This, for now, applies only to core races.
I've noticed how races, with their +2/+2/-2 ability distributions, and some of their favourite class alternate bonuses, point to certain classes, but more importantly, point away from classes.
For example, why would someone choose to play a dwarven sorcerer? Or a halfling(en?) wizard?
Have some of you found ways to avoid classes to be pigeonholed into or away from some classes?
One possible tweak I'm thinking of would be to allow players to move one of the +2/+2/-2, as long as it stays in the same ability type (physical or mental). Thus, a Dwarf could choose +2 Con / +2 Chr / -2 Chr, for example, or an Elf could go +2 Str / +2 Int / -2 Con.
What do you think? Other ideas?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's okay that most races have a set of Yes and No classes, because by now the list of classes is long enough that every race has enough Yes classes.
It's fine that dwarves make lousy oracles, because they can still be an inquisitor, shaman, druid, cleric or warpriest and enjoy their Wisdom bonus. Elven arcane casters aren't limited to wizardry; witchcraft, alchemy, magi and arcanists are effective too.
Add to this, there are quite a few archetypes that shift the abilities of their parent class, like Sage or Empyreal sorcerers, Eldritch Scion magi and so forth.
Failing that there are now a couple options to avoid using strength in melee completely. Edit: ninja'd
And a -2 is not bad enough to completely negate people using a class. Halfing cavaliers are a thing despite their focus on melee and a detriment to strength. Though it might discourage some, it doesn't completely invalidate a class (as long as we are talking core of course, goblins, for example, would likely do best throwing things.)
However, if this is a game you are running, allowing changes like that are perfectly acceptable. Or you could change favored class bonuses or grant the character/player a different boon for taking on the challenge. (Extra trait if you use them, a bonus to one save or initiative, a kitten?)
Racial drawbacks are part of the fun. Besides, they won't make a lick of difference in a few levels. Unless you're a kobold. Try...try not to be a kobold.
Some groups are going to be better in certain areas then others. That's just the "reality" of it. To use an extreme example should my Hill Giant character be allowed to shift his Str bonus to Dex in order to be a rogue? Having the different races geared to different classes is fine in my view. It just makes that dwarven bard all the more unusual and interesting. Not everyone has to be perfectly even and equal in everything.
Some groups are going to be better in certain areas then others. That's just the "reality" of it. To use an extreme example should my Hill Giant character be allowed to shift his Str bonus to Dex in order to be a rogue? Having the different races geared to different classes is fine in my view. It just makes that dwarven bard all the more unusual and interesting. Not everyone has to be perfectly even and equal in everything.
I agree that things can get slippery fast if you allow any race to shift their bonuses around.
Keep in mind I'm talking about changing only one of their modifiers to allow more variations and less stereotyping.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The word "stereotype" is a bit less effective when the premise of the game is that the races are demonstrably different. Just saying.
I think it's okay that most races have a set of Yes and No classes, because by now the list of classes is long enough that every race has enough Yes classes.
It's fine that dwarves make lousy oracles, because they can still be an inquisitor, shaman, druid, cleric or warpriest and enjoy their Wisdom bonus. Elven arcane casters aren't limited to wizardry; witchcraft, alchemy, magi and arcanists are effective too.
Add to this, there are quite a few archetypes that shift the abilities of their parent class, like Sage or Empyreal sorcerers, Eldritch Scion magi and so forth.
It's true that if players have access to all classes and all archetypes, they are likely to find something that fits their concept one way or another. For my Dwarf example, he could become an evangelist cleric and perhaps fit quite well what I had in mind for that concept.
I can see how it can be seen as an unnecessary option, but for those interested: What kind of problems would rise from allowing a shift of one modifier?
Shouldn't be any, really, save maybe a tiny touch less realism. Unless you're dealing with races like kobolds and hill giants, everyone will stay balanced. The PCs will be noticeably more powerful, though, since they're able to get exactly the stat bonuses they want. I foresee orc wizards with 22 Intelligence and a lot of happy monks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The word "stereotype" is a bit less effective when the premise of the game is that the races are demonstrably different. Just saying.
That's how I see it. The races are "demonstrably different" from one another. That's what makes them races rather then just different ethnicities as seen in humans.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One possible tweak I'm thinking of would be to allow players to move one of the +2/+2/-2, as long as it stays in the same ability type (physical or mental). Thus, a Dwarf could choose +2 Con / +2 Chr / -2 Chr, for example, or an Elf could go +2 Str / +2 Int / -2 Con.
What do you think? Other ideas?
The Dwarven Charisma penalty and the Elven Constitution penalty both feel completely off-flavor for those races. The elves live in the wild, for a ridiculous long time, and, more likely, would have a Con *bonus.* Dwarves are never described as lacking in strong leaders or forceful personalities, as a Charisma penalty would suggest. They *are* described as short with stubby sausage like fingers, and rarely as acrobats or whatever, so a Dex penalty (which, in 3.X/PF would have nothing to do with their Int based craft skills).
