|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone else dislike Pathfinder's Human/Half-Elf/Half-Orc ability modifiers as stands? As stands, allowing a +2 to any one ability of choice means that these races can more or less achieve the same heights of statistical power that the non-Human races can. I think the present paradigm is overpowered, or at the very least uninteresting. I'd rather it were more in line with the pre-Pathfinder paradigm: Humans are more versatile, but non-Humans enjoy more raw power. Half-Humans are a compromise, drawing in a limited fashion on the assets of their non-Human parent, and their Human parent's flexibility. My proposed alteration:
HUMAN ABILITY MODIFIERS - +1 to any two separate ability scores of their choice: The Human race favors adaptability over the heights of specialized power that defines most other races.
Replace the Dual Talent Human racial ability with Many Talents: The Human gains a +1 bonus to any four separate ability scores of their choice. This replaces the Quick to Master, Skilled, and the normal Human racial bonuses as described above.
HALF-ORC ABILITY MODIFIERS: +2 to their choice of Strength, Consitution, or Wisdom: Half-Orcs may inherit their Orcish parent's strength, fortitude, or bestial cunning and senses.
HALF-ELF ABILITY MODIFIERS: +2 to their choice of Dexterity, Intelligence, or Charisma: Half-Elves may inherit their Elven parent's physical agility or superior mind, or mysterious Elven glamour and confident Human sociability may mingle in the Half-Elf to produce a singularly magnetic personality.
Thoughts? Suggested alterations/improvements? Supporters? I'm serious when I say I'd prefer to this to what is (perhaps in the next edition).
I like the way humans are now, but I do like your idea for half elves and half orcs. Flavorful, and adds more variety. I may adopt this.
As stands, allowing a +2 to any one ability of choice means that these races can more or less achieve the same heights of statistical power that the non-Human races can.
So increase everyone else's choices instead of limiting these races? You didn't actually help anyone and it won't stop people from picking choice scores anyway.
adds more variety.
Err, it reduces variety. No new options are given but options are taken away.
By that logic, we should reduce their choices for classes too. It will add more variety! I always wondered why humans didn't have to have at least one level in commoner since they were so common anyway.
|
|
As stands, allowing a +2 to any one ability of choice means that these races can more or less achieve the same heights of statistical power that the non-Human races can.So increase everyone else's choices instead of limiting these races? You didn't actually help anyone and it won't stop people from picking choice scores anyway.
I'm not "limiting" them - I'm making them differently-abled. What I did with humans would enable whole new approaches to designing ability arrays. As for Half-Elves and Half-Orcs, as I said, I feel "+2 to any one score of your choice" is overpowered, so I made a logical compromise. If that doesn't strike you as wholly square in the end, one other possibility would be to give them each one additional minor racial ability, or improve one that exists (like adding armor and shield spikes to the Half-Orc's Weapon Familiarity list, and/or granting Half-Elves an additional Skill Focus feat at 6th level).
I'm not "limiting" them - I'm making them differently-abled.
No, your definitely limiting the half orcs and half-elves. There's no way around that. Human is a little different and tbh that's weaker than what they have. They're definitely less differently-abled if you took away some differently options, making them less different, you know... differently-disabled.
"+2 to any one score of your choice" is overpowered,
I don't see how that's overpowered. You picked con as your bonus? Dwarves get a bonus to that, and wisdom, and have a bunch of cool bonuses! Your half-elf took a bonus to intellect? Well an actual elf got a bonus to that, and dexterity, and another bonus to initiative and spell penetration on top of that. If "+2 to any of your choice" is overpowered then +2 to anything is overpowered. Its about potential, and to be honest the only thing that creating a floating bonus does is give people more options, as opposed to a static negative, which can effective neuter. How many dwarf oracles or bards you seen running around? Meanwhile, a human wizard next to an elf wizard, the left actually be coming out ahead because of his class features and that +2 isn't making him any more powerful.
If that doesn't strike you as wholly square in the end, one other possibility would be to give them each one additional minor racial ability, or improve one that exists (like adding armor and shield spikes to the Half-Orc's Weapon Familiarity list, and/or granting Half-Elves an additional Skill Focus feat at 6th level).
