So advance races, are there any level adjustments to the different races (tiefling, Hobgoblin etc) or are there no "penalties" for choosing a race that imo are a lot more powerful than the core races?
Races that total more than 20 RP effectively have a CR of 1 (or a 3.5 LA of +1, with LA buyoff). 30+ RP have a +2 LA and 40+ RP have a +3 LA. This is detailed in a little chart towards the beginning.
I don't get it. So A hobgoblin starts off and gain level like everyone else?
Hmm seems kind of unbalanced.. Houserule coming up.
Not precisely true, bbt. Pathfinder uses monster CR as its level when you play a "monster as PC". This CR-level is sold off by 1 every 4 levels until half of it is bought off. In ARG, there is a table explaining that, basically, races with 20 or more RP are effectively CR 1 (and not CR 1/3 like most player races). 30 or more makes you CR 2 and 40 or more makes you CR 3. The table in the ARG buys off these adjusted levels slightly differently.
A 20 RP creature has a +1 adjustment for levels 1-5 and no adjustment after that. A 30 RP creature has a +2 adjustment for 1-5, a +1 adjustment for levels 6-10 and none after that. A 40 RP creature has a +3 adjustment for 1-5, +2 for 6-10, +1 for 11-16 and none for the remainder of its career. I do not have the table in front of me (not on the PRD and I do not have my book handy), but it's towards the beginning of the race building section, in a little table on the right-hand side of the right-hand page.
EDIT: Ah! It seems I've misread the table (which is on the PRD). Those adjustments aren't to the creature's actual level, just it's effectively level for the purposes of determining challenging encounters. And it's based on the average RP of the whole group. I retract some of my earlier comments.
Humans only have +2 in one stat..
But I agree that Hobgoblins are weaker in other regards like feats department
Hmm seems kind of unbalanced.. Houserule coming up.
If you consider that unbalanced (which it really isn't), there is no way I am ever going to able to take you very seriously. Also, the race builder is not as good or balanced as you'd think it to be, some races being overpriced and others underpriced by large margins. I've worked on races and classes both official and houseruled during the days of 3.5e, so you can trust me to know about these things.
Hmm seems kind of unbalanced.. Houserule coming up.
The thing is, the vast majority of the races from ARG are close enough to not really matter. Most are more balanced than you you might think just looking at the stats. Hobgoblins, for example, lack a stat penalty, but only get +4 Stealth and Darkvision as racial abilities. That is pretty mild, to say the least. Most of the time you'd be mechanically better off as a Dwarf, or even a Half-Orc. Having a slightly lower Charisma or no bonus to Constitution won't alter things as much as their racial abilities (not to mention alternate options, feats, etc). Similar things hold true for the vast majority of the races.
Really, if you avoid a few outlying options (Svirfneblin, Drow Noble, maybe Duergar and Merfolk on a good day), things are close enough. Some races are a bit better, some are a bit worse. Many will fit a specific build better than a core race, but that is an inescapable side effect of having more options. In most cases, I think any sort of level adjustment scheme would end up functioning as a flavor tax, penalizes weird races while actually increasing imbalance between options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say the only truly unbalanced races are Drow Noble and the Svirfneblin.
But I agree that Hobgoblins are weaker in other regards like feats department
So are many of the other races, and halfling are the weakest core race IMHO. I like goblins better. :)
I'd say the only truly unbalanced races are Drow Noble and the Svirfneblin.
I agree, every time I look at the Drow Noble, I shake my head in frustration trying to understand how it could possibly be balanced as a CR 1 race.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Drow Noble are obviously more powerful. But all the other races are fine.
Seriously the human race is basically the BEST race in the game for like 90% of all classes. Still it could be considered the most common and most "legal".
Human are a tad overpowered, but no one would dare touch them. So why nerf Aasimar and stuff that are less powerful or at best equal to human?
