|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So;
I recently went to build a bunch of races (like, 15+) using the ARG Rules, and realized that the ARG would not cut it for my purposes; (it's too limiting, and doesn't have anything equivalentto a number of the options I went looking for for the races I was trying to build - not to mention that it has some systemic problems and badly balanced options.)
That said, I'm familiar with a wide variety of race creation system options in Pathfinder.
There's:
Race Creation Cookbook
VoodooMike's System
Golden's System
Advanced Race Guide
Immortals Handbook: Challenging Challenge Ratings
Grim Tales: Creature Creation
I have some issues with all of them; but most of them have some merits as well. Since I am not currently satisfied with them, I am putting something custom together; and I thought it would be good if I could hear people's thoughts on the various systems, good & bad. (So I can take that into consideration, and so I am less likely to include something bad or cut out something good).
Race Creation Cookbook
I only mention in case someone else brings it up. It's based on a bunch of faulty premises. I bought it a long while back, and I would not use it. I would say that it's not good.
VoodooMike
I haven't used this all that much; but others seem to like it.
Golden
This seems to be someone else expanding on VoodooMike's work. I've used this a bit. Some weird inconsistencies and bits of (what I consider to be faulty logic) that I don't like; but again, it seems fairly popular in some crowds.
Advanced Race Guide
I would probably say this is the best of the ones I've commented on so far. There are some issues of bad pricing, and the scale is too small (some of the things offered for 1 point are not worth anywhere near 1 point, and there are some circumstances where I can pay a higher point cost for a crappy version of another benefit I can get for less points.
Immortals Handbook Challenging Challenge Ratings
The Product this was in was more material for Epic post-20 play. I'm not a huge fan of post-20 play; But this section was made freely available a long time ago (posted to ENWorld by the author) and it's excellent.
I like this. It was originally designed for 3.5, so some of the things it covers are no longer useful - such as using its values to calculate quikly CR, or build classes - it could be updated to do so, but that would require a great deal of work. However, the abilities it spells out are still well priced in relation to eachother; and it can be used to build races. The number of points available for race building would have to be determined by building the Core Book Races with it and seeing how many points they take - it includes the 3.5 PHB Races, so you would just have to add in the changes. I will likely look to this for point costs a lot, as the guys involved did some serious statistical and numerical analyses on the system and how it works, in addition to a bunch of playtesting to make sure they got the numbers right.
Grim Tales Creature Creation
This is by the guys who made Trailblazer. They almost universally do very high quality work, and a great deal of calculation and studying and analyzing goes into their work. If their work involved statistical analysis of Pathfinder instead of 3.5, Trailblazer would probably be the Core Rulebook I use for my games. Some have claimed to me that the numerical analysis (or Spine of the Game, as Bad Axe calls it) is the same between 3.5 and Pathfinder. Between anecdotal evidene I've heard elsewhere, and a combination of stats I've seen people run and have run myself, I know that to be false. However, they have some Fantastic ideas in there.
If I recall correctly this was an expanded/updated Challenging Challenge Ratings. I used to have it; but I can't find my PDF, and DTRPG no longer has it. :/
Conclusion
So: What do you guys think of the various existing tools? I am interested in hearing, anything from bits that seem priced perfectly, to bad premises with bad conclusions, to things that are clearly over or under priced (provide your reasoning please).
My opinion, mind you, but I've come to the conclusion that most race point systems are designed on the faulty premise that the core races are somehow balanced against each other. They go out of their way to price things so that the core races fit in this nice little bracket and then price things in a manner which comes off as totally arbitrary.
In order to be as accurate as humanly possible, I feel that point values should be assigned independent of races; should take into account in-combat use and out-of-combat use; limited application and broad application.
Another pet peeve of mine is the inclusion of cultural traits attached to races, such as weapon familiarity: these would be best left out and used in the form of Racial Character Traits using the trait system under a Cultural trait entry.
