Per the ARG, high-cost races stop costing as much toward higher levels.
I don't have the ARG so I can't pull up the tables themselves. Let's say that a 20 cost race is a +1 CR until level 10, for our example. I'm probably wrong but let's go with this for the sake of discussion.
At level 10, the 20 cost race costs the player exactly the same as a 10 cost race, but has 10 points more racial stuff. Is that fair? It could be said that those extra 10 points aren't worth a whole CR by that stage. That might be true.
If so, is it still fair? I say no.
Take the following two characters and example races:
Bob the Elf. Bob has elf traits worth 10 points. At level 10, he is our baseline.
Jane the Super-Elf. She has the same 10 points of traits as Bob but has 10 extra to represent the fact that she is an ancient elf awakened from a forgotten time or something. Up until level 10, she's sucking up a +1 CR to pay for her extra bonuses.
At level 10, she has the same bonuses as Bob, plus more, at no cost. Why should anyone at that level not go for a higher value race, if it gets them more (this is presuming high cost races are available, a broad selection, player customisation or whatever).
But it doesn't have to be like this.
What if, at 10th level, anyone that hadn't taken a higher cost race then gets another 10 points of racial traits, possibly predetermined for that race or picked from a list?
Bob reaches level 10 and awakens some ancient heritage, bringing him on par with Jane. It might be different but they have the same cost of character options and are at the same approximate level of ability, including those abilities that are supposedly negated by being of that level. Racial bonuses to skills and class abilities such as casting never go out of style.
There are always ways to game the system. That is when GM's step in. The race build rules are mostly guidelines, and the same number of race points does not equal an equivalent character. Humans are only 9 points, IIRC, and they are one of the better races in many people's opinions.
If someone builds super race then you either ban it or make that +1 last longer.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are always ways to game the system. That is when GM's step in. The race build rules are mostly guidelines, and the same number of race points does not equal an equivalent character. Humans are only 9 points, IIRC, and they are one of the better races in many people's opinions.
If someone builds super race then you either ban it or make that +1 last longer.
Humans suck. I play humans, but they do suck. The reason people play humans (besides familiarity) is due to their ability to fit into any role pretty easily. +2 to one ability, a feat, some skill points. Simple. However, in actual play, they are definitely an underdog. The extra feat is their strongest feature but I've not found it to be that impressive. It might get you up a feat tree before someone else, but most good feats have requirements you can't meet at 1st level, and most classes either need few feats to function or get their feats through their class (Rangers do just fine with Power Attack + Archery Combat Style, for example). Plus folks get 3 more feats in Pathfinder than they did in 3.x.
So for these modest benefits, you gain a wide variety of weaknesses. You have the worst perceptions in the game (no dark or low-light vision), you have no resistances or immunities (no +2 vs all spells and poisons, no +2 vs enchantment, no +1 to all saves, no built in diehard, no skill bonuses, no racial class skills, etc), no racial weapon proficiencies (elves be pimpin' them martial weapons), and you only get 1 language. During an actual game, those things hurt and hurt bad. No low-light vision? You're fodder for stealthy enemies in the night. No darkvision? You're a walking beacon in the dark with your torch. So on and so forth.
Most of the benefits gained for being other races are at least equivalent to a feat or better. A dwarf's +2 vs magical stuff is arguably better than any save-boosting feat and stacks with them. Elves get built-in stackable spell-penetration (and +2 Int, effectively giving you the +1 skill/level in most cases). So it basically comes down to whether or not the bonus feat is worth the differences. There's almost always a better race than human. I haven't felt particularly feat starved in Pathfinder with any non-human. In fact, since I spend most of my time picking feats from the core rulebook, I often find myself looking for feats to actually take.
I'm sure people would argue it, but humans aren't that impressive. The real powergamer race is usually dwarfs, but halflings and elves are good bets too. Gnomes aren't exactly hurting either for certain things.
