I'm working on what I'm calling a "soulvessel construct" right now.
It's an odd thing to tinker with (oh dear, I have punned). Giving them a Con score and removing the immunity to mind affecting effects -- and of course removing the clause that they can't be resurrected -- seemed like the simplest thing, but then that raises other questions.
Poisons? They should be immune, right?
Armor? I think making them pay a little extra for armor that isn't fitted for a normal medium humanoid is a fair trade-off.
The number of spells that heal constructs is obscure, and using the craft construct feat to do it...? I can't find anything on that.
EDIT: So far, I have make whole... Mending would be nice, but it's a 0 level and doesn't work on constructs.
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.
And just to add to the confusion, the Resistant trait costs 2 rp and grants a +2 to only mind-influencing effects and poisons, while "Hardy" costs 3 rp and grants a +2 against all spells and poisons. Pages 214-247 of this book presents a wonderful new concept for customization. But it needs serious reevaluation.
The biggest question I have is why did they make the following excluding dragons.
Energy Resistance: Outsider only
Elemental Immunity: Outsider only
Elemental Vulnerability: Outsider only
As to the +2 to a single skill costing so much. I probably was a MUST because it would completely wreck the 10pt balance thing for core races.
This is starting to look like someone created a balancing system rather than what they actually use at Paizo.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is starting to look like someone created a balancing system rather than what they actually use at Paizo.
Not that I'm disagreeing that it's a bit busted, but I don't see how this statement fits in. The core races were designed a long, long time ago, and not using this system. Paizo had nothing to do with their relative balance to one another.
Paizo is only at fault for thinking them equal.
Am I the only one that thinks SR 11+ character level for 3 points as a standard trait a bit insane?
I would think it should be twice that and an Advanced trait (not available to standard playable races)?
Possibly require you to get Lesser SR as a Prereq before you get greater so it is at least 5 points?
The biggest question I have is why did they make the following excluding dragons.
Energy Resistance: Outsider only
Elemental Immunity: Outsider only
Elemental Vulnerability: Outsider onlyAs to the +2 to a single skill costing so much. I probably was a MUST because it would completely wreck the 10pt balance thing for core races.
This is starting to look like someone created a balancing system rather than what they actually use at Paizo.
That is true. Weird and I hope they change that in future releases. Of course, it does say in the text that if it fits your race concept, you can simply change the racial prerequisites. I know people hate the "Rule Zero" excuse but honestly with a tool meant for GMs, it's going to have to be used at some point or another. It's why I think you could simply remove the no-resurrection clause for Half Construct and be able to build a Warforged-esque race with a bit of re-fluffing for no extra points (or maybe one).
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Prerequisites in the Race Builder have nothing to do with balance. They can easily be ignored, I would suggest ignoring them.
Pages 214-247 of this book presents a wonderful new concept for customization. But it needs serious reevaluation.
Yeah. Unfortunately. It doesn't seem to have changed all that much since the playtest, and they didn't correct all the problems we pointed out during the playtest. But there are enough of us who want this enough that the reevaluation is going to get done sooner rather than later.
In the meantime, I would suggest that if you're going the use the ARG Race Builder, don't expect it to result in balanced races, even if you're using the same number of points. It gives a very rough estimation of balance, but some of us want it to have a great deal more precision.
It'll happen, but not in the ARG. Just wait, and you guys can follow me and Umbral Reaver when we go over to houserules to rebuild this system.
Before I get that up and going, there's a fair amount of data entry I need to do. I've done like 70 out of 230 something.
The big problem seems to be that they didn't price everything relative to some fixed thing, just kindof eyeballed stuff and assigned it a number. Thats where you get all these contradictory prices. Whereas we're going to use a standard measuring stick (the value of a feat) to figure out what price everything should be. It'll be some real work, and involve spreadsheet assisted number crunching. But in the end we should know just how many points each thing should be worth, and why.
In the meantime, I would suggest that if you're going the use the ARG Race Builder, don't expect it to result in balanced races, even if you're using the same number of points. It gives a very rough estimation of balance, but some of us want it to have a great deal more precision.
It'll happen, but not in the ARG. Just wait, and you guys can follow me and Umbral Reaver when we go over to houserules to rebuild this system.
