I'm working on a homebrew campaign, and I have six player races:
Human
Elf
Dwarf
Orc
Gnome
Hybrid (crossbreed)
Originally, humans and hybrids got +2 to any stat and the other races got +2 to a predetermined stat. I removed the stat penalties for race, and removed one bonus to balance it.
I have decided to change this. Each race will get +2 to two stats (like in the CRB), but no stat penalty. This is a little more powerful than CRB, but it's across the board.
Except for humans and hybrids. I do not want to let them choose two stats to get bonuses to, only one. So, here is my idea. Compensate for humans and hybrids only getting one +2 to a stat instead of two +2s by giving hybrids a bonus feat and humans an extra bonus feat (so humans get two bonus feats at first level).
Does this sound balanced?
Have you considered allowing humans (and hybrids) a +2 bonus to one Physical ability score of their choice, and a +2 bonus to one Mental ability score? Though they are still able to choose which two ability scores they would like, they're not grabbing two from the same category (like the dreaded Str/Con).
Have you considered allowing humans (and hybrids) a +2 bonus to one Physical ability score of their choice, and a +2 bonus to one Mental ability score? Though they are still able to choose which two ability scores they would like, they're not grabbing two from the same category (like the dreaded Str/Con).
What if hybrids could do that, but humans still got the +2 to one score and an extra bonus feat?
Is a bonus feat a fair trade for missing out on a +2 everybody else gets? Is giving humans two bonus feats unbalanced?
Does this sound balanced?
yeash. Um I would just keep it the way it is in the CRB or allow players to make races using the new race book. There is a Playtest of it going on.
I would not make any changes to the races in the CRB. Just don't do it.
Oh the dreaded Str/Con, woe is me. If I cared I'd be more concerned about Con+Mental Score for full casters :P
Vanilla Pathfinder gnome sorcerers already get that :)
yeash. Um I would just keep it the way it is in the CRB or allow players to make races using the new race book. There is a Playtest of it going on.
I would not make any changes to the races in the CRB. Just don't do it.
It has to be done. Many things in the CRB do not fit my setting, such as gnome's spell like abilities, elven immunities, half the dwarve's abilities, and all racial weapon proficiencies and racial enemy traits.
I would dislike having the small people with no strength penalty in particular, for the other races not being able to select it as a strong ability should be sufficient to highlight racial tendencies.
Depending on the reason why you are doing it you might consider having the races choose which one of their 'strong' abilities they can increase, a dwarf would take +2 to con or wis for example.
Otherwise it is fine, two bonus feats is a benefit that is hard to ignore.
I would dislike having the small people with no strength penalty in particular, for the other races not being able to select it as a strong ability should be sufficient to highlight racial tendencies.
Depending on the reason why you are doing it you might consider having the races choose which one of their 'strong' abilities they can increase, a dwarf would take +2 to con or wis for example.
Otherwise it is fine, two bonus feats is a benefit that is hard to ignore.
I think I've settled on everyone except humans getting two +2s and no penalties, hybrids being the only ones who choose, and nobody having penalties.
I didn't mention it in the OP because I didn't think it was relevant, but my gnomes are a bit taller than Pathfinder gnomes. They are just barely tall enough to be classified as medium, not small. This is because I highly dislike small sized PCs and enemies. I can't explain why I dislike them, I just do.
+2 to a stat is better than a bonus feat. An easy way to eyeball that is the fact that +1 to a stat was considered an epic feat in 3.5, meaning it was a feat and you had to be level 21 or higher to take it. That said, those were pretty crappy epic feats - a +2 would have been more in line with epic abilities.
On the other hand, a feat that grants +2 to an ability score would be a ridiculously good feat barring some major limitations.
+2 to a stat is better than a bonus feat. An easy way to eyeball that is the fact that +1 to a stat was considered an epic feat in 3.5, meaning it was a feat and you had to be level 21 or higher to take it. That said, those were pretty crappy epic feats - a +2 would have been more in line with epic abilities.
On the other hand, a feat that grants +2 to an ability score would be a ridiculously good feat barring some major limitations.
While that is true it should be said it is negating a penalty, so it will not likely be the highest score a character has that gets increased, it would be good for a dwarven cleric or paladin though and yea still better than a feat, but it is not a free +2 more likely it is increasing a secondary, but useful, ability score instead of the primary ability.
I would consider to replace the human skillpoint bonus for a favored class bonus regardless wether that level is in the humans favored class.