So, Ashiel, what do you think of the idea presented? When a high cost race gets their penalty nullified, low cost races get a bump to put them on par?
Even if it's something as simple as giving humans a bonus feat and extra retroactive skill point per level upon reaching a certain level, when playing in a game with others that might be winged, multi-armed monstrosities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Humans suck. I play humans, but they do suck. The reason people play humans (besides familiarity) is due to their ability to fit into any role pretty easily. +2 to one ability, a feat, some skill points. Simple. However, in actual play, they are definitely an underdog. The extra feat is their strongest feature but I've not found it to be that impressive. It might get you up a feat tree before someone else, but most good feats have requirements you can't meet at 1st level, and most classes either need few feats to function or get their feats through their class (Rangers do just fine with Power Attack + Archery Combat Style, for example). Plus folks get 3 more feats in Pathfinder than they did in 3.x.So for these modest benefits, you gain a wide variety of weaknesses. You have the worst perceptions in the game (no dark or low-light vision), you have no resistances or immunities (no +2 vs all spells and poisons, no +2 vs enchantment, no +1 to all saves, no built in diehard, no skill bonuses, no racial class skills, etc), no racial weapon proficiencies (elves be pimpin' them martial weapons), and you only get 1 language. During an actual game, those things hurt and hurt bad. No low-light vision? You're fodder for stealthy enemies in the night. No darkvision? You're a walking beacon in the dark with your torch. So on and so forth.
Most of the benefits gained for being other races are at least equivalent to a feat or better. A dwarf's +2 vs magical stuff is arguably better than any save-boosting feat and stacks with them. Elves get built-in stackable spell-penetration (and +2 Int, effectively giving you the...
I am going to have to disagree. Getting an early jump due to that feat is pretty nice, and for certain classes the extra skill point allows you to use something that would go to intelligence somewhere else. The ability to work well with any class is not a bad thing. Power Attack is not good enough for everyone though. I prefer to have furious focus also as an example, and even the ranger with its bonus feats requires me to spend base feats on archery if I am not willing to wait.
The no "low-light" and "darkvision" suck, but those are taken care of later. You can get spell, potions, or use the permanency spell to get darkvision. Those other things you listed are nice to have, but far from necessary. If you don't have low-light or darkvision just don't be the forward scout. If you have a scout position then having items to help take care of it is not an issue. Yeah it is gold out of your pocket, but it not so much that your pockets will be empty.
Dwarves are nice. I don't care for elves though, not even when I am taking a skill focused class. Yeah the get a bonus to intelligence, but dex is physical dump score #1, and con is the score that I don't ever believe in dumping. They are the worse medium sized race in my opinion.
Halfings are at the bottom of the totem pole.
I guess I like humans because I always have another feat I want to take, and I have to always start cutting things away.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Personally I don't think the races got 'a bump' from ARG, so much as (with GM permission) they got more flexible.
Take the Half Elf for example. If I'm playing a rogue, that (untyped) bonus to will save looks more worthwhile than skill focus, I have most of my skills maxed already. Likewise, Socialable will do my Bard Diplomancer more good than skill focus. Likewise, if the campaign will be focused around a dungeon or being underground a lot, the drow heritage traits will be better than low light vision.
Same thing for Dwarves, if I'm playing a rogue, figher, or spellless ranger, the magic resistance is much better than hardy, but not so much for a dwarven spellcaster.
As to 20 point elves, the GM is the one who signed off on that, it falls to him to decide if the CR adjustment ever 'falls off'. Elsewise he can just say "No."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
man dwarves have been the "best race" in terms of racial features as long as i can remember, and now they can take a feat that adds +2 vrs spells, on top of the +2 to spells they already have... sheesh.
one thing that pisses me off is that half orcs are STILL the weakest race by far. a once per day die hard is crap, no feats and the only really cool thing they get is DARK VISION??? i hate this game >>
If so, is it still fair? I say no.
