|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are a awful lot of Tieflings and Assimars running around these days, when you consider their strengths they seem to be the strongest races to play. Especially Assimars with the player companion that allows you different stat increases.
So I have a suggestion, grandfather these 2 races at Gencon and open 2 other races to be played. It will add variety and control the Tiefling/Assimar infestiation.
The only question is what races to replace them with? I would like to see Catfolk and Ratfolk opened up.
|
|
Aasimars and Tieflings may be the "strongest" races to play, but that doesn't mean that everyone will play them. I, for example, have no interest in those races, because I don't even remotely CharOp my PFS characters.
You can't easily retire race options from a logistical point of view, because it becomes hard to audit for when a character was created. Maybe not difficult, actually, but time-consuming and boring paperwork - are you really going to ask GMs to do more of that than they already do?
Notwithstanding the fact that closing two race options and opening up two more will only add to the proliferation of 'rare' race characters in the Society. Everyone who made an Aasimar or Tiefling will then make a catfolk and/or ratfolk, and suddenly you've got twice as many rare races running around.
In my never-humble opinion, race options are fine as-is, thank you very much.
|
|
You can't easily retire race options from a logistical point of view, because it becomes hard to audit for when a character was created. Maybe not difficult, actually, but time-consuming and boring paperwork - are you really going to ask GMs to do more of that than they already do?
The rule would just have to say "character played before this date can..." and then all a GM would have to do to check legality is look at the first chronicle sheet's date.
It's actually a neat idea on how to get a variety of legal races without turning either pathfinder session into the Cantina scene from New Hope. Plus people could still use the boon race sheets for those races as well.
Of course all my characters I've played have been human, haven't found a race that fits any of my ideas better.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can't easily retire race options from a logistical point of view, because it becomes hard to audit for when a character was created. Maybe not difficult, actually, but time-consuming and boring paperwork - are you really going to ask GMs to do more of that than they already do?The rule would just have to say "character played before this date can..." and then all a GM would have to do to check legality is look at the first chronicle sheet's date.
As I said, it's not hard, but time-consuming and more paperwork.
I'm with PFCBG on this one.I'm also not convinced it won't end up Cantina time. Consider down the road: Alice's Aasimar is three years old, Bob's Catfolk is two years old, Carla's Low Azlanti is a year old, and David has a brand-new Nagaji.
Finally, the GtOP is already 50 pages long. How much longer do you want it to be?
|
I do not have time to audit players. I would really like to, but I do not have the time. I do not feel many GMs would feel they had the time. I would rather the rule not be made than made and failed to be inforced.
I would be very disappointed if we needed 5-15 minutes to finish the game and lost them because the GM spent time auditing several players. I really wish I did have the time to audit PCs but not at the cost of games not being finished. Cheaters deserve to get caught and corrected but at everyone else's expense? Better to check that player after the game maybe?
I would dislike having to use a race boon within a year of it being released. Especially if I receive the boon a month before that boon was to be deactivated from rotation. I might not have an interest in it now or may really enjoy playing another low level character. I would not want to be told my race boon was no longer accepted because I waited two years to play a game with it.
I do like the concept on some level though, like issue boon A for a year or two and then offer boon B for a year or so before giving out boon C. Just make sure that boon never gets deactivated except for stuff like character level retirement or an extreme disruption to the campaign.
|
Paizo's not going to reverse a decision because a player has decided there are too many asimars or tieflings in the game.
They knew full well what could happen when they opened up the race for boon free choosing and chose to do it with that in mind.
And they're not really keen on taking player's suggestions based on the format of "I don't want someone else playing X".
|
|
Well it's not really about the race boons, they should always be valid. I think this is more about the non-core races anyone can play. Have those options change so that's not always the same ones.
Race boons already rotate what races are available yearly it seems.
Sure it's extra work for GM's to catch the cheaters, but you still have to put in that work now to catch cheaters. I don't think looking at a chronicle date is an harder then already auditing a player is.
And sure after a few years you could get the Cantina effect, but that also means the characters aren't really being played for years either.
I guess I just like the options that players other than con goers might get a chance to play some exotic races.
|
|
Honestly, the majority of the time this would be an issue would be at a convention. At a convention, the GM barely has time to pee let alone audit a bunch of characters to find that one guy that is doing that one thing wrong.
I get that everyone wants it to be equitable for con-goers as well as non-congoers.. but let's face it; if we're going to make it equitable then con-goers should get their money back and still get the boons and the fun... because if the non-congoers don't have to pay, why should we... see the point there?
The boons are never going to be equal across the board. ... let me repeat that .. the boons are never going to be equal across the board. If you want to know why, go search out the hundreds of threads already starting about the dang things that have given the reasons.
There is always going to be the dividing line.. con-goers vs. non-con goers ... welcome to organized play.
|
|
I guess I just like the options that players other than con goers might get a chance to play some exotic races.
I respect your opinion, but this sentence here is the crux of the issue. It's a point that's been raised repeatedly. Most recently, Mike Brock responded to a comment of this nature in roughly this way (paraphrased because I can't find the post.):
"I need boons to reward those people who travel to conventions. Race boons do that. If you want me to open up race boons to people who don't go to conventions as well, then I need a replacement idea - something I can offer to con attendees that is special, valuable, and not game-breaking or unbalancing. Got any ideas?"
To the best of my knowledge, not many people have come forward with suggestions, and the suggestions that have been made have not met Mike's criteria.
