Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote: According to Creating New Races guidelines then Dual Talent humans get an RP score equivalent of only RP2. Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote: ABILITY SCORE: +2 to any Physical Ability score, +2 to any Mental score and -2 to any score. I still don't think you understand the wording of the race creation rule set.
It's right in the Ability Score Quality section, the entire second paragraph actually: "With the exception of the human heritage modifier quality, when you choose a race's ability score modifiers, you are choosing what ability scores are modified for every member of that race. Only the human heritage modifier quality allows individual members to decide which ability score is modified during character creation."
This is not open to interpretation.
Whether you pick "flexible" or "standard", it's going to be a choice made for all humans in the campaign world, rather than just that one human specifically.
If we want to price out how Dual Talent actual costs in the race builder:
- Ability score bonuses over and above the chosen quality is 4rp for a single +2 bonus to a specific stat.
- If we compare what a "chooseable" variant looks like, for example, in the feats/skills section it's 2rp for a specific feat, or 4rp for a chooseable feat. So it's either 2rp more, or double the price to make something "chooseable".
4rp for a +2, doubled to make it chooseable, 8rp. Which is the same as giving up the flexible feat and skilled options.
That's how it was priced out, and why it "works". Though, it's often not worth it except for the occasional NPC that won't need the feat or skillpoints from growth, and where an extra +2 bonus to a stat can make a difference (low levels).
Not all options have to be wonderful for every character, even if it's never anything a PC would ever use.
_________________
All that being said, I do understand wanting to adjust how humans are presented..
The main idea I've had for this was to make Humans choose a regional background, and they get a specific set of bonuses related to that region.
Still kind of flexible in that they get to choose their background, however it locks in the choice to a specific set, so they can't tailor make their character to their class exactly.
So instead of having a floating +2 to one stat, a floating feat, a floating skillpoint, and "any language", they'd get:
+2 to two specific ability scores
a specific feat
one rank per level in a skill
one extra thing for 1rp (movement, offensive, senses or magic)
However, these are all made up in advance as packages.
So a Varisian Nomad would have a different set of things than a Chelaxian Noble, for example.
If you aren't playing in Golarian, then some more generic options would work:
Coastal, Nomad, Tribal, Urban (small town), Urban (metropolis), Noble, Wild
You could easily slap on "climb" or "swim" for specific backgrounds (like coastal gaining limited form of swim speed, or Wild/Nomadic/Tribal gaining a limited form of climb speed, etc).
I find this would still make Humans a popular choice, without making their ubiquity too annoying or repetitive (oh wow, two human melee types and they both chose Power Attack.. yawn).
Oooohhh. Confident Climber is spot on! That's what you should call it!
And as long as you are aware that one extra class skill is worse than skilled, then it should be fine. It's just kinda sad that this trait would reward you for taking a class with more skill points, while the rest of the classes are left out.
A 7 int fighter at level 20 got 20 skill ranks. If he places all of his skill ranks in 2-3 skills, then those might stay relevant.
a 24 int wizard at level 20 got 180 skill ranks. He can choose to have a good skill bonus in around 20 skills.
And with the extra class skill, the wizard can even become great in a skill not normally available to him.
But hey, you lose some you win some. Atleast you would get weapon proficiency and easier climbing to weight up the loss of skill ranks.
Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote: Cyrad wrote: Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote: Cyrad wrote: Actually, with the free +8 for having a climb speed and 1 rank in Climb, you can succeed any check with a DC 10 on a natural 1, not that creatures with climb speeds ever need to worry about that since they can always take 10 even during combat. So yes, a character with any climb speed can effortlessly climb up anything less than a typical dungeon wall without having to make a roll. And that's assuming the character only has a 10 Strength and no other bonuses to Climb. They're not getting the +8 racial bonus. I've said this like 10 times now. That makes even less sense as now you're screwing with the rules for how climb speeds work! It's a mechanical mess all to justify your idea of giving humans a climb speed. You almost missed the justification of how I am using the exact same rules as in Climb Unchained! Please, people presume you've read what I wrote so when you say such things it's going to give people a worse impression of this thread. That's no justification. The rules you're referencing are for skill unlocks.