It is completely fair if all the PLAYERS characters races in the game are built on the same point total. Then they all have the same deficit or advantage at the same levels, which I think is probably the assumption of that chart.
If your players decide to mix races at the start of the game (say one wants to be a 'half giant' made with 20 Race Ponits and the rest want to be standard core races of 9-11 points) then let the standard races 'build up' their characters with thematically appropriate race selections (the alternate race abilities in each races listing are probably good ideas) but instead of swapping abilities out just have them pay the additional point costs till everyone in the group has the same Racial Points spent.
Claim they are 'racial paragons' or 'of the bloodlines of hero's' or don't even explain it. That way everyone is on a comparable footing point wise.
Another way to look at it is that the person who chose the higher point cost race is getting a leg UP for those first 10 levels and then the other players just come to parity at level 10+. If they all start at the same point cost at level 1 then adjustments later on are not needed. Even if they want to do 'Core Races'.
Much like using point buy for stats where everyone starts with the same amount, if the GM allows high Race Point characters, he should allow all the characters to use the same points, even if it means adding more abilities to additional 'standard races'. If they are thematically appropriate there shouldn't be a huge issue.
Clearly, you need to figure out who has the highest "RP", and give everyone else a bonus feat for every 4 "RP" difference there is.
So, Ashiel, what do you think of the idea presented? When a high cost race gets their penalty nullified, low cost races get a bump to put them on par?
Even if it's something as simple as giving humans a bonus feat and extra retroactive skill point per level upon reaching a certain level, when playing in a game with others that might be winged, multi-armed monstrosities.
Seems pretty good to me, honestly. In my group, we don't actually use the CR reduction system because it's pretty nonsensical to us. We think that CR = level on most creatures is just fine (and often a bit generous). My players have no complaints with sacrificing 4 levels to play a CR 4 creature (since most CR 4 creatures will also have sufficient HD to match, plus special abilities that put them closer to PCs in overall power). The need to reduce it as you gain levels begs to be power gamed.
As for the Advanced Race Guide and its mechanics, take what I say with a grain of salt. I'm talking about the core monsters as PCs rules (which is similar in concept as I understand it) which has the same apparent problem. I've not participated in the ARG playtest because of both time and disinterest (I didn't feel like the last playtest I participated in really mattered, as it felt more like it was a gimmick to get attention rather than a real playtest to fix stuff). It's possible that anything I say on the matter would be wildly off base.
I'm playing a rather high level game right now (we just hit level 19), and my character's race pretty much stopped mattering after about level 8 or 9. Same with everyone else. Those that didn't have alternate types of vision had magic to fix it. Those that were slow found ways around it. Heck, one of them is even a halfling wizard, and the wizard part definitely overshadows the halfling part almost immediately. Even with 10 points of extra racial stuff, it's really not going to matter much by the mid to high levels. Class features far overshadow racial features by then.
That's kind of why the "LA buyoff" rules exist (yes, I know there is no official LA in Pathfinder). Racial features just tend to become flavor at a certain point. The difference between a kobold (6 RP) and a dwarf (11 RP) ceases to matter for decently built mid-level characters as far as power goes. At least not enough to further affect CR/APL.
I am going to have to disagree. Getting an early jump due to that feat is pretty nice, and for certain classes the extra skill point allows you to use something that would go to intelligence somewhere else. The ability to work well with any class is not a bad thing. Power Attack is not good enough for everyone though. I prefer to have furious focus also as an example, and even the ranger with its bonus feats requires me to spend base feats on archery if I am not willing to wait.
Feel free to disagree. I'm not going to kick your door in about it. :P
I'm aware that there are some benefits of being human. Just that I think they are often overblown. You mention furious focus. I see furious focus and go "Well I don't need PA at 1st level anyway, but I'm going to get it for when I want +9 damage instead of +6, and it's only a -1 penalty, I'll pick up furious later".If I'm too impatient to wait for archery, it's not exactly difficult for say a dwarf ranger to take Point Blank Shot at 1st level (rapid at 1st level isn't exactly bright since you can't afford a good bow at 1st level, when you're better off with a sling) and then pick up Power Attack at 3rd when his strength bonus is slowing down (since 2d6+4 is plenty fine for enemies from 1st-2nd level).