That might work, but to be honest half orc is probably one of the strongest options. Not a fan of half-elf myself because they seem so dependent on 'adaptability' being read as 'multiclass friendlier' in a game that isn't friendly to multi-classing. Like I said earlier, you aren't really making half-orcs/elves weaker, but you are removing some options, which is not cool imo.
|
|
Not a fan of half-elf myself because they seem so dependent on 'adaptability' being read as 'multiclass friendlier' in a game that isn't friendly to multi-classing.
I'm with you on that one - it does kind of seem like the message is "Wanna multiclass? Be a Half-Elf! Wanna be a Half-Elf? Multiclass!" Bear in mind, Half-Elves (and arguably, Half-Orcs) have a long tradition of coming out behind when it comes to racial power balance. What they've got now is an improvement, but there's clearly room for more. Yes, alternatives are offered to the Multitalented racial ability, but too few and too specialized. Drow Magic would be the best one, but not only does that carry roleplaying baggage you don't necessarily want (certainly in the Golarion setting, where I understand Drow are by nature unambiguously and universally Evil, and everyone else knows it), and it eats up Adaptability too, which I'd rather keep or trade for any of the actually-pretty-cool things that are offered as alternatives to that.
Here's an idea - Pursuit of Excellence: Rather than feeling "of two worlds," Half-Elves with this racial trait are more inclined to identify as distinct individuals, and combine the natural inclinations within both parents' races toward the drive for mastery of whatever they choose to do. They receive only one favored class, but at every level, the receive an extra hit point, an extra skill point, and their alternative favored class bonus (but only from the Half-Elf list), rather than having to choose one of those. They may take the Fast Learner feat; if they do, they may add a fourth favored class bonus, that being the alternative favored class bonus from Either the Elf or Human list (they may choose either at each level). Should they obtain other favored classes beyond their first (such as from the Eclectic feat), they receive only the normal favored class benefits.
How many dwarf oracles or bards you seen running around?
Not as many as Halflings or Gnomes, and that's just fine. Any race can take any class, that doesn't mean they should all have equal aptitude for them (and when they do, what it means is they can play them differently - they can't "min/max," but they can still manage to keep their penalized score high enough to meet the basic demands of the class, and use their assets in other areas to make the most of the class in a different fashion). Keep in mind that before 3rd Edition, only Humans had access to ALL classes (with the exception of specialized class kits exclusive to other races, and they were the only race that COULDN'T be a "multiclass," but the only race that COULD "Dual-class" - these all meant different things, back then); Half-Elves were a close second, and I guess that was their perk; nearly-but-not-quite as versatile as Humans, but also able to do some things Humans couldn't.
Otherwise: It's true, I am "limiting" them in the sense that I'm restricting what they can be; another word for that might be "defining them" - what good is having all these distinctive fantasy races if they're too similar? Personally, I'm not overly keen on Half-Elves and Half-Orcs to begin with (I'd rather the "mortal" races followed the science of species more closely, otherwise, as came up in another thread, there's some jeopardy of winding up in the South Park "anything can breed true with anything else" universe), but since they're there, I'd rather they be a little more different from Humans (in a way that still demonstrates their lineage appropriately, of course). Also, a thing is defined at least as much by what it is not as by what it is, so in order for a race to be distinctive enough to be worth playing, there should be limitations on what they are.
Why do I feel "+2 to any ability" is overpowered? Prior to Pathfinder, Humans HAD NO ABILITY BONUSES (with the possible exception of certain campaign settings), whereas other races did; they made up for it, though. A bonus feat, free skill point at every level, and superior multiclassing potential (which used to be a bigger deal before Pathfinder - if you think the game "isn't friendly to multi-classing" now, you ought to know that "favored class" used to mean "class you can take levels in without counting toward the experience penalty you take from multiclassing too much") are pretty hard to argue with. I view the ability bonuses enjoyed by most other races as one of the privileges of not being Human (and hence, significantly more specialized and less flexible). I don't like the idea that a Human can be as inherently tough as a Dwarf (or that a Half-Elf could, too) or smart as an Elf (or that a Half-Orc could, too). Versatility is a virtue, and should have its own relative price. This is where my logic regarding "Half-Elves and Half-Orcs can still get a 'floating' +2 bonus, but have limited choices in where to apply it" comes from: It's a compromise between human malleability with non-Human raw power.
adds more variety.Err, it reduces variety. No new options are given but options are taken away.
By that logic, we should reduce their choices for classes too.
Variety and options are not synonymous and while they have a correlation more options doesn't necessarily equal more variety.