Wonderstell wrote: Oooohhh. Confident Climber is spot on! That's what you should call it!
And as long as you are aware that one extra class skill is worse than skilled, then it should be fine. It's just kinda sad that this trait would reward you for taking a class with more skill points, while the rest of the classes are left out.
A 7 int fighter at level 20 got 20 skill ranks. If he places all of his skill ranks in 2-3 skills, then those might stay relevant.
a 24 int wizard at level 20 got 180 skill ranks. He can choose to have a good skill bonus in around 20 skills.
And with the extra class skill, the wizard can even become great in a skill not normally available to him.
But hey, you lose some you win some. Atleast you would get weapon proficiency and easier climbing to weight up the loss of skill ranks.
Thanks, I couldn't have come to 'Confident Climber' without your feedback.
Fighter does have a solution to the skill nonsense and it's in the Advanced Weapons Training options:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter#TOC-Advanced-Armor-Tra ining
Adaptable Training. Lets you use your BAB as the number of skill ranks you have in a skill. The rules are actually vague on when you get this, I'm planning on letting it be (by houserule) every time you take Armour Training level you also get this. That may be enough to swing it.
Advanced Weapons Training also grants such an option.
Painting with an even broader brush I've been thinking about your skills per level being tied to your Wisdom score instead. It could work as no one dumps their Wis. In fact if anyone lets their Wis go low it's the classes who already have really high will saves. Does this make more sense? Wis and Int are both intellect stats, but Int is more tied to acadmeic aspects such as knowledge, appraise, spellcraft and Craft. Well, I guess Craft is a practical skill.
But that's a whole other thread topic, it would be a huge thing to make skill ranks be tied to Wis Modifier. I'm actually going to make a thread on this right now.
Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote:
ABILITY SCORE: +2 to any Physical Ability score, +2 to any Mental score and -2 to any score.
SIZE: Medium
TYPE: Humanoid (Human Subtype)
BASE SPEED: 30ft
LANGUAGES: Common, plus 7 local languages picked by GM.
DARING CLAMBER: Humans have a 10ft climb speed without the usual +8 Racial Bonus
JACK OF ALL TRADES: Humans add any one skill to their list of class skills.
WEAPON OF CHOICE: Humans may be proficient in one weapon of their choice as long as the weapon does not have the name of another playable race in its name (Such as Orc Skull Ram or Elven Curve Blade)
BONUS FEAT: Humans select one extra feat at 1st level.
They can cherry pick their primary stats and their dump-stat (this is, in effect, twice as good as the regular human Ability Score adjustment) AND they can pick up any martial or exotic weapon (I really don't see why you even bothered to put the "restriction" there), which is worth a feat alone. It's the ultimate cheese. With that, there's even less reason to play other races.
I really do wonder what you think this would accomplish, it seems more like changes for the sake of a change. And again, you really don't need to bump humans in power or versatility. They're already on top.
Rub-Eta wrote:
They can cherry pick their primary stats and their dump-stat (this is, in effect, twice as good as the regular human Ability Score adjustment) AND they can pick up any martial or exotic weapon (I really don't see why you even bothered to put the "restriction" there), which is worth a feat alone. It's the ultimate cheese. With that, there's even less reason to play other races.
I really do wonder what you think this would accomplish, it seems more like changes for the sake of a change. And again, you really don't need to bump humans in power or versatility. They're already on top.
Welp that's only equivalent to people cherry picking race which already have the bonuses in the primary stats they want and negatives in the stats of their choice. This is in fact far more equivalent to almost every other race in pathfinder, other races who also get martial and even exotic weapons proficiencies just for being of that race which may be equivalent to a feat but it's also equivalent to some mundane traits.