Honestly, I'd argue that no point-based system is going to turn out adequate results when the same system contains races built outside of that system. The core races are built using a weird combination of tradition, flavor, and mechanics, rather than absolute value. They also balanced abilities based on what was available, rather than what was in absolute terms the strongest, or what would be strongest for a particular character. Races built with a point system would have to assume a thorough synergy between abilities, which is going to be outside the scheme of the core races (as well as penalizing races with weird, disparate abilities). You can try to deal with this by giving custom races less points, but that will just mean that players whose abilities synergize with the core races particularly well will be getting an overall bonus. You could also try to integrate a system to increase the cost of synergistic abilities, but I'd imagine such a system would be as open to gaming (intentional or accidental) as any other.
That said, I would like to at least see an attempt at a more balanced system. Something that closed some of the more ridiculous holes in relation to ability scores and skills might well be useful as a guideline to inexperienced GMs trying to create races for their homebrew settings. I just wouldn't hold out hope that everything coming out of said system would be even close to balanced. It would be closer than the current (incredibly rough) system, but I'd be amazed if it was a better result than what eyeballing and discussion already brings.
|
|
Oh. no no no.
I'm not saying don't expect them to come out balanced with the races in the core book. Because as you pointed out, those races did not use a point buy system, and as others have pointed out, those races aren't really balanced with eachother anyways. I'm saying, with the current system, you could easily build 5 different races with say 15 or however many points, and have drastically different power levels.
But yes. Any system we come up with will be able to be gamed by munchkins and power gamers. However, we can make sure the individual items have a much more consistent pricing scheme, and make sure our pricing scheme is more in line with feats, traits, favored classes, and evolution points.
Mathematician's comment: I suggest 12 points per feat. It's easily divisible into 1/2, 1/3 or 1/4 of a feat (or 1/6 or 1/12 for those really little differences). Alternately, if you don't need 1/3 of a feat, go with 4 points.
This is starting to look like someone created a balancing system rather than what they actually use at Paizo.Not that I'm disagreeing that it's a bit busted, but I don't see how this statement fits in. The core races were designed a long, long time ago, and not using this system. Paizo had nothing to do with their relative balance to one another.
That is not really correct. They re-worked a lot of the race's abilities for pathfinder. Half-Elf became decent, at first maybe even better than human; same could be said of the Half-Orcs. Elves got a whole host of new abilities.
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.
Thanks! and Yeah I can see why about immunity to mind effect, I would probably rip that out by making another weakness ala my darkness thingy.
I was looking at kobolds.
racial skill bonus Profession (Mining) 2 RP
racial skill bonus Craft (Traps) 2 RP
racial skill bonus Perception 2 RP
seriously?
Profession (Mining) and Craft (Traps) are each equivalent value to Perception?
I was looking at kobolds.
racial skill bonus Profession (Mining) 2 RP
racial skill bonus Craft (Traps) 2 RP
racial skill bonus Perception 2 RPseriously?
Profession (Mining) and Craft (Traps) are each equivalent value to Perception?
Not all skills are created equal so they had to come up with an all encompassing point value for all the skills.
And you can do a lot with Craft Traps ;)
That's a fair point, although it depends on what feats you are comparing them to.
Like skills, not all feats are created equal :)
If anyone tries to tell me that +2 profession (mining), +2 craft (traps), and +2 perception is as good as 3 feats?
They are a liar.
Particularly when you consider that you could spend just as much on three purchases of Static Bonus Feat (Skill Focus) in all three, gain a +3 on them (instead of +2), and potentially raise those bonuses to +6 by buying further ranks in the skills.
Definitely a pricing issue between Skill Bonus and Static Bonus Feat. Personally, I'd either change the former to 1 RP cost, or else make it give +2 to two skills at a 2 RP cost.
Why do they price claws at such a high price?
They are not as good as daggers.
For a Catfolk to stat with a weaker version of the claws (1D4 vs 1D6) they need to give up 6 RPs worth of abilities (+2 to three different skills)
This seems a bit insane in the scheme of things!
Anyone else notice this?
Can anyone else please explain what is the reasoning for these poor damage dice, poor crit-range, hard to enchant weapons that do not get bonus attacks from increased base attack bonus.
Yes they both attack at full base attack, but that is it.
Why do they price claws at such a high price?
They are not as good as daggers.
For a Catfolk to stat with a weaker version of the claws (1D4 vs 1D6) they need to give up 6 RPs worth of abilities (+2 to three different skills)
This seems a bit insane in the scheme of things!
Anyone else notice this?
Can anyone else please explain what is the reasoning for these poor damage dice, poor crit-range, hard to enchant weapons that do not get bonus attacks from increased base attack bonus.
Yes they both attack at full base attack, but that is it.