Per the rules, there is no reason NOT to design a Monstrous race in ALL cases. The sole balancing 'mechanism' deals with the Party's average BPs. The real balance is rule 0. The Game Master must have the spine to say 'no'. My game uses Umbral Reaver's suggestion of charging Character Points for special races. Dwarves cost 2 additional points, for example. Elves cost 10, but they are not the weenie PF/3.5 imitations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Per the rules, there is no reason NOT to design a Monstrous race in ALL cases.
Per the rules, the race builder isn't for players. "You can't" sounds like an excellent reason to me.
The section itself mentions that it is a guideline, and not the be all, end all, of the race creation formula.
As far as I can find, it doesn't actually say this. The Race Builder explains itself this way:
The following rules allow GMs, or even players with GM oversight, to create new races that are balanced and mesh with the core races.
Pretty absolute language, honestly. Nothing about being a guideline or possibly unbalanced or anything of the sort. There is a bit about how it is "beneficial to your campaign world" to pick think of a concept first instead of jumping to mechanically optimal choices, but that is pretty mild and peripheral. It isn't a surprise people think the numbers are automatically meaningful, when they aren't presented as anything but.
Getting rid of Level adjustment, and ECL was the way move Pathfinder made. As far as the ARG goes, I've been playing with that book for awhile now, and love it. The 20 RP cap is solid cause alot of what comes up is stuff that is situational at best. I don't see how the Svirfneblin are oped. The Drow Noble is more leaning towards NPC character designed, (but hey a pathfinderized Drizzt would of been a noble and not a common drow.) The only thing that really takes them out of 'balanced' is the high SR. Then again, a good knife to the gut, they don't have any defense against it.
Of course I've said it before I allow all races in the Core, and ARG, and the example races in the race builder under 20 RP in my campaigns.
The only ones I begrudgingly don't allow is the water dependent races, like gillmen and merfolk. But if I'm playing a water heavy campaign, I see no reason to not let them in either.
I will ignore the halfing-bashing.....this time.
Getting rid of Level adjustment, and ECL was the way move Pathfinder made. As far as the ARG goes, I've been playing with that book for awhile now, and love it. The 20 RP cap is solid cause alot of what comes up is stuff that is situational at best. I don't see how the Svirfneblin are oped. The Drow Noble is more leaning towards NPC character designed, (but hey a pathfinderized Drizzt would of been a noble and not a common drow.) The only thing that really takes them out of 'balanced' is the high SR. Then again, a good knife to the gut, they don't have any defense against it.
Of course I've said it before I allow all races in the Core, and ARG, and the example races in the race builder under 20 RP in my campaigns.
The only ones I begrudgingly don't allow is the water dependent races, like gillmen and merfolk. But if I'm playing a water heavy campaign, I see no reason to not let them in either.
technically merfolk aren't actually water dependant, they just move better in it. also there is a alternate trait to support land travel.
Ehhhh if you told me that before we made characters you'd start to convince me. I might ask to see the trait for example. What is it, like Ariel? *shrug* I'm a very open dm.
Bottom line is I still thought ECL was sooooo stupid. So many races in 3.5 could have been played in balanced fashion without the LA and stuff. Plus the buyback thing always made my head hurt. Drop out the HD of the race, leave it's stat adjustments and special abilites and most races were just fine to roll with.
Per the rules, there is no reason NOT to design a Monstrous race in ALL cases.Per the rules, the race builder isn't for players. "You can't" sounds like an excellent reason to me.
Hmmmm..., Cann't see my post referring the players having any role, but I am nearing legal blindness. I'll have to stick to my position R, thanks for the reply though.
The only thing that really takes them out of 'balanced' is the high SR. Then again, a good knife to the gut, they don't have any defense against it.
I'm more concerned about all the SLAs than the SR.
|
Hmm seems kind of unbalanced.. Houserule coming up.
This is an advanced guide with more GM discretion needed. It is outside the Core races and should not be "always available" open option for players. It has power level differences and campaign flavor issues (evil races). It only needs house rules if you let your players have full reign of the book