|
A player in my game wants to take Aasimar Archon-Blooded, which gives CON/WIS for stat bonuses, and also take number 70 from the Variant abilities list to replace his spell like ability with an additional +2 racial bonus to CON. Is this legal, should those CON bonuses stack? Are normal stat bonuses from race technically counted as racial bonuses?
In case you couldn't guess, he's playing a Kineticist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Note that racial bonuses stack with themselves, so this works whether normal race stat bonuses are racial or untyped.
It is entirely within the GM's remit to prohibit selecting a specific result from that table, as the text you highlight indicates. Make them roll, or just disallow it entirely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is entirely within the GM's remit to prohibit selecting a specific result from that table, as the text you highlight indicates. Make them roll, or just disallow it entirely.
The topic, however, was not "Tell me how I should run my game." It was "Do these things stack?"
Racial bonuses stack (as well as Dodge and Circumstance bonuses), so you wouldn't be running afoul of any stacking rules here. Whether or not you close to exercise your "GM's remit" in this matter is your own choice to make.
Bonus Types: Usually, a bonus has a type that indicates how the spell grants the bonus. The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don't generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works (see Combining Magical Effects). The same principle applies to penalties—a character taking two or more penalties of the same type applies only the worst one, although most penalties have no type and thus always stack. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.
I hope that's not the only place it's stated, but I'm too lazy to keep looking.
Could you provide evidence for this? I can't find a specific rule that backs up that statement.
Here's the SRD quote (click for link - it's the 2nd paragraph):
The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don't generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.
Edit: Ninjaed by the Fuzzy-Wuzzy ninja.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the Aasimar variant table is something I would allow in my game. It just has too many strong options (Con being not even as strong as Cha on a Cha SAD character in my opinion).
Maaaaybe if a player wanted one of the options that seemed more in-line with the SLA ability.
If you are using the star system in Inner Sea Races, I would suggest counting an aasimar or tiefling who selects a result from the percentile special ability table an extra star because of the great value of the six options that boost ability scores.
Of course, that requires coming up with a system for making a race's number of stars matter in creating a character. I recall seeing an article by Alexander Augunas that suggested tying the number of traits a character gets to how many stars the race has (with more traits for fewer or no stars).
It is entirely within the GM's remit to prohibit selecting a specific result from that table, as the text you highlight indicates. Make them roll, or just disallow it entirely.The topic, however, was not "Tell me how I should run my game." It was "Do these things stack?"
Racial bonuses stack (as well as Dodge and Circumstance bonuses), so you wouldn't be running afoul of any stacking rules here. Whether or not you close to exercise your "GM's remit" in this matter is your own choice to make.
That was the literal question asked. The real question asked was "How can I say no to this without being an arbitrary dick?"
Thanks for the rules references.
I'm tempted to disallow this, or force him to roll. Getting an extra 2 points of CON in exchange for giving up Continual Flame, does not seem at all balanced to me.
It's definitely unbalanced. If a player is interested in stuff from the list, I have them list off everything they'd want and then remove anything that's too strong. You end up with something interesting like tactile telepathy rather than unfair stat bonuses.
It is 100% legitimate for you as DM to tell a player they can't take a gamebreakingly good powergaming option. Heck, you can even ask a player to get rid of an option several levels later because it started to be too good. This is because the game is supposed to be fun for everyone and if only player is too good it is no fun for everyone else at the table.
One thing many players tend to overlook is the DM is also supposed to have fun, and constantly trying to deal with you OP PCs isn't fun. Either you are constantly flailing impotently all session or you are pulling your punches to avoid a TPK in every session.
That was the literal question asked. The real question asked was "How can I say no to this without being an arbitrary dick?"It is entirely within the GM's remit to prohibit selecting a specific result from that table, as the text you highlight indicates. Make them roll, or just disallow it entirely.The topic, however, was not "Tell me how I should run my game." It was "Do these things stack?"
Racial bonuses stack (as well as Dodge and Circumstance bonuses), so you wouldn't be running afoul of any stacking rules here. Whether or not you close to exercise your "GM's remit" in this matter is your own choice to make.
That's what I was going to say. dragon was simply answering the at-that-point unspoken follow-up question. The context was there and then the OP posted again, verifying that we all read this correctly.
So, much less of a "This is how you should run your game" post and clearly a "You seem to be wondering if you can disallow this, and here's why you can" post.
That's what I was going to say. dragon was simply answering the at-that-point unspoken follow-up question. The context was there and then the OP posted again, verifying that we all read this correctly.
So, much less of a "This is how you should run your game" post and clearly a "You seem to be wondering if you can disallow this, and here's why you can" post.
My apologies to Dragon then, as well as to Darren for the misread.
The only Aasimar I know of, her GM made her play a full level BEFORE she rolled for her Peri (?).
