|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So.
I just got the book, haven't had a chance to read in depth yet. While I'm sure it's quite good, no system is perfect, and I want to see all the problem areas in this one. So here I am.
Obviously there is the errata and errors that need correcting, many of which are mentioned here.
When the playtest was going, many of us criticized the way things were priced in the Race Build rules. Many abilities/bonuses were priced at a certain RP, with a similar equivalent or better bonus priced at less points. We started with criticizing the fact that it was happening at all, but then we started pointing out which things were problem areas.
Eventually it turned into this thread here.
So I want to know from people who have looked through it so far:
Do you see any abilities with prices that look too high/too low? Could you point them out? Look for anything that looks to be priced too high, or priced too low, and put it here. It could be an error, or it could just be priced poorly, or maybe its priced fine and we're missing something. But hopefully we can get to the bottom of all that.
If we can pick out these things, maybe they will be added to errata, but even if they aren't, at the very least it will point out things to watch for when evaluating whether a race is likely over or under costed for a given point total. Feel free to mention what sort of point cost you think would have been reasonable, and why you think so.
I find that the prices for 'Skill Bonus' and 'Static Feat', both being 2RP, don't match. Let's have a look at the Half-Elf (who actually has both)...
A skill bonus is a flat +2 Racial Bonus to a single skill.
A 'Static Feat (Skill Focus)' will give you a +3 bonus, which increases to +6 if you invest in that skill.
Is it just me, or shouldn't the latter effect be considered more... worthwhile?
They didn't change the skill bonus cost? That there was one of the most egregious examples of the failure of its design during the playtest.
|
|
They didn't change the skill bonus cost? That there was one of the most egregious examples of the failure of its design during the playtest.
Heh. yeah. I remember that one being pointed out and explained very thoroughly. May even have been by me.
If they missed that, I'm a little uncertain about the rest. Hopefully they just completely forgot about that.
I think we both pointed it out at least once each.
|
There's still too much setting-specific flavor presumptions hardwired into many of the features. Construct races not having souls/being raisable for example. Along with the cost pushing races out of the Standard Race category, that bit pretty much flies in the face of pretty much most construct player races most people likely have in mind. At the very least there could have been a lower-cost watered down version of the construct race type*, as well as some alternate and flavorful means of raising, such as requiring repairs before calling the soul back.
As it is, no one's going to be building Warforged or Gearforged with these rules as written.
Hoofed is gone at least. But many of the other annoying Prerequisites By Standard/Advanced/Monstrous Types are still there. Still going over the rules. I'm hoping I missed something tied into the construct race complaint.
No support for alternate body types other than centaur-types too. Even with Merfolk being in the book, there's no support for half-serpentine/merfolk-shaped races that I can see.
*This complaint goes for other Creature Type features too. As it is, you can't make a Plant-based standard race.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, if it's just the one that's really off, It'll be okay, but if it's pervasive, I may head over to houserules and reprice absolutely everything, possibly with your help, for my own use. Heh.
Anyways. I really need to go to bed, as it's 6:45 and I should have been in bed hours ago. I'll see if there's anything else people have found when I get up.
Later guys.
There are several other wild values that have been mentioned.
Water Child costs 4RP while a proper Swim speed costs 2. Battle-Hardened (+1 CMD) costs 4RP, the same as Greater Defensive Combat Training (+2 Dodge, which includes CMD). Hope getting the bonus flat footed is really, really important to you. A Climb speed costs the same as a +2 bonus to climb. Which might be a specific ability versus a general one, but shows how ridiculously overpriced skills are in general. I mean, Sneaky Rider costs 6RP! I don't think I even need to give a comparison for that.
Honestly, it doesn't terribly matter to me that the section is bad, as it is a small portion of the book. However, I fear the ideas it will give people. Already in another thread someone asked if Dwarves should count as one level higher because of their RP value. I fear that the day will come when someone says "Humans? They are terrible! They only get 9RP!"
"Humans? They are terrible! They only get 9RP!"
And two of those points are an extra tax for having fewer starting languages than other races!
"Humans? They are terrible! They only get 9RP!"And two of those points are an extra tax for having fewer starting languages than other races!
Two?
I don't have the book, so I can only go on what I've heard. Is it not like this?
2 points: Start with common, can learn any language as bonus.
1 point: Start with common plus one language, can learn from a list of seven languages as bonus.
0 points: Start with one non-common language, can learn from a list of seven languages as bonus.