But it's those other things that feats don't give you that the feats also can't make up for. I realize that dumping Int on 2 skill point classes is amusing for humans (and I regularly recommend it for Fighters), but during actual games I find the low-light vision (actually pretty difficult to get in core if you're not a specific type of caster) and darkvision (much the same), resistances, size bonuses, etc. Most of those things tend to mean more to survival than "Hur hur, I has power attack AND point blank shot". :P
I'm playing a rather high level game right now (we just hit level 19), and my character's race pretty much stopped mattering after about level 8 or 9. Same with everyone else. Those that didn't have alternate types of vision had magic to fix it. Those that were slow found ways around it. Heck, one of them is even a halfling wizard, and the wizard part definitely overshadows the halfling part almost immediately. Even with 10 points of extra racial stuff, it's really not going to matter much by the mid to high levels. Class features far overshadow racial features by then.
That's kind of why the "LA buyoff" rules exist (yes, I know there is no official LA in Pathfinder). Racial features just tend to become flavor at a certain point. The difference between a kobold (6 RP) and a dwarf (11 RP) ceases to matter for decently built mid-level characters as far as power goes. At least not enough to further affect CR/APL.
I have consistently found the exact opposite, to the point where slight racial differences created barriers between players that could not be overcome.
man dwarves have been the "best race" in terms of racial features as long as i can remember, and now they can take a feat that adds +2 vrs spells, on top of the +2 to spells they already have... sheesh.
one thing that pisses me off is that half orcs are STILL the weakest race by far. a once per day die hard is crap, no feats and the only really cool thing they get is DARK VISION??? i hate this game >>
I liked the beta version of half-orcs much better. +2 str, +2 wis and -2 cha(?).
I still allow players in my home game to use that one.
I have consistently found the exact opposite, to the point where slight racial differences created barriers between players that could not be overcome.I'm playing a rather high level game right now (we just hit level 19), and my character's race pretty much stopped mattering after about level 8 or 9. Same with everyone else. Those that didn't have alternate types of vision had magic to fix it. Those that were slow found ways around it. Heck, one of them is even a halfling wizard, and the wizard part definitely overshadows the halfling part almost immediately. Even with 10 points of extra racial stuff, it's really not going to matter much by the mid to high levels. Class features far overshadow racial features by then.
That's kind of why the "LA buyoff" rules exist (yes, I know there is no official LA in Pathfinder). Racial features just tend to become flavor at a certain point. The difference between a kobold (6 RP) and a dwarf (11 RP) ceases to matter for decently built mid-level characters as far as power goes. At least not enough to further affect CR/APL.
Your players seriously couldn't overcome the difference between a halfling wizard and an elf wizard at mid- to high levels? Someone seems to have been doing something wrong with their build, and I doubt it had to do with their racial choice. But you have me intrigued. Can you give an example of these insurmountable barriers that were directly caused by racial choice? Preferably around the time everyone has a full suite of class features and full-casters aren't relying on crossbows to "contribute" to combat.
Your players seriously couldn't overcome the difference between a halfling wizard and an elf wizard at mid- to high levels? Someone seems to have been doing something wrong with their build, and I doubt it had to do with their racial choice. But you have me intrigued. Can you give an example of these insurmountable barriers that were directly caused by racial choice? Preferably around the time everyone has a full suite of class features and full-casters aren't relying on crossbows to "contribute" to combat.I have consistently found the exact opposite, to the point where slight racial differences created barriers between players that could not be overcome.I'm playing a rather high level game right now (we just hit level 19), and my character's race pretty much stopped mattering after about level 8 or 9. Same with everyone else. Those that didn't have alternate types of vision had magic to fix it. Those that were slow found ways around it. Heck, one of them is even a halfling wizard, and the wizard part definitely overshadows the halfling part almost immediately. Even with 10 points of extra racial stuff, it's really not going to matter much by the mid to high levels. Class features far overshadow racial features by then.