This "there's a feat that does that" logic falls apart as some feats are such incredibly low value Exotic Weapons Proficiency being one of them. You can't treat it the same as if it was a bonus feat as that as bonus feats would be spent on something far more valuable than EWP.
"It's the ultimate cheese. With that, there's even less reason to play other races."
Good.
Because that's a terrible reason to play other races.
If someone wants to play and Elf it should be primarily because they want to Role Play as an Elf. Not search through all the races for the stats that they want. Because I am fed up of Elven or Tiefling Wizards who don't give a crap about being an races that are so radically different from what's familiar, they only took it for the stats. And not to mention that so many classes other than Wizard don't have ANY race that synergises with the stats they need to have high.
"I really do wonder what you think this would accomplish"
I don't know, what the title of the thread said it was going to do?
If by "better" you mean "stronger", you've succeeded. If you don't like players cheesing with Elves and Tieflings, another alternative would be to ask them to stop the cheesing all together, instead of catering to them with new cheese.
I still don't see why you'd even need humans to be better.
Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote: Welp that's only equivalent to people cherry picking race which already have the bonuses in the primary stats they want and negatives in the stats of their choice. This is in fact far more equivalent to almost every other race in pathfinder, other races who also get martial and even exotic weapons proficiencies just for being of that race which may be equivalent to a feat but it's also equivalent to some mundane traits. Could you name some of those mundane traits? Because I don't know of any such trait. Non-Specific Weapon proficiency is hard to gain, with the exception of class and feat.
==================
And I agree with Rub-Eta that you could clarify what you mean by "better" human racial traits. It depends on the person and I don't really know what your idea of better is.
Because your changes seems more like a buff to casters.
Taking away skilled is doing away with up to 50% of fighters skill ranks, while wizards would only lose one tenth or so.
The extra class skill is better for those who have many skill ranks to go around, so that's also better for wizards.
The extra weapon proficiency is better for classes without martial weapon proficiency, namely casters.
The climb speed isn't really all that important, but you're making a str based skill easier, which is better for classes which dumps strength. Namely casters.
I don't know what you have against fighters, but you should ask your players for their opinion before you decide to buff casters.
Wonderstell wrote: Because your changes seems more like a buff to casters.
Taking away skilled is doing away with up to 50% of fighters skill ranks, while wizards would only lose one tenth or so.
Fighter's skill ranks are impossible to fix on a racial level, even Skilled is a drop in the ocean.
While it is technically true that Caster would be better for getting something that they don't have it doesn't build on what makes casters great. Exotic weapons DO build on what matrials are good at such as Bolas. Bolas would be a terrible idea for a caster considering they can already get Thunderstomp.
"The climb speed isn't really all that important, but you're making a str based skill easier, which is better for classes which dumps strength. Namely casters."
Let's follow this logic through. Remember, this climb speed gives absolutely no bonuses, the difference is they can always take a ten. Now there's the problem, their strength is so poor that taking a 10 won't do it. It will do it if they need to do something really simple like climb a ladder, which they should NOT repeatedly fail as I have seen happen. But if they want to climb the side of a building they will have to roll for it in comparison with a strength based character that can take a 10. This is thematically consistent as a big burly fighter who has trained to wear his armour without penalty climbs with great reliability. A wizard may be able to follow but is very likely to slip and fall, or fruitlessly try to haul up the first bit hopelessly.
Yes I concede that once you've got enough skill ranks and other bonuses then taking a 10 will do you well, but I'm wary to try to nerf casters like wizard and hit other dex focused builds in the process. After all, Wizards still have enough tricks up their sleeves when their physical stats fail them.
Who I really don't have it in for are Dex based fighters, monks and similar. This is the problem I see with trying to attack characteristic weaknesses of Wizards is people forget who else share such physical stats and often have such stats to emulate the advantage that Wizard has.
And please, do not take something which obviously benefits martials and might be useful for casters as a nerf to martials.
Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote: Fighter's skill ranks are impossible to fix on a racial level, even Skilled is a drop in the ocean. No, Skilled is half of the ocean. It effectively doubles the skill ranks a fighter has.
Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote: While it is technically true that Caster would be better for getting something that they don't have it doesn't build on what makes casters great. Exotic weapons DO build on what matrials are good at such as Bolas. Bolas would be a terrible idea for a caster considering they can already get Thunderstomp. But not all exotic weapons are for fun tricks such as Bolas. Many of them are just better version of martial/simple weapons.
Casters sacrifice weapon proficiency for their spells. You are making this sacrifice unimportant when you grant everyone proficiency in whatever weapon they choose. A fighter with martial proficiency won't see much of a change, but casters would undeservedly go from simple->Exotic weapons proficiency.
So while martials gain +1, casters gain +2.
Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote: Let's follow this logic through. Remember, this climb speed gives absolutely no bonuses, the difference is they can always take a ten. Actually, it also lets you keep your dexterity bonus to AC while climbing.
Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote: And please, do not take something which obviously benefits martials and might be useful for casters as a nerf to martials. It's something which obviously benefits casters and might be useful for martials.
Martials already have good weapons. Now casters will have them too. Free of charge.
Martials have low skill ranks and better class skills. Now they have even lower skill ranks while casters gain another class skill to be better at than martials.
That's like saying that wizards going from 1/3 BAB to 1/2 BAB, and clerics going from 2/3 to 3/4 BAB, is not a nerf to martials. You aren't taking anything away.
IT's like saying that everyone getting full Con bonus to HP, which martials used to get alone, is not a nerf to martials. You aren't taking anything away.
It's like saying that everyone being able to get high Str bonuses with ease, once the sole domain of martials, is not a nerf to martials. You aren't taking anything away.
It's like handing out skills and skill points based on Int, instead of relying solely on class, is not a nerf to martials. You aren't taking anything away, you're adding to everyone!
Doubling monsters hit points and raising their AC isn't a nerf to martials, it affects everyone equally, right?
Giving multiple attacks away to every class based on BAB (and monsters, too) isnt' a nerf to martials. You aren't takign anything away.
Yessirree, martials are JUST FINE. Nothing got taken away from them at all.
We'll just give armor and weapon proficencies away to other classes. we aren't taking anything away from them, so it isn't a nerf to martials.
Das Bier wrote: We'll just give armor and weapon proficencies away to other classes. we aren't taking anything away from them, so it isn't a nerf to martials. Something becomes less valuable if it can be obtained more easily by classes that don't get it automatically. Giving proficiencies freely to non-martials is indirectly a nerf to martials because you're making what they have less valuable by comparison. Consider a more extreme example where you give 9-level spellcasting with the wizard spell list to all classes while leaving existing 9-level spellcasters unchanged. Suddenly, wizards aren't as good because you can just play an unchained monk with a full BAB, 9-level spellcasting, and have more class features than a wizard.
That's an extreme example, but the principle is same. To say that giving free armor weapon proficiencies to other classes has absolutely no effect on the martial's power level is a total fallacy.
EDIT: Also, wizards and clerics don't have a 1/3 BAB and 2/3 BAB respectively.
They did in 1 and 2e, Cyrad. Thieves had 1/2 and got advanced to 3/4.
Everything I noted was a martial 'not-nerf' that happened going from 2e to 3e.
There's a reason 3e is called 'caster edition'.
Letting casters throw spells as standard actions instead of full round actions isn't a nerf to martials. You aren't taking anything from martials.
Letting Casters summon multiple creatures and control them easily isn't a nerf to martials. You aren't taking anything from martials.
etc etc etc.
FYI, casters had casting times for spells, and if they were hit at all during the casting times, they lost the spell. COuldn't move, either.
Summoning was something that took your entire attention, you couldn't cast other spells while doing it. If you did, you lost control and your summons turned on you, trying to kill you and escape service. Also, a simple dispel magic could get rid of all your summons, OR steal control of it from you. Elementals, you could only summon 1 of each element per day.