Internal consistency is sorely lacking. I currently use the ARG, but modify it and, for the most part, ignore many of their "rules".
|
|
Hmm.
Yeah; I totally agree, Da'ath. If you build your system to show how "balanced" the core book races are, you've designed a system specifically to be inaccurate (and that is a terrible design goal).
As for taking into account in and out of combat use; I'm sure doing that to some extent is a good idea, but honestly, I think the most important part is keeping hold of things that would affect your CR as a creature.
As for your culture/species pet peeve; well, that's D&D (and Pathfinder by extension); I doubt you're going to get them to overhaul it to be like Rolemaster, wherein you choose a race, and then choose a culture - and they mechanically support the "Human Raised By Dwarves" concept. So instead, you get this mishmash or genetic and cultural traits, which everyone else you're related to also has; and Elven babies are proficient with longswords; etc.
As for taking into account in and out of combat use; I'm sure doing that to some extent is a good idea, but honestly, I think the most important part is keeping hold of things that would affect your CR as a creature.
You phrased what I was trying to convey much better than I did; I definitely feel there should be some sort of divide between things that increase you CR vs things that don't.
As for your culture/species pet peeve; well, that's D&D (and Pathfinder by extension); I doubt you're going to get them to overhaul it to be like Rolemaster, wherein you choose a race, and then choose a culture - and they mechanically support the "Human Raised By Dwarves" concept. So instead, you get this mishmash or genetic and cultural traits, which everyone else you're related to also has; and Elven babies are proficient with longswords; etc.
I just went visual - a group of toddlers with droopy diapers, oozing snot forming an archery line.
Yeah, I decided not to hold my breath on that particular peeve and just corrected it for my setting. Another topic I failed to mention in my original post was race/species relevance - I feel this choice should remain relevant across all levels, but I must admit my own attempts at this have met with only partial success - usually because I get burnt out working on it (I have a lot of custom races).
To clarify: I'd love to see meaningful, scaling improvements to certain racial foci. For example, if a race gains the ability to fly at some point, a slow-scaling improvement to it as they level, and less in the form of feats, if that makes sense.
For my money, VoodooMike tends to have one of the more well-thought-out ones, Golden being based on it is also fairly nice. I also use the APG despite some of its weirdness (including the lack of the Human Heart traits).
Though the base race equality (or lack thereof) is a part of the problem, an equal part is the human-centric line of thought. Or, perhaps I should say that the most powerful races cannot be too much more powerful than the average human. Of course, the problem with this is that "average" in a fantasy world is likely to be different than "average" in the real world.
I also dislike that racial feats or other racial powers tend to have to be shoehorned into classes, and agree with Da'ath that there should be feats or other things that make their way in.
Where could things improve? Well, there are different types of things to be considered.
CR Value Changes - as has been mentioned, anything that would alter the CR value is going to have to be carefully monitored.
Many categories from the APG (Ability Score, Defense, Magical, and Offense Traits) are likely to alter CR, though some of the others (Movement [particularly Flight], Senses, and Other Traits) could do so too.
These are going to be related to the races - things that are passed down genetically from generation to generation. They ought to have the most weight and also be the most carefully balanced.
Social Traits and Knacks - these aren't likely to alter CR value but could come in handy. Feat and Skill Traits fall into this category, as might some of the Defense and Offense Traits. These aren't related to race except as how they are trained, though some of them could be more individual traits as special knacks in an area.
Weaknesses - to balance bonuses there should be some interesting weaknesses as well. Particularly, anything that might lower CR value would be useful as a balancing tool, though these are more likely to work as a balance for the Social Traits.
I have several differing systems in my past and none really 'work' for me.
-Voodoo Mike/Golden share a much more open process, but both suffer from inconsistent values by those doing the math.
-The Cookbook is the basis of what I used in 3.0/3.5, but it was clunky to me.
-The ARG was a delight at first, but I found I disagreed on the value. Later, I became really disenchanted with the level adjustment system.