That's kind of why the "LA buyoff" rules exist (yes, I know there is no official LA in Pathfinder). Racial features just tend to become flavor at a certain point. The difference between a kobold (6 RP) and a dwarf (11 RP) ceases to matter for decently built mid-level characters as far as power goes. At least not enough to further affect CR/APL.
I am curious also.
one thing that pisses me off is that half orcs are STILL the weakest race by far. a once per day die hard is crap, no feats and the only really cool thing they get is DARK VISION??? i hate this game >>
They got a lot of cool alternate traits they can pick instead of their normal rac traits.
Plus some of the new Orc/half-Orc feats are nice.I just started playing a scarred witchdoctor (witch) as replacement for my dead elven magus and I think she's cool.
having con as your caster stat makes every other stat somewhat of an dumpstat.
And having a con 20 at level 6 makes you suddenly much less squishy.
The orc weapon expertise is cool, too. There just need to be more orc weapons that just the double axe.
As for no feat: If you take shaman's apprentice alternate racial trait you get endurance.
Either to pay some feat tax or to be able to sleep in medium armor as a martial class.
Sacred tattoo might not be a feat but it is worth 1.5 feats unless you need the real saving throw feats as feat tax.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I liked the beta version of half-orcs much better. +2 str, +2 wis and -2 cha(?).
I still allow players in my home game to use that one.
Personally I like +2 str - int +2 floating.
Want to play an orc who takes after her mom's orc side of the family? put the +2 in strength.
Want to play a more hoo-man half orc? Put it in INT :-)
Usually the differences were in vision types. If you're not playing with magic mart or crafting is limited, it can be very hard for characters without darkvision to be stealthy and still be able to see what they're doing.
The disparities were usually felt most strongly in two areas, neither of them relating to spellcasting classes:
1. Vision.
2. Skills.
I liked the beta version of half-orcs much better. +2 str, +2 wis and -2 cha(?).
I still allow players in my home game to use that one.
Just checked my copy of the Beta.
+2 Strength, +2 Wisdom, –2 Intelligence: Half-orcs are
physically strong and constantly on the lookout for danger,
but their orc stock hinders their intelligence.
Not that it matters, but I do prefer the Beta Half-Orc to the final Pathfinder version. They have more of a Half-Orc feel, and are less just Humans with some darkvision.
So it was int and not cha. I think they felt more like half-orcs in beta also.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
man dwarves have been the "best race" in terms of racial features as long as i can remember, and now they can take a feat that adds +2 vrs spells, on top of the +2 to spells they already have... sheesh.
one thing that pisses me off is that half orcs are STILL the weakest race by far. a once per day die hard is crap, no feats and the only really cool thing they get is DARK VISION??? i hate this game >>
Depends on what class you are using. For non-martial characters, half orcs have arguably the best racial weapons which is quite nice for building out inquisitors, alchemists, etc... They also have some nice favored class bonuses, like the bonus to fire damaging spells and bombs.
I see more half-orc characters in play than dwarves, probably twice as many, so it can't be that bad.
I liked the beta version of half-orcs much better. +2 str, +2 wis and -2 cha(?).
I still allow players in my home game to use that one.
Just checked my copy of the Beta.
Not that it matters, but I do prefer the Beta Half-Orc to the final Pathfinder version. They have more of a Half-Orc feel, and are less just Humans with some darkvision.+2 Strength, +2 Wisdom, –2 Intelligence: Half-orcs are
physically strong and constantly on the lookout for danger,
but their orc stock hinders their intelligence.