Thankfully, they at least fixed that up a bit. It is now:
1 point: Common, Racial, any bonuses
0 point: Common, Racial, 7 others as possible bonuses
0 point: Racial only, 4 others as possible bonuses
Still not ideal, but better than the playtest.
That was playtest. Now those traits cost 1, 0, 0 respectively.
And that is the reason why Humans cost 9 points now instead of 10.
So the good news: Pretty much all the changes made from the playtest are in the right direction.
The bad news: Not enough was done. There are still some mind boggling decisions about some of the costs. Not to mention the missing options that Mikaze touched on.
Thankfully, they at least fixed that up a bit. It is now:
1 point: Common, Racial, any bonuses
0 point: Common, Racial, 7 others as possible bonuses
0 point: Racial only, 4 others as possible bonusesStill not ideal, but better than the playtest.
Humans don't get a racial language. Are they a special case?
Humans don't get a racial language. Are they a special case?
There is a little "(if any)" disclaimer after the bit about getting a racial language. So it is a special case that is already dealt with generally. Doesn't make the poor humans feel any better, though.
So the good news: Pretty much all the changes made from the playtest are in the right direction.
The bad news: Not enough was done. There are still some mind boggling decisions about some of the costs. Not to mention the missing options that Mikaze touched on.
Totally agree. The system is far better than it was in the playtest, but still has more rough edges than I would hope for in a published product. It could really have used another round of playtesting, I think.
There are certainly some discrepancies and/or questionable point costs (something I noted for some of the alternate racial traits for instance: an orc trades ferocity (4 pts) and weapon proficiency (1 pt) for a half-range scent ability (scent is 4 pts), while a catfolk can trade low-light vision (1 pt) for the full scent ability (4 pts), as an example.) That sort of thing is pretty easily house-ruled, though.
However, I think the system accomplishes what it sets out to do, which is to provide a guideline of how to create custom races. It's not perfect, and any such system never will be, IMO. But it is perfectly functional, and a GM has more tools now to balance new races so that they aren't overpowered or underpowered or what have you.
The only thing I wish the designers had done more with is explaining the differences between Standard, Advanced, and Monstrous races. Aside from getting more abilities and of "higher" classification, and a sidebar about adjusting APL for certain brackets of point buys, there isn't really anything else about it in there that I saw. Some further definition of what differentiates the classifications and how they can impact a campaign would have been nice to see.
There's still too much setting-specific flavor presumptions hardwired into many of the features. Construct races not having souls/being raisable for example. Along with the cost pushing races out of the Standard Race category, that bit pretty much flies in the face of pretty much most construct player races most people likely have in mind. At the very least there could have been a lower-cost watered down version of the construct race type*, as well as some alternate and flavorful means of raising, such as requiring repairs before calling the soul back.
As it is, no one's going to be building Warforged or Gearforged with these rules as written.
100% agreement. In many ways, it felt like the book was still trying to cater to traditionalists.
As for the plant type, at least two penalties can be applied without losing potential flavor:
-slow speed -1 (I'd consider plants slow-moving creatures)
-mixed weakness -2 (I can easily see a venus flytrap-faced plant thing getting a -4 penalty to CHA)
*Light-based weaknesses could be added to subterranean fungus creatures.
Adding the top two would reduce the type cost to seven with four points to use, because dwarves have eleven (the 'power level' bit's a joke thanks to the bearded exceptions). It's do-able, but not ideal.
*This complaint goes for other Creature Type features too. As it is, you can't make a Plant-based standard race.
Well I haven't read the chapter through entirely, but I did attempt to see if I (while probably abusing the system) could make a plant based race. I think it turned out ok.
Small Plant 10
Weakness (-4 str, +2 dex, +2 cha) -1
Slow (20ft. speed) -1
Darkness Sensitivity -1
Elemental Vulnerability fire -2
Lucky, lesser 2
Camouflage (Forest) 1
Treespeech 2
Alternate build:
Remove: Darkness Sensitivity and Lucky, lesser
Add: Stalker
New Racial Weakness Trait:
Darkness Sensibility (-1 RP): Prerequisite: none; Weakness: Members of this race become sluggish and tired; they are considered to be fatigued while in areas of dim light or worse. However this condition disappears as soon as they enter an area with better illumination. Other sources of fatigue or exhaustion must be recovered as normal and does not affect or stack with Darkness Sensitivity.