Caster edition. No nerfing of martials at all.
Wonderstell wrote:
No, Skilled is half of the ocean. It effectively doubles the skill ranks a fighter has.
I feel like I'm expected to feel grateful for going from working for $1 and hour to $2 and hour. It's still a drop in the ocean compared to what you really need.
"But not all exotic weapons are for fun tricks such as Bolas. Many of them are just better version of martial/simple weapons."
It's their choice. I welcome them making their choice.
"Casters sacrifice weapon proficiency for their spells. You are making this sacrifice unimportant when you grant everyone proficiency in whatever weapon they choose. A fighter with martial proficiency won't see much of a change, but casters would undeservedly go from simple->Exotic weapons proficiency. "
I'm getting rather fed up you saying this YET AGAIN, and for the 5th time it has to be I'm going to give you the same explanation that you don't seem to be willing to acknowledge. It's kind of rude. I feel like I am listening to you but you are not listening to me. This is a two way street, you can't just keep posting not referring to my last reasoning as if it was never there.
Wizards do far more than lose proficiency, they are FUNDAMENTALLY lacking in capability
"So while martials gain +1, casters gain +2"
Do I have to say it yet again what an irrelevant simplification that is?
"Actually, it also lets you keep your dexterity bonus to AC while climbing."
What? Oh don't try this one on, you talked about bonuses in ability to make climb checks, I remind you that it doesn't actually give them any bonuses to make climb checks, now you're bringing up something not even related to making climb checks! You know when else someone can move over obstacles while keeping their climb check?
"It's something which obviously benefits casters and might be useful for martials."
HOW!?!?!?
You NEVER EXPLAIN HOW!
How is the DC of their spells increased by having an exotic weapon? How is the Range, duration and area increased? How do they get more spells?
They DON'T. That's how!
"Martials already have good weapons. Now casters will have them too. Free of charge."
And I'd laugh when they are foolish enough to use them. And they NEVER ARE, despite all the Elven Wizards, I never saw one stupid enough to invoke their half-BAB in trying to swing their Longsword (which I will remind you for the umpteenth time, all Elves are proficient in) Hell, they never even tried to buff it with Effortless Lace.
The only really relevant upgrade is Repeating Crossbow which I am very fine with, it's a downgrade relative to a crossbow + Rapid Reload.
What I had a problem with was the Elven Wizard using a composite longbow. That was a step too far but that's not a product of any racial traits that I made, that's a product of racial traits that is in EVERYONE's core rulebook and me taking people's advice to have high point buy, allowed the wizard to have high dex and good strength.
I'm sure I remember telling you all this before...
"Martials have low skill ranks and better class skills. Now they have even lower skill ranks while casters gain another class skill to be better at than martials. "
I said I'd solve that separately, that's not something that can be solved with racial traits. Far more important for the Int7 fighters/clerics/paladins (who cannot benefit from skilled) can get a +3 in a skill they need which isn't their class skill.
Das Bier wrote: That's like saying that wizards going from 1/3 BAB to 1/2 BAB, and clerics going from 2/3 to 3/4 BAB, is not a nerf to martials. You aren't taking anything away. It's not a nerf to martials. And wizards are already in 1/2 BAB.
1/2 bab is still terrible and is only vaguely compensated by how spells from casters are usually touch based as they HAVE TO BE!
"IT's like saying that everyone getting full Con bonus to HP, which martials used to get alone, is not a nerf to martials. You aren't taking anything away."
What do you mean full con bonus? You mean a consistent rule on constitution score and Hp?
"It's like saying that everyone being able to get high Str bonuses with ease, once the sole domain of martials, is not a nerf to martials. You aren't taking anything away."
What are you talking about? How older tabletop games had extremely pedantic rules on who can put ranks where and were gotten rid of.
Still, if a Wizard buffs strength he's a pillock, even though he can.
"It's like handing out skills and skill points based on Int, instead of relying solely on class, is not a nerf to martials. You aren't taking anything away, you're adding to everyone!"