Since I don't see any reason to take options away, I allow for dwarves to either take +2 Con, +2 Wis and -2 Cha, and be more surly hard-headed fellows, or be the craftsmen who make their society work, with +2 Con, +2 Int and -2 Dex. Elves can either be recent arrivals from Castrovel, not acclimated to the world of Golarion and it's diseases, etc. with +2 Dex, +2 Int and -2 Con, or long-term visitors who have adapted to the local environment and cultures, but lost some of their ancient lore, +2 Dex, +2 Cha and -2 Str.
Without a half-dozen subraces, just two options for each, there's a lot more versatility, and plenty of room for dwarven geomantic sorcerers and earth mystery oracles, who aren't held back by a Cha penalty. (IMO, Cha penalties and bonuses are way too common anyway, compared to Str bonuses, and sometimes feel less racially thematic and more like some sort of min-maxing attempt.)
If like to say that some things might be more cultural than genetic in racial traits, for example weapon familiarity and certain skull bonuses.
Some races have overlapping abilities and themes that to me indicate plausible archetype overlap, such as some of the drow/tiefling/fetchling stuff, dwarves and oread, elves and men, or some things amongst savage races that may overlap with orcs.
Not everything but some specific archetypes, feats, and racial abilities seem to be more geared towards culture than towards actual genetics
I had a conversation on a similar topic of racial penalties. I don't think there's anything wrong with having some classes less optimal than others for races. Race, as a game construct, inherently exists as an exercise in stereotyping, anyway.
The big problem in Pathfinder stems from how much characters rely on ability scores for effectiveness. A character feels weak if they do not have a +3 or +4 in their main statistic. Point buy also makes it difficult to offset a penalty. As a result, players feel punished for choosing a race with a penalty in their class's ability scores. I fixed the issue with my homebrew races by offering heritages that shift the penalty around.
For example, why would someone choose to play a dwarven sorcerer? Or a halfling(en?) wizard?
If a player wants to do that, they player does that. OMG, your Cha modifier will be one lower than someone playing a random race, or - gasp - two lower than someone playing an optimal race.
Meh. The dice/points-buy dictates the random variance in a specific individual. The base bonus/penalty provides a baseline average.
If you mess with the stats, you basically turn races into mere "skins". Now, I was glad when we dropped the 3.5e favored class thing because that was double-dipping forcing class choices. But to have a single number that represents a race' strengths/weaknesses... that's just cool.
One possible tweak I'm thinking of would be to allow players to move one of the +2/+2/-2, as long as it stays in the same ability type (physical or mental). Thus, a Dwarf could choose +2 Con / +2 Chr / -2 Chr, for example, or an Elf could go +2 Str / +2 Int / -2 Con.
What do you think? Other ideas?
The Dwarven Charisma penalty and the Elven Constitution penalty both feel completely off-flavor for those races. The elves live in the wild, for a ridiculous long time, and, more likely, would have a Con *bonus.* Dwarves are never described as lacking in strong leaders or forceful personalities, as a Charisma penalty would suggest. They *are* described as short with stubby sausage like fingers, and rarely as acrobats or whatever, so a Dex penalty (which, in 3.X/PF would have nothing to do with their Int based craft skills).
Since I don't see any reason to take options away, I allow for dwarves to either take +2 Con, +2 Wis and -2 Cha, and be more surly hard-headed fellows, or be the craftsmen who make their society work, with +2 Con, +2 Int and -2 Dex. Elves can either be recent arrivals from Castrovel, not acclimated to the world of Golarion and it's diseases, etc. with +2 Dex, +2 Int and -2 Con, or long-term visitors who have adapted to the local environment and cultures, but lost some of their ancient lore, +2 Dex, +2 Cha and -2 Str.
Without a half-dozen subraces, just two options for each, there's a lot more versatility, and plenty of room for dwarven geomantic sorcerers and earth mystery oracles, who aren't held back by a Cha penalty. (IMO, Cha penalties and bonuses are way too common anyway, compared to Str bonuses, and sometimes feel less racially thematic and more like some sort of min-maxing attempt.)
Very thoughtful and helpful comments. Thanks!
"But I wanna be really effective/maximized and still play this race!" \
You make it sounds as though I said that. Please don't do that.
As for your point on point-buy in light of flat penalties, I agree with you; it exacerbates the problem linked to stereotyping.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to ask why go to the effort of making racial modifiers more flexible? Why not ignore racial modifiers completely and just play at a higher point buy if you want proper stat equality between races?
On the other hand since races are pretty much a set package of modifiers and traits if modifiers are ignored you may suddenly find certain races gaining a marginal advantage. Then again Pathfinder has never really been about balance anyway.