Flower Child
A Flower child is a race of sentient flowers; they were given souls by a benevolent forest spirit that had grown fund of the flowers in its forest. The Flower Child tend to be kind hearted and have a cheerful disposition when healthy but as their health decline for any reason their splendor tends to face and wither and their disposition tend to become sourly, while this is the norm the Flower Child are as varied as other races. Their alignment tends towards good as the concept of doing ill onto others seems a bit foreign concept to them and they readily agree that this must be some animalistic trait, despite any evidence to the contrary. Flower Children do not often mix with other races and when they do it is mostly with the elven, and thus they tend to cause a lot of attention for their unique look when they do enter human lands.
Physical Description:
A Flower Child looks like a flower with vine like arms standing about 3 feet tall, their bodies are extremely thin and seems very fragile and lithely rarely even the width of a hand wide, resembling more the stalk of a flower then a traditional body. Their arms are almost as long as they themselves are and very flexible and instead of fingers they wrap their hands around an object like a tentacle would, with small vine like protrusions doing the work of fingers, while this is serviceable the flower child lack the physical strength and bulk of many other races. Their bodies seem to split into two where their legs start and the legs are the slender but stiffer then their bodies and arms to give them greater stability, on the underside of their feet small roots sprout from which they can draw nourishment directly from fertile soil. The head of a flower child is enormous compared to their thin bodies and like a flower with a central head with eyes and a mouth surrounded by colorful petals, the exact layout and colors of the head varies greatly depending on which type of flower they look like the common dandelion, buttercup, maiden pink or a poppy flower. The Flower Child is androgyne and thus carries no distinguishing mark to make them male or female, though they can have a masculine or feminine attitude and this is often reflected in some subtle way in their facial features and petals.
Relations:
A Flower Child tend to have an open, warm and slightly naive attitude, which means that they tend to get along well with other races, however few take them serious and races like dwarves and humans tend to look down at the Flower Child treating them much like one would a child. Evil monstrous races tend to view the Flower Child with envy and hatred towards the natural beautiful.
Alignment and Religion.
Flower Children tend not to form as close bonds with others and rarely form family like bonds, instead forming friendships in which multiple individual share their thoughts and lives for a time. While in a friendship the Flower Child will treat the friend with the utmost respect and always be willing to lend a hand or stand by a friend in need, but with time the friendship withers and the flower child seeks out others to join bonds of friendship with and perhaps alter return to the abandon friendship. These bonds can last anywhere from a few days to an entire lifetime and is an accepted part of Flower Child society.
Flower Children tend to worship gods of nature and the weather, especially those that do not deal with animals. They also worship the spirit of the forest, regardless of there is one in the forest they are near or not, this worship they take fairly serious where the worship of gods is almost a game to them, though a game they would love to master.
Adventurers:
Few Flower Children wander far from their birth forest, but those that do, often do so because they made a bond of friendship with a traveler passing through their lands or because they are curious as to what lies beyond the forest. Those that do become adventurers tend to do so for the experience and the friendship more than the desire for gold and riches, finding that doing great deeds more rewarding then collecting great rewards, however they do insist on being treated as equal in any group which means they will insist vigorously that they gain and equal share of treasure, though usually they have little idea what to do with it when gained.
However not all Flower Children leave the forest of their own free will, war and industry often see the great forests where they live diminished for the lumber and firewood and this can often leave Flower Children to wander in search of a new home, often looking much less bright and cheerful then before, since their Forest Spirit have been killed. It is from this traumatic event most evil Flower Children emerge.
Names: Autumn Sorrow, Gold Leaf, Morning Dew, Laughing Leaf, Poppy Eye, Raindrop, Spring Joy, Stormwind, Summer Dancer, Sunthorn, Weeping Sky, Winter Bloom
Flower Child Racial Trait:
-4 str, +2 dex, +2 cha: They are beautiful, have delicate and flexible bodies, but lack the sheer strength and bulk of other races. They have an open and cheerful personality.
Plant: Flower Children have the plant type.
Small:
Slow Speed: The Flower Child has a movement speed of 20 feet.
Low-Light Vision: Possesses low-light vision and can see twice as far as normal in poor light conditions.
Plant Minds: Flower Children are immune to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsion, morale effects, patterns, and phantasms).
Plant Immunities: Flower Children are immune to Paralysis, Poison, Polymorph, sleep effects, and stunning.
Plants: Flower Children need to breathe and eat, but they do not need to sleep unless they gain some beneficial effect from this activity. This means that a flower child can sleep in order to regain speeds, but sleep is not required to survive or to stay in good health.
Lucky: A flower Child is blessed with good luck and gains a +1 racial bonus to all saving throws.