I am currently basing my mechanics off a suggestion from Umbral Reaver (on these Threads). I will be happy to see your attempt at the Holy Grail.
I am currently basing my mechanics off a suggestion from Umbral Reaver (on these Threads). I will be happy to see your attempt at the Holy Grail.
Could you provide a link? You've made me curious.
To my crap? Not together enuf to post. It is still warped and rough.
Umral Reaver suggested using build points as a cost in 'buying' a character. A powerful race would cost you some of what I would be spending on better stats. Yes, this means some get fewer points to build with.
As a short list of the costs for some races:
Elves cost 10 points to play, which is fair, given the sea of benefits they get in my game (seriously NOT stock Pathfinder).
Dwarves cost 2 points for nice benefits, but less than Elves.
Humans have a 0 cost.
Aasimar and Tiefling both cost 5, I think.
You may be able to search the ARG playtest threads for UR's posts. As for posting a link? Sorry, but beyond my skills.
Ok, I'm familiar with the basic premise. Thanks for the explanation.
I think the biggest problem I have seen in race creators is they don't account for context. Balance is inherently different in a point buy system because players tend to pick things that work well together. They're not going to take racial proficiency with falchions AND greatswords, for example. They're also not as likely to take natural weapons on their strength-penalty race. Everything has to be costed assuming it's useful, which means you can only afford useful things, which means the races you build look nothing like the ones in the book.
Some kind of context-based price modifier would be great.
|
|
I think the biggest problem I have seen in race creators is they don't account for context. Balance is inherently different in a point buy system because players tend to pick things that work well together. They're not going to take racial proficiency with falchions AND greatswords, for example. They're also not as likely to take natural weapons on their strength-penalty race. Everything has to be costed assuming it's useful, which means you can only afford useful things, which means the races you build look nothing like the ones in the book.
Some kind of context-based price modifier would be great.
Hmm, I was thinking of limiting the number of points that can be spent on things that will work together somehow or something like that, but maybe some kind of context-sensitive multiplier could also work.
I'm personally thinking of just following this line of reasoning:
"Is this worth a feat? (If yes, four points) Is it worth a trait? (If yes two points)" and add or subtract a point based on synergy.
Have a greataxe proficiency for a race with a strength penalty? 3 points instead of 4. Have a fly speed for a race with a dexterity bonus and a "Skilled, +2 to 2 skills" set with fly in it? 5 points.
|
|
What if something is worth significantly more than a feat, or significantly less than a trait (These things exist on races. Significantly less than a trait exists on some core races, and significantly more exists on some monstrous races.)Examples, perhaps?
Sure
Significantly less than a feat: Dwarf Greed.Significantly more than a feat: Drow Noble Attribute Modifiers.
i feel the ARG is good at one thing. the designation normal, monstrous, and advanced. I feel that things within higher tiers than what you are trying to go for are probably out of your in-game balance. Also, i tend to use that ARG as a base line and then edit things to work in a more theme centered way.
I made a suped up sylph race for a player, and it basically got a fly speed of 10 feet with poor maneuverability, among other changes. none of which were concretely used from the ARG.
I don't see any point in building a race point system with stuff like drow nobles in mind. They're not meant to be played and they're not meant to be fair. They're an NPC with a bunch of assorted super powers stuck on to make them memorable and give them a drow feel that they can't get from class levels alone.
Any system hung up on being able to represent them is going to suffer from not focusing on making normal races work.
|
|
@Mortuum
Hmm.
I disagree. I think it's entirely reasonable to want a race system to be able to build races balanced with the ones in pathfinder core, as well enable you to make other races at various points of balance, such as design races on par with the Drow Nobles.
Obviously I as the GM will have to decide on the power level, because stock humans are not on the same power level as Drow Nobles, but if I ever decide that I want to run a game of more powerful, exotic races, that should also be possible.
I think Paizo had the right idea on allowing higher-budget races;but I think they missed the mark on how they presented the various options and what they priced many of them as in relation to eachother.