Thanks for the rules references.
I'm tempted to disallow this, or force him to roll. Getting an extra 2 points of CON in exchange for giving up Continual Flame, does not seem at all balanced to me.
You should absolutely do this and not just allow him to choose. Choosing is obviously way too good.
Edit: Just noticed you disallowed the table. Good choice.
That was the literal question asked. The real question asked was "How can I say no to this without being an arbitrary dick?"It is entirely within the GM's remit to prohibit selecting a specific result from that table, as the text you highlight indicates. Make them roll, or just disallow it entirely.The topic, however, was not "Tell me how I should run my game." It was "Do these things stack?"
Racial bonuses stack (as well as Dodge and Circumstance bonuses), so you wouldn't be running afoul of any stacking rules here. Whether or not you close to exercise your "GM's remit" in this matter is your own choice to make.
Quite frankly if the player gets worked up about you saying no to that, you're not the one who's being a dick.
I have disallowed that entire table from the game at this point. Thanks everyone for the feedback.
I would allow stupid silly options, like the coin polishing one. Trading an SLA of minimal value (I mean...sure, continous flame lets things act as a torch... but ioun torches are consumer products that use the same spell, and they only cost 75 gp, which is chump change after level 1).
But yes, the stats, the DR, resistances, etc. etc. Throw all that out.
I like the table, and allow my players to pick from whichever option they please.
Though I do specify they can't stack the racial bonuses that way.
I may rethink it for Aasimar, it's only come up for Tiefling so far. I've had a few players use it to negate the stat penalty the race comes with, and one use it to wield big weapons. No issues.
If they want to use the table, this is how I run it:
They choose to use the table, and they roll % and I roll %, hidden.
I tell them their result, and they can take that OR they can take my hidden result (which I don't tell them what it is - think "what's behind the door?").
AlaskaRPGer: It really depends on the ability they want. Most aren't that powerful and can have fun/interesting stories attached to why you have them. I think a better way to deal with it is make the strongest options require the Fiendish Heritage feat to take. You really shouldn't need to jump though hoops to 'mage hand 3 times per day' or 'speak two additional languages spoken by extraplanar beings.'
AlaskaRPGer: It really depends on the ability they want. Most aren't that powerful and can have fun/interesting stories attached to why you have them. I think a better way to deal with it is make the strongest options require the Fiendish Heritage feat to take. You really shouldn't need to jump though hoops to 'mage hand 3 times per day' or 'speak two additional languages spoken by extraplanar beings.'
The reason I do it this way is that it's like reincarnate vs raise dead. Similar how can go with the sure bet (raise dead - costs more) versus the cheaper gamble (reincarnate table!) you can take your bet of "Continual Flame" and put it on the roulette wheel and see what happens!
Again, that's how I would run it, but I see the value in the other ways of doing it.
Aasimar don't get used in my games all that often, but when they have, I've allowed the table. I've even on one occassion (Wrath of the Righteous) allowed players to "pick" a roll of 100, essentially getting 2 picks. There were other costs associated with picking that option though. Early on, it'll make them feel powerful... but later, it's not as big of a deal generally. While I don't generally equalize choices power-wise, non-Aasimar in that Wrath game were given other benefits for taking on the same costs. As long as the power level is kept fairly consistent across the party, things usually work out.
Full disclosure though... had I known at the beginning how powerful Mythic characters would end up in WotR, I probably wouldn't have opened up those character creation options.
I may rethink it for Aasimar, it's only come up for Tiefling so far. I've had a few players use it to negate the stat penalty the race comes with, and one use it to wield big weapons. No issues.
This is one of the sort of things I would allow, too.
The basic question becomes this:
If the bonus was Int, would you let them do it?
If it was Wis, would you let them do it?
If it was Str, would you let them do it?
Because Con isn't normally thought of as an 'attack stat', it's easy to underestimate its effects.
But the kineticist is a Con caster, and turns Con into an attack stat. Just ask how strong the Scarred Witch Docter is, that used Con as the main casting stat. Huge hit points, bonus spells and high DC's...what wasn't to love?
So, the general answer to all of the above should be 'no'. Just for the sake of balance.
If you wanted to allow a roll on the random table, or the ability was underpowered, it wouldn't be an issue.
My advice? Let him take a +2 bonus to his lowest stat if he takes the feat. Same benefit, technically...but the result is much less imbalancing.
==Aelryinth
Dang it! I just got tapped by a second Aasimar player who pointed out a third!
One plays in the same game, the other in one were no duplicate rolls are allowed, a second stat bonus counting as, a duplicate roll.
It is totally within the rules but it's also GM discretion so it ends up being up to you.
I would allow it because it makes the player happy and a +1 bonus is such a small thing in a campaine that it's not going to break the story.