Camouflage: When in a forest the Flower Child's flower like physic makes it easy to hide giving the Flower Child a +4 racial bonus to stealth in this type of terrain.
Treespeech: Flower Children have the ability to converse with plants as if subject to a continual speak with plant spell.
Elemental Vulnerability to fire: Flower Children tend to catch fire easily and have vulnerable to fire and take 50% extra damage from fire.
Darkness Sensibility: Flower Children become sluggish and tired; they are considered to be fatigued while in areas of dim light or worse. However this condition disappears as soon as they enter an area with better illumination. Other sources of fatigue or exhaustion must be recovered as normal and does not affect or stack with Darkness Sensitivity.
Languages: Flower Children start w with Common and Treespeech, Flower Children with a high intelligence scores can choose from the following: Elven, Gnome, Giant, Halfling, Sylvan, Treant, Terran.
I'd have to disagree with the setting specific, considering that it's more rules specific. The construct and plant rules apply to all construct types in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, not just the world of Golarion. And they are very powerful abilities. Immunity to polymorph and mind affecting abilities for plants is pretty strong. I find that it is easier and better for them to give us the whole bag (in this case, all the plant abilities) and just remove certain powers and parts of it to make it cheaper and fit better. We are the GMs and that means we can change that as we see fit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Half constructs can't be resurrected either.
So, if you ever get magically animated prosthetics, you have to sell your soul for them.
|
It seems there wasn't a great deal of balancing that came to the RP costing of abilities from the playtest.
Thus most feats grant at most a +1 AC bonus, so the Greater Defensive Training Equating to 4RP is twice the cost of Natural Armour granting +1. Does this carry through that a Feat equivalent ability is worth 2RP?
What about the relative cost of ability scores? These can have a much greater effect than feat equivalent abilities as they affect a whole number of skills, and other game mechanics. Battle Hardened at 4RP is twice the cost of a Flexible stat array which grants +2 to two ability scores, which will in turn grant +1 to CMD if one of these stats is strength or dex...
I particularly enjoyed the thread linked to costing on what constituted a feat, a favoured class bonus and a trait. This seems like a much more balanced way of determining how much an ability should cost.
I'd certainly be interested in those house ruled costs should you come up with them if they were based on the Feat, Trait,Favoured Class equivalent you were looking at previously.
I find that the prices for 'Skill Bonus' and 'Static Feat', both being 2RP, don't match. Let's have a look at the Half-Elf (who actually has both)...
A skill bonus is a flat +2 Racial Bonus to a single skill.
A 'Static Feat (Skill Focus)' will give you a +3 bonus, which increases to +6 if you invest in that skill.Is it just me, or shouldn't the latter effect be considered more... worthwhile?
I think it is because with the +2 racial bonus, you can stack that with Skill Focus at a later point, as opposed to getting Skill Focus as a racial trait.
Water Child costs 4RP while a proper Swim speed costs 2.
I'll admit it seems overpriced. I figured it might be because of the rare language you learn for it. I'd probably knock that down to a 3 (or raise the swim speed to a 3 pointer)
Battle-Hardened (+1 CMD) costs 4RP, the same as Greater Defensive Combat Training (+2 Dodge, which includes CMD). Hope getting the bonus flat footed is really, really important to you.
Actually, I kind of think it is. This is a plus CMD that isn't lost from Strength and Dex Drain in addition to losing your dex bonus. You'll still have that bonus to CMD against all combat maneuvers.
A Climb speed costs the same as a +2 bonus to climb. Which might be a specific ability versus a general one, but shows how ridiculously overpriced skills are in general.
I couldn't locate the +2 climb so I assume you mean Skill Bonus. I don't really consider 2 RP to be overpriced, especially since you are using it for any skill you wish. Given that it's a racial bonus, it'll stack with others and you can have a fairly large skill bonus at level one. Same thing with Sneaky Rider. That's a +4 that can be stacked with Skill Focus and Stealthy & Animal Affinity.
At the very least though, if there are huge pricing issues with these things, I can't imagine it'd be hard to errata since it would just be a matter of changing a number.
|
|
Yeah, that's what I'd be using as a starting point, along with Upper Krust's CR Calculator to fill in anything I cant figure out that way, if I go reprice everything. Plug everything into Excel, and try to calculate the point values things should have.
Then put the whole thing up for review, and have you guys tear it apart like a bunch of ravenous piranhas until I'm satisfied with it.
I was really hoping they would take that very thorough examination of the playtest we gave them and look through it critically to take it into account.