That has left Martials worse off an I have plans to deal with that but not from particular racial traits. And it has left martials worse off not because Wizards are better but because Martials usually have to dump int and in the process end up with only 1 skill rank per level.
"Doubling monsters hit points and raising their AC isn't a nerf to martials, it affects everyone equally, right?"
What is this even referring to?!!? It depends on the type of AC. Also do wizards have to just make the touch ac or do they have to make the touch AND have a DC for their spell high enough that the target fails it.
"Giving multiple attacks away to every class based on BAB (and monsters, too) isnt' a nerf to martials. You aren't takign anything away."
You seem to have lost it at this point, that's DEFINITELY something in martials favour as they have high BAB, and allows them to get more attacks in yet wizard cannot cast any more spells due to high BAB.
"Yessirree, martials are JUST FINE. Nothing got taken away from them at all."
Sarcasm comes across as just churlishness when there's nothing to be sarcastic about.
"We'll just give armor and weapon proficencies away to other classes. we aren't taking anything away from them, so it isn't a nerf to martials."
I said nothing about armour proficiencies.
If you have a problem with that you do realise that Magus is a class which exists right?
Quote: Alex Trebek's Stunt Double]I said I'd solve that separately, that's not something that can be solved with racial traits. Far more important for the Int7 fighters/clerics/paladins (who cannot benefit from skilled) can get a +3 in a skill they need which isn't their class skill. This was explained earlier, but a Int7 fighter would still gain the benefit from skilled.
Das Bier wrote:
Letting casters throw spells as standard actions instead of full round actions isn't a nerf to martials. You aren't taking anything from martials.
Letting Casters summon multiple creatures and control them easily isn't a nerf to martials. You aren't taking anything from martials.
Yes, because those literally are not nerfs to martials, those are buffs to casters.
It's like getting pay cut at work and instead of complaining about how your pay shouldn't have been cut you go into every stor to complain about how all the prices have gone up.
So if you have a criticism of casters getting buffs, then talks about casters getting buffs. Don't contort it to being about martial getting nerfs. You need to stay focused on the problem.
And by the way, I've heard every edition of every fantasy tabletop game be described as "that's why they call it the caster edition" so try slinging that in some other forum.
Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote: Das Bier wrote:
Letting casters throw spells as standard actions instead of full round actions isn't a nerf to martials. You aren't taking anything from martials.
Letting Casters summon multiple creatures and control them easily isn't a nerf to martials. You aren't taking anything from martials.
Yes, because those literally are not nerfs to martials, those are buffs to casters.
I think what they're getting at is that if a change buffs casters and martials both, it doesn't actually help the inequalities at all. More than that, better proficiencies are part of what makes martial classes unique and allows them to perform within their niche. By giving those away, you are taking away their niche protection, which is a nerf, in the same way that allowing all classes access to skills at full progression and the ability for all classes to snag Trapfinding were nerfs to the Rogue. You've raised the floor for spellcasting classes by allowing them greater access to the martial's tools at no cost, which devalues their class features.
Perhaps if I put it another way. Imagine that there's a crime-ridden city that's struggling to control its criminal element. As a step for controlling this, the police have removed all firearms from within the city limits. They may be bound by laws and procedures that sometimes serve to protect the very criminals they're intended to curb, but the cops still win sometimes because they have the edge in violent confrontations by virtue of their weapons. If I now drive through that city and give every violent criminal an AK-47, I have nerfed the cops. I didn't nerf them by taking anything away from them, I did it by making their benefits irrelevant, since the criminals now have ready access to comparable, or even superior, military options. That's what people are trying to say you're doing here.
Quote:
It's like getting pay cut at work and instead of complaining about how your pay shouldn't have been cut you go into every store to complain about how all the prices have gone up.
It's more like complaining of nepotism because the boss gave a promotion you worked for and earned to his spoiled nephew who already has a bottomless trust fund and doesn't even show up for work every day.