Can't be disarmed and when you hit with them, I believe it triggers any touch spells you may have charged. *shrug*
Of course, you can't make them masterwork and you can't throw them like daggers so... idk
Can anyone else please explain what is the reasoning for these poor damage dice, poor crit-range, hard to enchant weapons that do not get bonus attacks from increased base attack bonus.
Yes they both attack at full base attack, but that is it.
You also get full Strength and Power Attack/Piranha Strike damage with both, don't have to get Two-Weapon Fighting for it, and can't be disarmed. There are also several valuable options in the books for Catfolk using claws. Claw Blades + Catfolk Pounce = Regular Pounce (though without many of the advantages of Natural Weapons), and is easily worth the price for claws.
I think this just further shows how overpriced skills are. Natural Hunter gives bonuses to one amazing skill and two pretty good ones, yet many characters would still trade it in a heartbeat for Claws. That the claws are valued the same as just one of those three bonuses is not the sign of a realistically priced system.
Can anyone else please explain what is the reasoning for these poor damage dice, poor crit-range, hard to enchant weapons that do not get bonus attacks from increased base attack bonus.
Yes they both attack at full base attack, but that is it.
You also get full Strength and Power Attack/Piranha Strike damage with both, don't have to get Two-Weapon Fighting for it, and can't be disarmed. There are also several valuable options in the books for Catfolk using claws. Claw Blades + Catfolk Pounce = Regular Pounce (though without many of the advantages of Natural Weapons), and is easily worth the price for claws.
I think this just further shows how overpriced skills are. Natural Hunter gives bonuses to one amazing skill and two pretty good ones, yet many characters would still trade it in a heartbeat for Claws. That the claws are valued the same as just of those three bonuses is not the sign of a realistically priced system.
There are negatives to natural weapons though, don't forget. Harder to bypass DR, difficult to enchant unless you splooge for the AoMF, basic crit (20, x2)... and for me, it's only a d4 which is arguably the worst die to roll. And I use the term roll loosely since it more often than not plops itself on the table. I think looking at the negatives to this, then yes, the claws are worth a +2 bonus in three skills.
There are negatives to natural weapons though, don't forget. Harder to bypass DR, difficult to enchant unless you splooge for the AoMF, basic crit (20, x2)... and for me, it's only a d4 which is arguably the worst die to roll. And I use the term roll loosely since it more often than not plops itself on the table. I think looking at the negatives to this, then yes, the claws are worth a +2 bonus in three skills.
Wait, I think something got turned around here. I'm saying that the claws are very often worth the three skill bonuses they cost for Catfolk, but they are priced at the cost of one skill bonus in the Race Builder. It emphasizes how overvalued skill bonuses are in the Builder.
Something that bothered me is the Xenophobic racial language quality. It's cost is set at exactly the same as Standard, but it's FAR more limiting (start with 1 language only, and can choose only 4 bonus languages instead of 7). To me I'd think it would cost -1, TBH. It seems more a penalty than a standard effect.
The language selections were priced differently in the Beta, with the better ones costing more (though I don't remember the exact values). I don't think the system is granular enough to have differences between the language packages, frankly. I mean, for a normal intelligence character, the difference between "Standard" and "Xenophobic" is one rank in Linguistics. While this cost, along with the smaller selection of bonus languages, is unquestionably worse, I don't think it is an entire point worse in a system that considers a standard race to have 10. I mean, is a worse language selection really worth 1/10th of a character's abilities?
I was just skimming it and I didn't see anything for level adjustments, did I just miss it or was it referenced elsewhere? I'm not talking for challenges, I'm talking for character advancement. Like the old ECL for 3.5?
I'm not an experienced GM like many of y'all. Just coming at this as a player who likes to play quirky races. I have possible builds for future characters in my head all the time.
I have wanted to play a Quickling Rogue forever. Not only is it not listed as an example... but I don't even see how to build it.
Normal and Slow speed are the only options. Some sprinting and running feats and traits. But I don't even see how to build a character that has a 120' base speed, let alone add the "vibrating so fast, its invisible when standing still" feature.
I could understand it being monstrously expensive-- pun intended-- but I don't get why a really fast base speed isn't even an option.
Or did I miss something?
Fast (1 RP): Prerequisite: Normal speed; Benefit:
Members of this race gain a +10 foot bonus to their base
speed. Special: This trait can be taken more than once, but
each time it is, the cost increases by 1 RP. Its effects stack.
I assume you could take that over and over.