As for errata, you're right if its only a couple. But if they need to reprice like 30% or more? thats alot of numbers.
I think it is because with the +2 racial bonus, you can stack that with Skill Focus at a later point, as opposed to getting Skill Focus as a racial trait.
The problem with this (and the other skill bonuses) is that you usually don't need to get them that high. A character who wants to really push a skill into the stratosphere with a racial bonus AND Skill Focus is rare, and the higher you get the more returns diminish (as DCs only get so tough). For this, all races are paying a premium on racial skill bonuses. Compared to the costs of boosting skills (or anything else) by increasing stats, taking special abilities, or plain old Skill Focus, "has the ability to stack" simply does not justify the costs to me.
Water Child costs 4RP while a proper Swim speed costs 2.
I'll admit it seems overpriced. I figured it might be because of the rare language you learn for it. I'd probably knock that down to a 3 (or raise the swim speed to a 3 pointer)
There is not such thing as a "rare language" when designing races, as all are considered equal by the system. Not that Aquan is particularly hard to get in the core game, either. Further, it doesn't even give you the language, it allows you to choose it as a bonus language at level 1. For that, you pay double the price.
Battle-Hardened (+1 CMD) costs 4RP, the same as Greater Defensive Combat Training (+2 Dodge, which includes CMD). Hope getting the bonus flat footed is really, really important to you.
Actually, I kind of think it is. This is a plus CMD that isn't lost from Strength and Dex Drain in addition to losing your dex bonus. You'll still have that bonus to CMD against all combat maneuvers.
The Dodge bonus isn't lost to Strength and Dexterity Drain either. You only lose the dodge bonus when you have a specific condition that makes you "lose your dexterity modifier," not when your Dexterity modifier reaches 0 because of Drain. And even then, you are paying the same amount for half the bonus, and to only CMD instead of AC and CMD.
At the very least though, if there are huge pricing issues with these things, I can't imagine it'd be hard to errata since it would just be a matter of changing a number.
It is unlikely. Many of these issues also existed in the playtest. They were pointed out, but the developers either missed or chose not to fix them. I think it is unlikely they will suddenly change their minds or dedicate the resources now that the book is out. Especially considering the amount of more severe errata needed for Ultimate Combat, I don't think we should hold up hope for balance changes to an optional toolbox.
|
|
It does look to be better balanced than what was proposed during the playtest, but it still could have seen alot more polish and refinement to get rid of these glaring issues.
Looks like we may have to hammer out a community sourced point-buy race building system afterall if we're seeking a better balanced system to do it with.
It's a shame, since this 36 page section was my main draw to the book.
Well, at least we won't have to start from scratch. We can take this as a starting point and a list of options, and apply the things we learned during the playtest, and try to come up with better prices on everything.
I think it is because with the +2 racial bonus, you can stack that with Skill Focus at a later point, as opposed to getting Skill Focus as a racial trait.The problem with this (and the other skill bonuses) is that you usually don't need to get them that high. A character who wants to really push a skill into the stratosphere with a racial bonus AND Skill Focus is rare, and the higher you get the more returns diminish (as DCs only get so tough). For this, all races are paying a premium on racial skill bonuses. Compared to the costs of boosting skills (or anything else) by increasing stats, taking special abilities, or plain old Skill Focus, "has the ability to stack" simply does not justify the costs to me.
Water Child costs 4RP while a proper Swim speed costs 2.
I'll admit it seems overpriced. I figured it might be because of the rare language you learn for it. I'd probably knock that down to a 3 (or raise the swim speed to a 3 pointer)
There is not such thing as a "rare language" when designing races, as all are considered equal by the system. Not that Aquan is particularly hard to get in the core game, either. Further, it doesn't even give you the language, it allows you to choose it as a bonus language at level 1. For that, you pay double the price.
The Dodge bonus isn't lost to Strength and Dexterity Drain either. You only lose the dodge bonus when you have a specific condition that makes you "lose your dexterity modifier," not when your Dexterity modifier reaches 0 because of Drain. And even then, you are...Battle-Hardened (+1 CMD) costs 4RP, the same as Greater Defensive Combat Training (+2 Dodge, which includes CMD). Hope getting the bonus flat footed is really, really important to you.
Actually, I kind of think it is. This is a plus CMD that isn't lost from Strength and Dex Drain in addition to losing your dex bonus. You'll still have that bonus to CMD against all combat maneuvers.