Quote:
So if you have a criticism of casters getting buffs, then talks about casters getting buffs. Don't contort it to being about martial getting nerfs. You need to stay focused on the problem.
It's a matter of perception. By giving away one of the few things that martials have an edge in, you're devaluing those features, which is a nerf, even if the nerf is a result of a universal change that applied to everyone.
Quote:
And by the way, I've heard every edition of every fantasy tabletop game be described as "that's why they call it the caster edition" so try slinging that in some other forum.
I can't really speak to your statement here, I don't know that I've heard more than one or two systems referred to as "the caster edition", and the ones that come to mind were intended as such. That being said, 3.X did tilt the tables vastly in favor of spellcasting classes over martial classes. In earlier editions of the game, there was much more comparative niche protection and narrative power in non-casting classes. Fighters had some of the best saves in the game and were essential for dealing with a variety of threats, rogues/thieves were the only ones capable of disarming traps and dealing with certain other obstacles, and spellcasters often took much longer to cast a spell and were much more vulnerable during the process. In every iteration of D&D, 1st to 5th, the Fighter has probably never been less essential or more replaceable than he is in the 3.X editions. Part of this is because he was directly nerfed in areas like saves and narrative options, and part of this was because the things that made him unique were more widely and cheaply available to a larger number of classes.
To the original post- It would have been very relevant if you'd included a link to your houserules document when you asked your original question. You've bolted quite a few changes onto the game, and those changes are definitely going to affect your feedback. I know you've since referenced and explained those rules, but having them up front would have been beneficial both for maintaining a more positive tone in the thread and helping people modify their feedback in line with your game. Given the extreme degree by which you've modified the baseline assumptions of the game, I'd like to suggest a book to you- John Wick's Wicked Fantasy (the book title is, presumably, a pun on the publisher's name, because there isn't anything "sexy" wicked or even "evil" wicked in the book), reimagines all of the core races at a much higher baseline than in the CRB. Using these versions could potentially give you the ability to boost racial relevance and starting power without tacking things on piece by piece, which may be a better way of managing the issue of humans not feeling powerful or unique enough compared to the other races. It's a great read too, possibly the only gaming book I've ever read cover to cover in one sitting.
Ssalarn wrote: I think what they're getting at is that if a change buffs casters and martials both, it doesn't actually help the inequalities at all. How do you conclude that when Das explicitly referred to changes that only applied to Casters.
"More than that, better proficiencies are part of what makes martial classes unique and allows them to perform within their niche."
Is it?
because a heck of a lot of what are known as martial classes because they lack casting abilities actually seriously lack weapons proficiencies. Classic casting classes can have a wide selection of weapons proficiencies.
"By giving those away, you are taking away their niche protection, which is a nerf"
No it isn't.
A buff is a buff.
A nerf is a nerf.
If you can't talk about it as a buff, then it's no good trying to contort it to be about a nerf for something else.
I know why it is being phrased in this convoluted way, because we've already talked about it as a buff for casters and they have no answer for my reasoning. The best they seem to be able to do is ignore my reasoning and and talk around it by some extreme leap in logic.
For the record: the reasoning was that the buff to casters was inconsequential to their their most unbalancing capability; which is how powerful their spells can become. Because their most powerful spells don't synergise with any weapons. Transformation is NOT one of their most powerful spells, it is a high level spell but will leave them as a very poor fighter.
What are powerful spells are the likes of Black Tentacles. Summon Monsters. These are good. These were buffs to Casters when they got them!
"in the same way that allowing all classes access to skills at full progression and the ability for all classes to snag Trapfinding were nerfs to the Rogue"
AMEN TO THAT!
It was a terrible mechanic, it turned rogues from an appreciated variant to have in the group but not actually necessary to them being used just to bog down the gameplay with everywhere having them rub the rogue on the set to find traps. Yet without a rogue available no sane GM would have traps that only a rogue could find.
So the game became tediously predictable. It just becomes a familiar boring routine of have the rogue check for traps. And if there isn't a rogue, well, GM would never be so cruel as to litter unfindable traps.