With Humans able to put their plus two in STR, it stops it being worth more as a bonus (not that I was convinced that it was - I never played Half-Orcs in 3.5 and felt they were a little hard done by). I think the Beta did a very good job of balancing them out and keeping them interesting - I'm just a little disappointed that that was dropped for Pathfinder proper.
i think the OP may have misunderstood something (unless i just completely missed a chart or something). the chart on page 219 where they have the +X CR for lvl 1-5, 6-10, etc based on the RP cost is only intended to help GMs select appropriate encounters (if everyone is using a 30 point race at level 4 then a CR4 encounter obviously won't be as challenging as it would be for a party all built on 10 point races)- it is not intended to be like the level adjustments in 3.x; the reason they decrease over time is because at 10th level your 5 points of elemental resist and 2nd lvl spell-like ability have way less impact on how challenging an encounter is. the RAW seems to be that there is no 'cost' for any race, ever- its up to players and GMs to find a balance they're comfortable with.
that said, i think people should be mindful of how much they base decisions on the RP totals- there seems to be a huge power range even at the same point total. for example compare the 15 RP Aasimar to
Usually the differences were in vision types. If you're not playing with magic mart or crafting is limited, it can be very hard for characters without darkvision to be stealthy and still be able to see what they're doing.
The disparities were usually felt most strongly in two areas, neither of them relating to spellcasting classes:
1. Vision.
2. Skills.
You mean, they didn't ask the wizard to prepare this 2nd level, 1 hour/CL spell? Around the point where race stops mattering at all, 2nd level spells are not a huge investment and this one would last most of an adventuring day.
Skill have always been a problem for me, but those numbers have little to do with race, and more to do with class. Fighters, paladins, clerics, sorcerers all get screwed with not being INT based and only getting 2 skills per level. But favored class offering a skill bonus helps mitigate this somewhat. Elves and humans will (on average) get one skill point more than the other 5 core races, but 1 skill point per level should not constitute an "insurmountable obstacle".
man dwarves have been the "best race" in terms of racial features as long as i can remember, and now they can take a feat that adds +2 vrs spells, on top of the +2 to spells they already have... sheesh.
one thing that pisses me off is that half orcs are STILL the weakest race by far. a once per day die hard is crap, no feats and the only really cool thing they get is DARK VISION??? i hate this game >>
Depends on what class you are using. For non-martial characters, half orcs have arguably the best racial weapons which is quite nice for building out inquisitors, alchemists, etc... They also have some nice favored class bonuses, like the bonus to fire damaging spells and bombs.
I see more half-orc characters in play than dwarves, probably twice as many, so it can't be that bad.
Half-Orc? I loved becoming a half-orc! I was human first, but after a an incodent I became a half orc. That free die-hard-ish ability saved me a few times, before I ended up reincarnating again.
I'll probably use it as a GM tool. I don't use any non core races at my table and I tend to take my splats in on a case by case basis, but my players are sure to run across one of those bite-attacking goblins in future.
i think the OP may have misunderstood something (unless i just completely missed a chart or something). the chart on page 219 where they have the +X CR for lvl 1-5, 6-10, etc based on the RP cost is only intended to help GMs select appropriate encounters (if everyone is using a 30 point race at level 4 then a CR4 encounter obviously won't be as challenging as it would be for a party all built on 10 point races)- it is not intended to be like the level adjustments in 3.x; the reason they decrease over time is because at 10th level your 5 points of elemental resist and 2nd lvl spell-like ability have way less impact on how challenging an encounter is. the RAW seems to be that there is no 'cost' for any race, ever- its up to players and GMs to find a balance they're comfortable with.
that said, i think people should be mindful of how much they base decisions on the RP totals- there seems to be a huge power range even at the same point total.
This, a party where everyone have See in Darkness(sp?) could be harder to chalenge than one without even Low Light Vision, depending on other abilities.
Also depends on what the race was build for.