Idk, some of the Perception and Sense Motive DCs can get rather high with the appropriate modifiers or dealing with spells. Likewise with Acrobatics against tumbling and Stealth (something for another thread). Not to mention that depending on the class or feat, you could use skills in other ways than they are listed. For example, Sense Motive can be used by someone with Snake Style for its ability, or Intimidate for Dazzling Display and Antagonize (balance issues with that for another thread).
This isn't to say that this would 'break the game', however. I'm just remarking that all skills are not created equal and with an ability that can give a bonus to a skill of the race creator's choice, the pricing is based on all of the possible class/feat/race combinations you can use to attempt to abuse it.
As for CMD and dodge bonus, here is the way I see it. Both give you a bonus to CMD. The advantage of the dodge bonus is that it applies to AC as well. Being a Dodge bonus, it can stack with other Dodge bonuses like Dodge (take a shot for every time I say Dodge). It stacking with itself is why Dodge Bonuses are my favorite type of bonuses. The disadvantage is that you lose it when you lose your Dexterity bonus, whether it's from being flat-footed, blinded, cowering, attacked by an invisible person, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned. Granted, it is only losing a +1 bonus and some of the other negatives you get from what I listed far outweigh losing your Dodge bonus. When you are blinded, losing 1 Dodge bonus may be the least of your worries.
The advantage of +1 CMD is having an untyped bonus against every kind of combat maneuver. You can't lose this bonus so it can help when you might be at a penalty to Strength or Dexterity. There have been times in a game I've run where having 1 extra CMD would have been the difference between being free and getting stuck in Black Tentacles. It can help increase the DC of tumbling for foes (albeit a minor bonus). The disadvantage is that it only applies to CMD, not AC.
So to me, the dodge bonus is more versatile, but the CMD is more reliable. Both increase the difficulty of hitting you by 5%. I find that to be equal in point cost.
Now as for Water Child, yeah I agree that is over priced. Again, I'd probably drop the points it is worth.
|
|
Another issue I have is the bonuses relating to size. I can absolutely see why it has been limited in the way it is, but i like to see consistency running through a system.
If you are large in size you only get a +2 str bonus. I realise this is consistent with an enlarge person spell, but if you increase the size of a creature from medium to large with HD, p296 of the bestiary states you gain +8 str, +4 con and -2 dex.
This would seem to fit fairly closely with an ogre being a scaled up human with a typical NPC array on its physical stats...
By contrast it would also mean small races had a -4 str penalty, and tiny a -8str penalty, but then again you are potentially only the size of a frog or homonculous...
So to me, the dodge bonus is more versatile, but the CMD is more reliable. Both increase the difficulty of hitting you by 5%. I find that to be equal in point cost.
Ah. Here is our disconnect. Greater Defensive Training is a +2, while Battle-Hardened is only a +1. So 10% miss vs attacks and maneuvers most of the time, as opposed to a 5% chance to miss on maneuvers only all of the time. If the bonuses were the same Battle-Hardened would be a bit more reasonable.
Ah, you are indeed correct. I really do think my old CRT is destroying my eyesight.
I'll have to mull over this a bit more since you can still lose a Dodge bonus in a variety of ways. But a +2 Dodge Bonus is pretty nice to have.
As an aside, for making a race with no legs (like the merfolk or snake people) how many points would you consider being immune to tripping be? I was thinking at most 6. Does that sound fair?
Not enough weakness traits. Characters are often defined by their flaws. I want to create a race that is weak against magical and supernatural effects that require Fort and Will saves (-2 penalty), but good at dodging magical and supernatural effects that require Reflex saves (+2 bonus). How do I calculate this?
|
|
Short Answer? You don't.
Medium Answer? You wait until someone throws together a revised Race Builder with more consistent and exhaustive options. It may be just up on the forums, or maybe 3pp. Depends on who puts out a more detailed/balanced system first.
Long Answer? Take the time to figure out the worth of -2 to Fort vs. Magic. Double that to include will. Take the time to figure out the worth of +2 to Ref vs. magic. add it up.
It will take figuring out parallels in pricing, and looking at a couple sources, and extrapolating a number for what you want, from what's been printed.
Dwarves get +4 vs. magic. there is your starting point. Then you need to figure out what it's worth to only have the bonus to ref saves. and to only have half the bonus. then you need to figure out how to price your penalties in a similar manner.
I'll have to get hold of the ARG so I can join you in adjusting the costs. One of my friends is bound to pick it up soon. Fire up a google document or something and I'll join the project.
