrelevant over the levels. That's why standard races are more or less on par with advanced races at 6th level, and monstrous ones at 11th (or 16th for 40 RP races). You accumulate all the class abilities, and although you still need the feats, you could drop a few and never notice.
Now, this isn't directly related, as I'm about to mention other pricing issues, but based on other threads, the human breakdown should be this:
Humanoid (0 RP)
Medium (0 RP)
Normal Speed (0 RP)
Human Ability Scores (0 RP)
Linguist Array (1 RP, most think that languages are overpriced, and I agree)
Bonus Feat (4 RP, kept the same to illustrate the point)
Skilled (2 RP)
Total: 7 RP
Skilled is changed to 2 RP because, as Darkholme has pointed out in his own thread, an extra skill point a level is a favored class bonus, which makes it equivalent to an extra hp a level, which is also the Toughness feat, which makes it, ultimately, equivalent to a fixed feat, worth 2 RP.
This makes the race weak in comparison with Elves and Dwarves, and maybe that's true. But I don't think it should be that much weaker. My most successful players prefer humans, and they seem to be successful because they put their extra feet exactly where they want and their extra skill points exactly where they want.
Assuming my players are representative, this leaves us with three possibilities:
1) The flexibility (extra feat and skill points) of the human is very advantageous, but in a way that is nebulous and therefor cannot be adequately expressed in RP, or any other quantitative or otherwise objective system of value.
2) The Elf and Dwarf are also worth less than 10 RP.
3) The open bonus feat is worth more than 4 RP.
#1's conclusion is unacceptable even if it is true, because it is unusable. #2 may be true, and I think the Elf is actually 9 RP. The Dwarf, however seems to be more than 10 RP, and this seems to be the majority opinion. But if we find #2 to be untrue or not ture enough to justify the Human's competitiveness, then we are left with #3, the open bonus feat is under-priced.
|
|
@Goblin: It is more certainly #1, but it is measurable. The value of this flexibility is directly proportional to the number and variety of races you allow. Case-in-point: I like playing tiefling because I can ditch the first level feat to get the "just right" ability adjustments (see the Bastards of Erebus book, which is technically 3.5e but we allow it) while playing a cool race.
Many people only allow core races, so let's break them down:
* Half-elf and half-orc don't offer any more flexibility than human, but try to use that as a selling point. They're in a dead zone where only EXTREMELY specific builds find them more valuable. Namely, half-elves are used almost solely for multi-classers, and half-orcs almost solely for sunder builds.
* Dwarf is very specialized (both flavor-wise and racial-wise) to martial opponents. They're so dripping in flavor that players don't want to work "against the flow" of that pre-established styling, but often don't want to play that type of character either. I see a dwarf about every other campaign.
* Elf is also very specialized, basically suited primarily to ranged combatants, and wizards and witches. Even then people are hesitant due to the -2 con.
* Halfling is evidently considered underpowered. All their bonuses are generic and circumstantial (save for their bonus to saves), and none of them synergize with a particular class. I'm the only one at my table to have played a halfling in the last several years (and that was still 3.5e).
* Gnome has a very specific flavor, much like dwarf. Unfortunately none of their abilities synergize well with ANY class, save possibly for the under-played rogue (and even then only a tiny bit). The only thing that really has a hope of synergizing is the +1 to attack rolls against certain enemies and the AC bonus, but even those are unlikely to see use being a small race. They either do archery (which will be harder to get damage for due to low strength), or dex-based fighting (which will be easier but takes many feats).
So there you have it. Most games have 2 races that have no real synergy with any class, 2 races that have synergy but only for a very narrow band of classes, and 2 races that purport to be versatile but are outclassed in that versatility by human (relegating them to very specific cases where the versatility they did lose was assigned to the EXACT right abilities).
TL;DR - It's not that the versatility makes them strong, it's just that most of the time the races you have to pick from don't give you anything helpful, but human gives you a slight amount of help. Try opening up to a wider range of races with less ultra-specific abilities and you'll likely see fewer humans.
Less "+2 versus reptilians", more "+1 to saves" and "+2 to common skill".
|
|
...Humans are worth 7 pts...
Skilled is changed to 2 RP because, as Darkholme has pointed out in his own thread, an extra skill point a level is a favored class bonus, which makes it equivalent to an extra hp a level, which is also the Toughness feat, which makes it, ultimately, equivalent to a fixed feat, worth 2 RP.
Yep! Now we're getting somewhere! :)
This makes the race weak in comparison with Elves and Dwarves, and maybe that's true. But I don't think it should be that much weaker. My most successful players prefer humans, and they seem to be successful because they put their extra feet exactly where they want and their extra skill points exactly where they want.
Assuming my players are representative, this leaves us with three possibilities:
1) The flexibility (extra feat and skill points) of the human is very advantageous, but in a way that is nebulous and therefor cannot be adequately expressed in RP, or any other quantitative or otherwise objective system of value.
2) The Elf and Dwarf are also worth less than 10 RP.
3) The open bonus feat is worth more than 4 RP.#1's conclusion is unacceptable even if it is true, because it is unusable. #2 may be true, and I think the Elf is actually 9 RP. The Dwarf, however seems to be more than 10 RP, and this seems to be the majority opinion. But if we find #2 to be untrue or not ture enough to justify the Human's competitiveness, then we are left with #3, the open bonus feat is under-priced.
1 is entirely possible. Worth noting that I cant say 2 is a good price for a fixed feat or not without looking through the list of what is currently worth 1, 2, 3, or 4 points. Maybe a fixed feat should be priced higher. 2. I think its quite likely that the elf is worth less than 10. Dwarf? my estimates put it at like 1.5 human.
