Azlanti race points?

[Blackstorm]

Simple question: how much race points is worth the Azlanti? I made a rough calculation. Azlanti gets +2 to all stats and the feat and skill point of human. It result 27 points. It's correct?

[Xeriar]

Rather than go with the ridiculous cost of each additional +2, I'd go with making it a straight 6 point package, for a total of 16 points. They compete roughly with aasimar.

[lemeres]

Xeriar wrote:

Rather than go with the ridiculous cost of each additional +2, I'd go with making it a straight 6 point package, for a total of 16 points. They compete roughly with aasimar.

No, I would say that the bloat of 27 seems appropriate. While most of the creatures with that kind of score are large things like centaurs or driders, I think that the ability to be good at everything is just as monstrous, and very likely more valuable.

With minimal investment, they could be decent at three different spell casting classes while still having room to have respectable physical scores. They have to invest less in each stat in order to be passable, which means they can then put those points into another stat to be phenomenal at it. Even if they dumped half of their ability scores down to 7, they would still look just about the same as a human that didn't.

Can you honestly say that a +12 total to stats is equal to a +4, darkvision, a bit of energy resistance(which is not hard to get anyway), and a SLA?.

Azlanti are supposed to be overpowered. They are the forlorn master race that fell into ruin and degenerated as their great empire crumbled. And also get a wee bit creepy as you start to think of it and think seriously about some of the 'pseudo-scientific experts' would say about Atlantians during the era prior to the 1940's. Not to say that it is all on Paizo for that when they made the Azlanti. It just comes with the Medieval fantasy territory, which has roots both in post-Rome Germanic literature as well as writers from that same slightly creepy era mentioned above.

[Xeriar]

lemeres wrote:

No, I would say that the bloat of 27 seems appropriate. While most of the creatures with that kind of score are large things like centaurs or driders, I think that the ability to be good at everything is just as monstrous, and very likely more valuable.

The 27 points is based on taking the Advanced pregen (+4), then adding 3 +2 slots (+13, as one has to be duplicated), then discarding the +4 down to +2 at no cost. The result is not a character who is 'good at everything', they are characters whos weaknesses are being more average.

Quote:

With minimal investment, they could be decent at three different spell casting classes while still having room to have respectable physical scores. They have to invest less in each stat in order to be passable, which means they can then put those points into another stat to be phenomenal at it. Even if they dumped half of their ability scores down to 7, they would still look just about the same as a human that didn't.

As if my Enlightened Philosopher of Nature Oracle with Noble Scion (War) really benefits from +2 to dex, con, wis, or int. One campaign I was in, my wizard never experienced hit point damage (the campaign by nature involved a lot of very open-plains/air combat).

+2 to all stats is certainly boring in its own right, but for SAD characters, it allows them to create variances without being the typical cripple that sub-30 point buy tends to create. Players making powerful casters make themselves into cripples for a reason.

And for MAD characters, they do, in general, need help.

Quote:

Can you honestly say that a +12 total to stats is equal to a +4, darkvision, a bit of energy resistance(which is not hard to get anyway), and a SLA?.

And Skilled, and Outsider (Native) in general. Immunity to Charm Person, Hold Person, Dominate Person (Dominate Monster doesn't even have a Mythic variant), Lycanthropy... Take Corruption Resistance as your SLA if you are worried about Unholy Blight.

+2 to one trait = 2 feats, roughly. Outsider (Native) is worth at least a +2 equivalent, and the rest of Aasimar abilities likewise.

I won't claim that Azlanti are not stronger, mechanically than Aasimar, but there is certainly less disparity between Aasimar and Azlanti than there is between normal humans and Aasimar. Maybe 18 points is more appropriate.

Quote:

Azlanti are supposed to be overpowered. They are the forlorn master race that fell into ruin and degenerated as their great empire crumbled. And also get a wee bit creepy as you start to think of it and think seriously about some of the 'pseudo-scientific experts' would say about Atlantians during the era prior to the 1940's. Not to say that it is all on Paizo for that when they made the Azlanti. It just comes with the Medieval fantasy territory, which has roots both in post-Rome Germanic literature as well as writers from that same slightly creepy era mentioned above.

To me it comes off as the typical 'You can never be as great as the Ancients!' ... 'flavor'. Not that I find that much less disgusting than if Paizo actually intended a 'master race' connotation, which doesn't seem to be the case, at least to me. I feel they come from the same sort of misguided root.

[lemeres]

I'll admit, the 'forlon ancients' thing in Western Culture is probably a call back to Rome. Medieval scholars were way, way too infatuated with it (admittedly, having a single language all scholars could share was rather convenient). Even for the common man, seeing the ruins of huge stone pillars must have been both awe inspiring and saddening sight.

And even before that, the Greek conception of heroes was that they belonged to a different age where men were men (that were actually like... 12 feet tall). Yeah, they saw them as literally larger than life.

It all just got creepy during the 40's since creepy guys really liked the associated motifs and popularized them throughout the Medieval fantasy genre . I do not blame Paizo in the least. I really do think it is a system that carries a lot of baggage from its predecessors (DnD, Tolkien, other sources that I would cite if I wasn't such a layperson with this). I just get a vague sense of values dissonance looking at older fantasy works and some of their tropes is all I am saying.