Well yeah, being slow is supposed to suck. That's why it's a -1 RP. I think you are looking at slow on its own and making conclusions. Combine it with a small character and here is what you get.
For -1 RP (-1 from Slow, 0 from being Small)
- +1 to AC. A size bonus so it'll stack well with other bonuses. You keep your size bonus with both touch AC and flat-footed AC.
- +1 to attack rolls. Also a size bonus
- +4 to Stealth. Good if you are making a sneaky type of character. Otherwise, may not be as useful.
The minuses:
- -1 to CMB and CMD. Admittedly it's only a minus one so not a huge number.
- Base speed 20. Only affects you if you want to be more of a melee martial class. Casters, archers, and mounted riders won't miss this.
I think it's much too soon to start crucifying the ruleset when it is doubtful anyone has used it for more than one game. I feel like we should take the next month and just use the rules and see if they work or if they really are as bad as you say.
|
|
I'll have to get hold of the ARG so I can join you in adjusting the costs. One of my friends is bound to pick it up soon. Fire up a google document or something and I'll join the project.
Yeah. I've started a little bit.
Once I've entered the benefits and costs from the race builder into the spreadsheet I'll fire up a google doc or put it on mediafire and start a new thread & post a link here.
I'm about 1/3 way through the list.
|
|
Well yeah, being slow is supposed to suck.
You misunderstood me. Yeah the speed reduction at -1 is reasonable.
However: Now put that on a medium character.
The benefit is awesome for any character who carries alot of stuff or wears medium+ armor; and you got it for free.
I'd say its a 1 pt benefit, maybe a 2 pt benefit; that you dont have to pay for.
Well yeah, being slow is supposed to suck.You misunderstood me. Yeah the speed reduction at -1 is reasonable.
However: Now put that on a medium character.
The benefit is awesome for any character who carries alot of stuff or wears medium+ armor; and you got it for free.
I'd say its a 1 pt benefit, maybe a 2 pt benefit; that you dont have to pay for.
I agree it's a benefit (around a 1 in my opinion), but probably not enough to offset the moving slow penalty, which affects melee martial characters the most. Especially since the classes that would benefit most from Slow and Steady would be martial characters that would use medium and heavy armors.
|
|
I agree it's a benefit (around a 1 in my opinion), but probably not enough to offset the moving slow penalty, which affects melee martial characters the most. Especially since the classes that would benefit most from Slow and Steady would be martial characters that would use medium and heavy armors.
In which case it doesn't affect them at all, because the slow speed penalty is the same as the one they would have gotten from their armor. But they're still getting extra points to work with.
The dwarven encumbrance immunity should be a separate 1 point thing, which, if taken with slow, costs like 0 or 1 point total.
I agree it's a benefit (around a 1 in my opinion), but probably not enough to offset the moving slow penalty, which affects melee martial characters the most. Especially since the classes that would benefit most from Slow and Steady would be martial characters that would use medium and heavy armors.In which case it doesn't affect them at all, because the slow speed penalty is the same as the one they would have gotten from their armor. But they're still getting extra points to work with.
The dwarven encumbrance immunity should be a separate 1 point thing, which, if taken with slow, costs like 0 or 1 point total.
That is a fair point. It is better that they can run in medium and heavy armor at 20 feat than 15 feet. However, that would only allow them to keep up with medium sized characters that can normally move 30 feet out of armor but move 20 feet in armor. I find it less of a bonus and more of simply shoring up a weakness. Remember, you still will get the other penalties for encumbrance (Max Dex and Armor Check Penalty).
Now I will say this, I can see it doing well on clerics trying to get around the battlefield. Many clerics don't bump Strength so if they happen to be encumbered at all, it is nice that they don't can dropped down to a 15 feet. Of course at that point, why not play another medium race that will have a 20 foot movement anyways because of wearing medium + armor?
That's why I believe that the Steady aspect of Slow isn't enough to make Slow a 0 point ability. It's making a weakness less of a weakness, not giving a bonus to the race.
I hope I explained that well. I feel like my wording wasn't very good so if so, please feel free to tell me.
|
|
I understand your point. I just disagree that "Medium Characters Get Steady for free with slow" should mean "Medium Characters get slow for the same price as other sizes."
Either every slow creature gets both, and they come as a pair; Steady is a separate trait; or there are two different costed types of slow; with and without steady.
Especially since I think the benefit of steady is good enough to cancel out the penalty of slow in points.
|
|
100% agreement. In many ways, it felt like the book was still trying to cater to traditionalists.