Fast (1 RP): Prerequisite: Normal speed; Benefit:
Members of this race gain a +10 foot bonus to their base
speed. Special: This trait can be taken more than once, but
each time it is, the cost increases by 1 RP. Its effects stack.I assume you could take that over and over.
Thanks Dragonamedrake! I did miss that.
And +1 for Obak's question.
I would assume from what I have read,
1-14 RP = 0
15-24 RP = +1
25-34 RP = +2
But I have not seen any table outlining this.
I would assume from what I have read,
1-14 RP = 0
15-24 RP = +1
25-34 RP = +2But I have not seen any table outlining this.
PG 219
That is when determining the proper CR... I'm talking about character advancement.
|
|
I would assume from what I have read,
1-14 RP = 0
15-24 RP = +1
25-34 RP = +2But I have not seen any table outlining this.
There is no such thing as level adjust in Pathfinder.
I believe there is a table that shows you how to calculate the party level for CRs based on RP. It doesnt effect exp, just what CR monsters you should throw at the party. Over time the "level difference" disappears. It was in the playtest.
That's where I was remembering it from. Thanks
|
While it's not a big turn off for me kind of really disappointed that both constructs and half-constructs cannot be raised or ressurected. I could understand full but half-constructs should be allowed to be raised or ressurected without having to houserule it. I do like the book don't get me wrong just seems to suffer from Paizo heavy handedness to be really conservative and over balance the rules. I had alos ordered Savage species thinking I had made a mistake now I'm glad I did. From the looks of it I have to borrow material from both books and wish I did not have too.
|
|
Yeah.
Paizo is often heavy handedly conservative in an effort to avoid power creep; and in my opinion they often result in what I call power-seep: a number of options which are so underpowered they are never worth using, and because they are then used as a measuring stick by paizo in the future, instead of getting usable options to replace them, we get a bunch of stuff even worse.
The result is that you have to wade through alot of bad stuff to find the options that are worth using.
Don't get me wrong, they have alot of awesome concepts and ideas, but often the resulting crunch is painfully underwhelming.
And as far as I'm concerned, the point-buy system for pathfinder just isn't finished.
It's really a shame, because they have alot of awesome ideas, and the ideas always have so much potential, but too often the ideas flop in execution.
|
|
Darkholme there is nothing wrong with trying to balance options. Yet when Paizo offers either an option that is underwheling or just plain bad like constructs and half-constructs not being raised or resurrected, well I wonder if they even wanted to offer them in the firs place. Unless a player using a contruct/half-construct is played as either a ranged type or a class that is not a melee type it's almost not worth taking as written.
What I don't understand is how that even made it to print. An option is being offered with a huge disadvatage imo. No amount of roleplaying is imo going to offset not being able to be raised or resurrected. Good roleplaying can help offset that a few times yet not enough to make sure that once your dead your dead. At this point Paizo imo should know better.
Yeah.
Paizo is often heavy handedly conservative in an effort to avoid power creep; and in my opinion they often result in what I call power-seep: a number of options which are so underpowered they are never worth using, and because they are then used as a measuring stick by paizo in the future, instead of getting usable options to replace them, we get a bunch of stuff even worse.
The result is that you have to wade through alot of bad stuff to find the options that are worth using.
Don't get me wrong, they have alot of awesome concepts and ideas, but often the resulting crunch is painfully underwhelming.
And as far as I'm concerned, the point-buy system for pathfinder just isn't finished.
It's really a shame, because they have alot of awesome ideas, and the ideas always have so much potential, but too often the ideas flop in execution.
I just recently began to go through Pathfinder stuff and I have to say you are right, usually you find at best 2-3 interesting classes or archetypes which actually don't suck and are more than fluff and flavor, a Hexcrafter Magus as example can be a more interesting Witch than an actual Witch of the same named class because it barely has a few hexes worthwhile and only 2 interesting AND useful archetypes
actually an orcale or sorcerer could just as well be a better witch than a Witch
Darkholme there is nothing wrong with trying to balance options. Yet when Paizo offers either an option that is underwheling or just plain bad like constructs and half-constructs not being raised or resurrected, well I wonder if they even wanted to offer them in the firs place. Unless a player using a contruct/half-construct is played as either a ranged type or a class that is not a melee type it's almost not worth taking as written.