I will say, than I'm not sure anymore whether or not an Open Feat, is worth less, more, or the same as fly.
Okie dokie. Elf is definitely worth less than 10 (if a fixed feat is worth 2). Elf pays 2 for the perception bonus. By my maths, +4.5 to a skill is worth 1 pt. So thatbrings the elf down to about: 8.45 pts. Yes I know, no decimals. I'll round at the end to see if it makes it higher.
Weapon Familiarity: Not sure exactly what its worth but by the favored class..toughness..feat track, a selectable weapon, every 4 levels, with reduced penalties inbetween, is worth 2 pts. Weapon Proficiency is overpriced as a feat, and most people avoid taking it unless they absolutely HAVE to have it.
Lets look at Elven Weapons.
Dwarf Oracle Weapons: 1 wpn every 4 levels, reduced penalties in between. Grants proficiency. (average payoff: full proficiency in 2 weapons, half penalties in a third. I'd personally just say 3 weapons.)
Elf Familiarity: 4 weapons (lbow, sbow, lswd, rpier). Up Front. And a 7/19 chance of getting curveblade proficiency. Lets leave out the 7/19 of a weapon for simplicity.
It'd say ist a little better than a feat. (1.6 x a feat from my weapon maths.) So if a feat is worth 2, Elven weapons are worth 3.2 (3).
An elf is worth 9.65 without rounding. Rounding down is standard in D&D, and that gives us 9 pt elves. Normal rounding gives us elves that are on the weak side of 10.
|
|
@StabbittyDoom:Gnomes make good summoners and bards. Arguably Sorc as well, if you go with illusion.
Illusionist is what I call "table circumstantial." In other words, it depends on whose table you are playing. Some DMs will gimp your illusions at every turn, others will let you go wild with them. It really really really depends. Also, the creativity of the player is VASTLY more important than that +1 (especially since the save doesn't matter for some circumstances, such as covering a pit, or making a wall to block LoS).
Either way, between them and a human in those roles it's almost a wash. Most players I know don't play them anyway because most dislike being a small character.
|
|
Either way, between them and a human in those roles it's almost a wash. Most players I know don't play them anyway because most dislike being a small character.
+2 Con, +2 Cha.
You're a mage. it doesn't matter if you're small. If you get into melee, you're doing it wrong. (Unless you're a synergist, in which case your small summoner is now medium or large, and you are welcome to wade into melee. Congrats).
I'm playing a level 12 gnome synergist summoner in a game right now. Its pretty awesome, though some aspects seem poorly balanced and I have to make a conscious effort to not be overwhelmingly powerful. I have leadership, and a broodmaster summoner cohort, and the power on those is the opposite. Quite underwhelming.
I think for the summoner they hit the nail on the head for cool ideas, but missed the mark in lots of places when it comes to balancing mechanics.
|
|
Either way, between them and a human in those roles it's almost a wash. Most players I know don't play them anyway because most dislike being a small character.+2 Con, +2 Cha.
You're a mage. it doesn't matter if you're small. If you get into melee, you're doing it wrong. (Unless you're a synergist, in which case your small summoner is now medium or large, and you are welcome to wade into melee. Congrats).
I'm playing a level 12 gnome synergist summoner in a game right now. Its pretty awesome, though some aspects seem poorly balanced and I have to make a conscious effort to not be overwhelmingly powerful. I have leadership, and a broodmaster summoner cohort, and the power on those is the opposite. Quite underwhelming.
I think for the summoner they hit the nail on the head for cool ideas, but missed the mark in lots of places when it comes to balancing mechanics.
Yeah, I think it's just that my players tend to hate the idea of going small (which has various hidden disadvantages; "The water comes up to your waste." "Uh... does someone want to carry me? :(")
Also, at my table we are about ready to ban summoner because we have never had a game that it didn't feel overpowered to us (out of the 3 in which we had one). This may just be because we usually play on the lower level side, but that doesn't change that it messes with our games.
They'd still be decent sorcerers, oracles and bards, but that's mostly because of the +Cha (which 4 other core races can do). I tend to see people de-emphasize con a little when playing a caster (not dumping it, just not putting it higher than a 12, which is cheap for any race), so I'm not sure that the +Con thing is really a huge draw for them.
|
|
Yeah. understandable.
I find the regular summoner pushes the bounds of what's reasonable for a given level quite a bit. Likewise for the Synergist.
I'd suggest giving the broodmaster a try. As I mentioned, I have been experiencing the opposite. You get a bunch of mini eidolons, and you have to divide your natural attacks, skill points, feats, hit dice, str bonuses, dex bonuses, armor bonuses, and evolutions between them. They're substantially weaker than the standard summoner because of this. The more Eidolons they have, the weaker they are.
Example: A level 10 ends has 8 hd, 32 skill points, 4 feats, +8AC, +4 Str/Dex, 14 Evolution Points, and 5 natural attacks.
By default, they would have 2 Eidolons, each having half that.
So BAB & Saves of a lv 10 eidolon, but 4hd, 16 skill pts, 2 feats, +4AC, +2Str/+2Dex, 7 Evolution Points, and 2.5 natural attacks (one of them can have 3). And theyll both be small. Suddenly not so impressive.
the "Larger Brood" evolution does 2 things: One: Lets you bump them both up to medium for 4 points (and then theyd be more competitive), or Two: gives you 4 small eidolons (or a combination of the two).
Here's what 4 small eidolons looks like:
BAB & Saves of a lv 10 eidolon, but 2hd, 8 skill pts, 1 feat, +2AC, +2Str OR +2Dex OR +1 to each, 2.5 Evolution Points, and 1.25 natural attacks (one of them can have 2). And theyll all be small. Not overpowered at all. Arguably quite weak, but I'd need to do a dpr analysis.