In short - if you want race boons to be more widely available, then offer Mike an good alternative suggestion for conventions.
|
|
Again, this isn't a way to replace race boons, this is a way to supplement them.
In fact if Aassimars, Tieflings, and Tengu free access was cut off in Guide 5.0 that makes their boons more valuable then those boons are now.
The free access rare races could even be tied into the storyline of the game if they wanted too. They can also be second tier races that aren't as great as the Boon races but still allow interesting ideas.
BTW, Con goers aren't the only people why spend money on this game and to support organized play. Going to a Con doesn't equal buying a boon either. Since not everyone at a con is going to get a race boon.
|
|
BTW, Con goers aren't the only people why spend money on this game and to support organized play. Going to a Con doesn't equal buying a boon either. Since not everyone at a con is going to get a race boon.
Didn't say that .... but in a post above, was Mike's answer and request for an alternative ...there is a reason that boons are convention only right now.
Personally, I don't feel the need to continue having a debate about the convention boons. All people have to do is to pull up all the old threads and read over them to know everyone's position.
|
|
Supplementing the race boons by rotating other races in and out of play reduces the number of races that will be perceived as 'special,' because people who get a race boon from a con for a race that was open in the past may end up feeling cheated.
The argument that "I don't go to cons, but I spend money and support the hobby, so why can't I get a race boon too?" (as well as its alternate version which you use here, "why can't there be more race options?") has also been hashed and re-hashed in several other threads. Campaign staff have been clear about their intent. Race boons, and by extention alternate race options in general, are used as a reward for convention attendance. Not getting a reward is not the same as a punishment. If you want race boons opened up beyond conventions, provide an alternative reward structure for conventions.
That's all I've got to say on the topic, because now our discussion is going in circles. You are certainly entitled to disagree with my opinion on the matter, but the previous paragraph is a summary of the facts as they've been presented in other threads. No justification has yet been presented to change these facts, though Mike's said what he needs for that to happen. So present an option.
|
Current Characters:
1 Human
1 Half Elf (Original character died. It happened to be near where I had decided character was from. Decided to use a 'reincarnated' by Druids as backstory)
1 Half Orc
1 Tiefling
1 Halfing
1 retired character, Human.
1 Kitsume/Wayang/whatever boon I'm thinking of giving away.
Thing is, in Golarion Lore Tieflings and Assimar are presented as fairly common for an offically uncommon race. Tengu are presented as common in Tian Xia but not quite so much on the inner sea.
Point is, no other uncommon/rare race has that status' in Golarion Lore. These races have a place at the table because they have a place in cannon. Switching these out disrupts the setting. Bringing in the Cantina also disrupts the setting.
Therefore I suggest no changes.
|
|
Aasimar and Tieflings fit quite well into the common Golarion theme and it doesn´t anywhere break the human dominance. Humans are by far one of the most powerful races mechanically in my opinion. Why do some people always go crazy if a party isn´t two humans, an elf and a dwarf? This isn´t Middle Earth after all and even there is more variety.
If so many people play a certain race, it seems they like the flavor and mechanics and there is a demand for other races than humans, meaning exotic races.
|
Hmm.. let's see. what I got up and planned out.
Human (Gunslinger/Alchemist)
Human (Cleric)
Tiefling (Wizard)
Human (Fighter)
Human (Fighter/Theif)
Dwarf (waffling between Bard or Sorcer)
Human (Cleric)
Dwarf (Gunslinger/Inquistor)
Tiefling (Summoner)
Tengu (Rogue,Magus or Ranger, no credit)
Kitsune (Magusno credit)
Halfing (Calvalierno credit)
Human (Witch, no credit)
Gnome (still protoplasmic)
Have TRIED to make half-elf/orcs..nothing meshed. Ditto Elf. I just don't want to make a forlorn and can't get a good feel for Elven society yet.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Hmm, I've exactly one tiefling. Might take on a second one eventually.
Been flirting with Mayim being an aasimar (never played her so technically she's a blob of GM credit) but I keep gravitating back to Half Elf.
Enuck almost became a tiefling, but his backstory and goals mesh with half-orc better.
No need to ban the A/T/T trio. Besides, with it spelled out in the Additional Resources, it's two books to maximise the Aasimar and Tiefling. "You combined the alternate race features from the APG and Blood of X? I'm not sure it works that way, do you have the core material on you? No, Hero Lab or the PRD won't cut it here, I need to see the text in context."
I understand why you'd want this, however, I think that having a small amount of additional races is too beneficial. It gives new players more options, not to mention rewards those who purchase the additional resources to play them (since any other races from the ARG need boons). I've actually seen people that I've invited to PFS get excited about the idea just because Tieflings are a playable race.
And for the record, I've got only 2 characters I regularly play:
Aasimar (Angelkin) Paladin
Half-Orc Samurai
|
|
Of my 14 registered PCs with XP, 12 of them are Human.
The other two are a Kitsune, and a Dhampyr.
These two are both at the barely second level stage, so still flexible.
I believe I played the Kitsune to 2.1, so he is locked in as a Sorcerer (Razmiran Priest) (Undead bloodline), but the Dhampyr is still in limbo until I make my decision as to how to rebuild him. :( He used to be an Undead Lord Cleric, now, with a better understanding of how Negative Energy Affinity works (which I still feel is not intuitive), I am not sure where I want to go with him.
My next PC, who is going to get the GM credit for Accursed Halls soon, he will also be Human...
Yeah, that extra feat is usually the determining factor...