What I don't understand is how that even made it to print. An option is being offered with a huge disadvatage imo. No amount of roleplaying is imo going to offset not being able to be raised or resurrected. Good roleplaying can help offset that a few times yet not enough to make sure that once your dead your dead. At this point Paizo imo should know better.
now there is a monk (I think) archetype which lets the player do a sacrifice, the monk dies but nearby allies get resurrected, all is nice and well, except the monk itself won't be able to get resurrected, even more, his very existence and name disappears from history
now likely anyone will ever take this archetype with this kind of ability granted at its highest level, if merely dying, this would be a lot more useful, if resurrected allies win the battle they could revive him after it too
Piazo/pathfinder has a lot of good ideas for classes and archetypes but they usually get represented in the game system with below average skills, abilities, or spell progression, it is as if they fear being a high fantasy setting but don't dare to go for a low fantasy one
|
I'm working on what I'm calling a "soulvessel construct" right now.
It's an odd thing to tinker with (oh dear, I have punned). Giving them a Con score and removing the immunity to mind affecting effects -- and of course removing the clause that they can't be resurrected -- seemed like the simplest thing, but then that raises other questions.
Poisons? They should be immune, right?
Armor? I think making them pay a little extra for armor that isn't fitted for a normal medium humanoid is a fair trade-off.
The number of spells that heal constructs is obscure, and using the craft construct feat to do it...? I can't find anything on that.
EDIT: So far, I have make whole... Mending would be nice, but it's a 0 level and doesn't work on constructs.
I'd say "definitely" on poison immunity. And I think that's how armor worked for Warforged in Eberron, IIRC.
This further complicates, but bleed damage and rust monsters: For the most part I can see construct races folks would probably imagine being immune to bleed damage, but then there are those possibilities where, say, hoses might get cut/tanks get pierced and spew important fluids, or half-constructs might have enough flesh and blood that the latter is still critical to their well-being. On the flipside, rust monsters and similar hazards would depend entirely on the composition of the race, and there aren't really any rules for that. Some may be partially, mostly, or completely metallic, but there could be those that are completely wooden or made of some other material. Completely covering that aspect would likely overcomplicate things though, so perhaps its best left for GMs to eyeball, like they do now with new monsters that are eligble for getting rust monster'd.
On healing, perhaps fabricate along with some appropriate skill checks?(then again, the checks needed might depend entirely on the nature and design of the construct)
The PC's might die well before that spell is available. It is a 7th level spell, and the things it gets are not a good trade. If I am going to risk perma-death before a certain level then immunities would be nice. From what I am reading they only get one.
edit:I was referring to half-constructs, not constructs. If a player uses a construct as a base then the risk is up to him.
What's the big deal about not being able to raise or resurrect construct PC races? That just means you have to pay a bit more and limited wish them back to life instead of raising them. (Restoring a construct PC to life is an "effect whose power level is in line with" a 5th-level cleric spell that can restore a non-construct PC to life; ergo, you can do it with limited wish.)
What's more, why can't a GM just allow a construct or half-construct to be resurrected anyway? I wasn't aware that the choices in the book are the only things you can do, and that there is a rule that you can't modify anything.
Especially the half-construct. You want him to have a soul, ok... make it 8 rp instead of 7 rp....
Now, if you could use created races in PFS, I might see a reason to complain.
|
|
I think posters are missing the point. Yes one has spells at later levels to raise a construct/half-construct. And yes I can housrule them to be raised. Yet I should not have had to implement either of the above solutions in the first place. I like using material out of the box and houseruling only when I have to. Even then I would not be so critical if we were given an in game reason. Instead imo it comes across as the designers offering an option they don't seem to want to really offer in the first place. I'm not saying no negatives or penalties yet dying in the first fight and not being allowed to come back according to RAW just sucks bad imo.
Not to mention some really bad behavior as a DM if your willing to offer both as player options then say "I'm allowing you to take that option but if your screwed it's your problem". Why would anyone even want to take those options if the DM is just setting them up for a fall. Sometimes Paizo gets it right and sometimes they don't. I like the book for the most part except unlike the APG I'm not going to go out of my way to recommedn it.
|
|
I think posters are missing the point. Yes one has spells at later levels to raise a construct/half-construct. And yes I can housrule them to be raised. Yet I should not have had to implement either of the above solutions in the first place. I like using material out of the box and houseruling only when I have to. Even then I would not be so critical if we were given an in game reason. Instead imo it comes across as the designers offering an option they don't seem to want to really offer in the first place. I'm not saying no negatives or penalties yet dying in the first fight and not being allowed to come back according to RAW just sucks bad imo.
This, coupled with the complaints upthread that for a source that's supposed to be setting-neutral, there are too many assumptions hardwired in as written, both in the race builder and elsewhere.