For example, there is currently quite a large variety of weapons that get utilized in rogue builds; daggers, shortswords, scimitars and longspears all seem quite common. However, if rogues also had the option to use elven curve blades, you'd notice that the actual variety in builds would drop.
Likewise, if a class grants Skill Focus (any) as a bonus feat, the option to take Skill Focus (Perception) will lead to a far lesser variety than if it grants Skill Focus (any except perception).
By that logic, we should reduce their choices for classes too. It will add more variety! I always wondered why humans didn't have to have at least one level in commoner since they were so common anyway.
Limiting classes could increase variety in theory, in those cases where one race is clearly the superior race for a class. However I can't think of any concrete examples right now.
And of course, variety isn't the end-all-be-all, and whether reducing options to create variety is even a good idea is another matter alltogether.
I really like the half-elf and half-orc. It makes sense, though I never really thought these races needed nerfed.
However, your human suggestion is a massive nerf to humans. In the economy of the game, the value of stacking the same stat increases exponentially rather than additively. In other words, getting a +4 to one stat is more valuable than getting a +2 to two stats. This is more true with the human suggestion as a +1 to an ability score is difficult to work with and could not noticably affect a character.
I'd rather have two +1s to be honest...
I could start with a stat of 18 and another of 16 without any dumping lol.
Erm, 16/16/10/10/10/10 and 17/15/10/10/10/10 have the same cost. If instead you had 14/14/14/13/11/11/10 you would get more points back effectively for raising a 14 to 16 than raising 2 14s though, for example.
Variety and options are not synonymous and while they have a correlation more options doesn't necessarily equal more variety.
No, they aren't, however since there isn't a class restriction attached then the quality of variety might actually be reduced by not having the floating bonus. Its not as beneficial to play a half-orc wizard if you can't put the bonus into a intellect stat. Its not just your options, but the quality of those options.
I'd rather have two +1s to be honest...
I could start with a stat of 18 and another of 16 without any dumping lol.
Yep, the idea totally eliminates optimization. *smirk*
No, they aren't, however since there isn't a class restriction attached then the quality of variety might actually be reduced by not having the floating bonus. Its not as beneficial to play a half-orc wizard if you can't put the bonus into a intellect stat. Its not just your options, but the quality of those options.
Agreed; to get variety you limit the most "obvious" choices. Since this adjustment still lets the most powerful combinations of half-orc work (cleric, barbarian etc) while limiting it from the classes where it's a decent but not great option (wizard, sorcerer) it doesn't really increase that variance; rather it cements the old tropes.
I don't really see an issue with the idea that certain races tend towards certain classes, which has a long tradition in the game already. It seems strange to me that a half-orc gets a bonus to his intelligence and can be an excellent wizard, but whatever; that is just imho. The accent has been more that the race is a half human I suppose? When I said 'more variety' I meant that there was a greater distinction between humans, half-orcs and half-elves, which I like. Maybe they should get some other racial trait that makes them a more lucrative choice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I said 'more variety' I meant that there was a greater distinction between humans, half-orcs and half-elves, which I like.
The difference in racial modifiers probably isn't the best route. Its actually heavy handed and can be punishing if you choose the wrong race/class combo. If you really want to make a race special, you give it some racial traits. Numbers don't do a lot because they tend to be bland, but flavorful mechanics can do quiet a bit.
I don't really see an issue with the idea that certain races tend towards certain classes
Well, there's a big difference between having some flavor that says "Dwarves are known for being paladins" and creating a mechanic that creates "Dwarves are mechanically bad at being paladins". One is trending because flavor, and the other one is punishing players for their choice. Even if some traits are more about being physically strong dwarves, you might see a trend towards martial characters, as elves would to spell casters, but it wouldn't be so damning as that -2 or not having a +2, imo.
What your suggesting is forcing a trend, rather than actually letting it occur naturally or through roleplay.
|
|
Well, there's a big difference between having some flavor that says "Dwarves are known for being paladins" and creating a mechanic that creates "Dwarves are mechanically bad at being paladins".
To be fair, Dwarves used to be *better* at being Paladins, before Pathfinder made Charisma an even more central Paladin ability than it was before.
But that is basically what all the races do by instituting a negative modifier on an ability score. In your example dwarves not being ideal paladins (But also sorcerers, or bards). I'm not sure what your point is? That no races should have negative modifiers to ability scores?