I have to ask why go to the effort of making racial modifiers more flexible? Why not ignore racial modifiers completely and just play at a higher point buy if you want proper stat equality between races?
On the other hand since races are pretty much a set package of modifiers and traits if modifiers are ignored you may suddenly find certain races gaining a marginal advantage. Then again Pathfinder has never really been about balance anyway.
That's certainly a more radical possibility. Thanks!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmph! We don't need to make them demihumans any more included; we include 'em all enough already! Hell, back in muh day you couldn't even have a dwarf be a arcayn spellcaster what all - now they're complainin' that they take a penulty to bein' a sorcerer? Pshaw!
Those durn demihumans today don't know how good they have it. Why, you can't even call 'em "demihumans" anymore, since they went 'n' decided that it was all 'ffensive now.
Grandpa, please, the neighbors can hear...
|
|
I think with the more MAD classes, the difference between races is softer. If you rely on 4 abilities, chances are your race will boost at least one of them. It'll set a different accent than when your race boosts another ability of course, but you can still make a good character.
For example, Constitution and Wisdom are both quite relevant to barbarians. Dwarves make passable barbarians despite lacking a Strength bonus. It'll be a different sort of barbarian than if you went Half-Orc though; more slow and steady.
For SAD classes, the bonus to that single stat matters a lot more. Pretty much everything depends on Intelligence as a witch, so a race with an Int bonus has a huge lead.
So this stereotypical class effect is a lot stronger with some classes than with others.
To be fair, it *is* FOUR lower sometimes, and the way point-buy punishes higher scores means it's harder/more expensive to mitigate when you have a negative. But to me that's more of an indictment against point-buy's methodology. Yeah I know the reasoning behind it, I just don't find that reason at all compelling.
The modifier won't be four lower. The score will. A race with a bonus of +2 to its score versus a race with a penalty of -2 to its score results in a modifier difference of 2. So the maximum difference (assuming we're not talking any of the oddball playable races like kobolds) is 2. Not trivial, but not the end of the universe.
Yes, it's hard to buy your way out of the hole. But it's sort of my point that you don't. Sure, your human PC can get an 18 in his key ability score by spending 10 points (for a 16) while a race with a penalty simply can't get that 18, and will have to pay 10 points to settle for a 14. In my opinion that's okay as long as you're not playing with an otherwise min-maxed group.
Everyone's table is different and I'd never try to tell anyone how to run their game, but to me this is all a feature, not a bug.
I think with the more MAD classes, the difference between races is softer. If you rely on 4 abilities, chances are your race will boost at least one of them. It'll set a different accent than when your race boosts another ability of course, but you can still make a good character.
For example, Constitution and Wisdom are both quite relevant to barbarians. Dwarves make passable barbarians despite lacking a Strength bonus. It'll be a different sort of barbarian than if you went Half-Orc though; more slow and steady.
For SAD classes, the bonus to that single stat matters a lot more. Pretty much everything depends on Intelligence as a witch, so a race with an Int bonus has a huge lead.
So this stereotypical class effect is a lot stronger with some classes than with others.
That's a very valid argument. Perhaps point-buys should be different for SAD vs MAD classes? Do you know iif someone worked on this?
Dip MAD for point buy, take the rest of your levels in a SAD class.
Even before it gets to that problem, you can't always categorize what class is and is not MAD. There are degrees of SADness and MADness. This can even vary in the same class, via archetypes. Monks are the classic example of MADness, but Zen Archers are basically Wisdom only.
It's a hard problem to classify and, as a result, to solve.
|
|
That's a very valid argument. Perhaps point-buys should be different for SAD vs MAD classes? Do you know iif someone worked on this?I think with the more MAD classes, the difference between races is softer. If you rely on 4 abilities, chances are your race will boost at least one of them. It'll set a different accent than when your race boosts another ability of course, but you can still make a good character.
For example, Constitution and Wisdom are both quite relevant to barbarians. Dwarves make passable barbarians despite lacking a Strength bonus. It'll be a different sort of barbarian than if you went Half-Orc though; more slow and steady.
For SAD classes, the bonus to that single stat matters a lot more. Pretty much everything depends on Intelligence as a witch, so a race with an Int bonus has a huge lead.
So this stereotypical class effect is a lot stronger with some classes than with others.
I don't think that's a good idea. Point buy already helps to smooth over the difference between SAD and MAD classes. It's more expensive to buy really high scores; you can get a 14 and a 16 for the price of a single 18.
Higher point buys also give advantage to MAD classes, because they get more marginal value out of the additional points by spreading them across multiple abilities. For this reason I recommend using 20 point buy, not 15 point buy.
20pts is statistically very close to rolling 4d6 drop lowest; 15 points is just really low. This is something the CRB gets wrong, and PFS does right. And with 20pts you can just make a nice well-rounded character of just about any class without having to dump anything heavily.