As for the plant type, at least two penalties can be applied without losing potential flavor:
-slow speed -1 (I'd consider plants slow-moving creatures)
-mixed weakness -2 (I can easily see a venus flytrap-faced plant thing getting a -4 penalty to CHA)
*Light-based weaknesses could be added to subterranean fungus creatures.Adding the top two would reduce the type cost to seven with four points to use, because dwarves have eleven (the 'power level' bit's a joke thanks to the bearded exceptions). It's do-able, but not ideal.
Well I haven't read the chapter through entirely, but I did attempt to see if I (while probably abusing the system) could make a plant based race. I think it turned out ok.
** spoiler omitted **...
Good point on the workarounds for plant-based races. Light dependency/darkness weakness is one weakness that particularly clicks.
I'd probably still wind up tearing out the "immunity to mind-effects" just because any plant player race should probably be possessing a mind, even if they lack a fleshy brain. Especially if psionics exist in your world.
Short Answer? You don't.
Medium Answer? You wait until someone throws together a revised Race Builder with more consistent and exhaustive options. It may be just up on the forums, or maybe 3pp. Depends on who puts out a more detailed/balanced system first.
Long Answer? Take the time to figure out the worth of -2 to Fort vs. Magic. Double that to include will. Take the time to figure out the worth of +2 to Ref vs. magic. add it up.
It will take figuring out parallels in pricing, and looking at a couple sources, and extrapolating a number for what you want, from what's been printed.Dwarves get +4 vs. magic. there is your starting point. Then you need to figure out what it's worth to only have the bonus to ref saves. and to only have half the bonus. then you need to figure out how to price your penalties in a similar manner.
Thank you for your reply. Great idea! The dwarf trait "Hardy" is basically +2 vs. magic and costs 3 rp. Therefore, a penalty of -2 would cost -3 rp. Since there are 3 saves (fort, ref, & will) I could subtract 1 from the rp cost, effectively making the cost of just two saves -2 rp. And so, since "Hardy" costs 3 rp to cover all three saves, then it seems fair that the cost for one save (in this case Reflex) would only cost 1 rp. Does that seem fair and sensible?
Negatives should not necessarily cost the exact opposite of the corresponding bonuses.
For example, would you refund 2 points for a race that gets -2 to craft (basketweaving)?
If a weakness can be avoided fairly trivially or only penalises a few builds, it's not really a weakness. A race should get zero points back for being unable to cast arcane spells or being unable to wield bladed weapons or whatever.
|
|
Negatives should not necessarily cost the exact opposite of the corresponding bonuses.
For example, would you refund 2 points for a race that gets -2 to craft (basketweaving)?
If a weakness can be avoided fairly trivially or only penalises a few builds, it's not really a weakness. A race should get zero points back for being unable to cast arcane spells or being unable to wield bladed weapons or whatever.
But Saves vs. Magic come up often, and arent really avoidable. you're eventually going to get hit with a mind-affecting effect.
I'd say in this case -2 for the penalties, and +1 for the bonuses sounds fairly reasonable. Of course, its an estimation, as thats not priced out in the book.
Oh, certainly. That's one case where it's relevant. I might be inclined to price weaknesses at a slight loss compared to the same bonuses.
|
|
Well, I think -1RP for -2 to 2 saves vs magic is too cheap; and paizo's pricing model doesn't give much in the way of wiggle room.
You're right though, I'd probably say its worth like -1.5 or -1.75. but short of changing the system (multiply everything by 10 or 100), we can't get to the area between 1 pt and 2 pts. I'd round up and give him 2 pts in this case.
There's still too much setting-specific flavor presumptions hardwired into many of the features. Construct races not having souls/being raisable for example. Along with the cost pushing races out of the Standard Race category, that bit pretty much flies in the face of pretty much most construct player races most people likely have in mind. At the very least there could have been a lower-cost watered down version of the construct race type*, as well as some alternate and flavorful means of raising, such as requiring repairs before calling the soul back.
As it is, no one's going to be building Warforged or Gearforged with these rules as written.
Hoofed is gone at least. But many of the other annoying Prerequisites By Standard/Advanced/Monstrous Types are still there. Still going over the rules. I'm hoping I missed something tied into the construct race complaint.
No support for alternate body types other than centaur-types too. Even with Merfolk being in the book, there's no support for half-serpentine/merfolk-shaped races that I can see.
*This complaint goes for other Creature Type features too. As it is, you can't make a Plant-based standard race.
There was a lower cost version.. the half-construct. Just add a soul to that.