The best sort of traps are those that bring dynamism to the gameplay, importantly, traps you can reliably find in the right circumstance but not others. This brings in important elements of strategy, for example, as you are moving through the dungeon out of initiative you can always find traps though you may have to use illumination to find them which can give away your position. Yet when you go into initiative, you can't take 10's on perception any more, if you run off someplace you've got to take a chance you may not see a trap and run right into it.
You have to think more laterally about the world, like if the enemy can move through here, they must have a way of telling where the traps are. Or at the very least, if I follow where they go then I won't trigger any traps.
And that's obviously a direct nerf to the rogue, but it nerfed them from a duty they very reasonably appreciated not being a-thing-for-them-to-do any more.
Rogues didn't just lose trapfinding, they got a lot, especially in Rogue Unchained.
"It's more like complaining of nepotism because the boss gave a promotion you worked for and earned to his spoiled nephew who already has a bottomless trust fund and doesn't even show up for work every day."
I can't possibly see how as nerf or buffs aren't mutually exclusive like how being promoted to a single position is.
"It's a matter of perception."
It's a matter of obfuscation, that's the perspective, to obscure and muddy perspective of the actual matter of concern.
"I can't really speak to your statement here, I don't know that I've heard more than one or two systems referred to as "the caster edition", and the ones that come to mind were intended as such."
Is this to reinforce my point?
"That being said, 3.X did tilt the tables vastly in favor of spellcasting classes over martial classes."
Wow, we are going TOTALLY off topic, to multiple versions back, instead of talking about things as they actually are, they are being compared relative to things that many people reasonably don't have any experience in as they may only ever have started with DnD3.5.
This is Paizo forums, I think I owe some respect to my host to talk about their product rather than something that Hasbro owns.
"part of this was because the things that made him unique were more widely and cheaply available to a larger number of classes."
Trying to look at this objectively rather than relatively (and relative to something I simply have to take your word on) this is still a two way street. And something I am trying to help with.
Ummm, PF is part of the 3.X edition. Nothing tweaked in Pathfinder did anything to correct the changes that resulted in it being referred to as the "caster edition" and Pathfinder's initial advertising was even "3.5 lives!". And, you're the one who decided to address the "caster edition" bit, I was just explaining the framework for why it's considered that. It's odd that you even agree with my statement about how buffing everyone else to be able to perform the Rogue's job was a nerf to the Rogue, but then continue to argue that buffs can't be nerfs. Yes, they can. When you give away something unique to Class A so that everyone now has access to it, you have nerfed Class A, even if the method of that nerf was buffing everyone else. You have taken what was unique, and made it not unique, thus lowering its value, or nerfing it.
Picture the game as an XY graph, where X is something that kind of resembles your class functionality, with the low point of X being " capable of being really good at one thing to the exclusion of other options" and the high point being "capable of being good at almost anything without excluding other options". Your Y bar is then a measure of how good you are at the thing(s) you're supposed to be good at, with the closest section being "not terribly good" and the farthest section being "the best there is at what I do". The Fighter's position on the X arm is pretty firmly fixed towards the bottom; he just doesn't have the flexibility to truly master most options out of combat. His position on the Y arm, however, is pretty far out, in that he can deliver truly massive amounts of damage by virtue of his proficiencies and feats. A 20th level Fighter's full attack is about the hardest thing in the game, with the exception of some mounted pounce shenanigans that take advantage of the poorly executed mounted combat rules. The farther you push everyone else along that Y arm (with things like free proficiency in the weapon of your choice, bonus feats, etc.), the less value the Fighter has compared to his peers, particularly those who were already sitting higher on the X axis. You're nerfing him by virtue of shifting the floor in a way that benefits everyone else more than it does him.
The same thing is essentially true of humans, though they have an advantage the Fighter doesn't in that they're normally one of the strongest and most versatile races. By giving everyone the things the humans already had, you've devalued that which made the humans special in the first place, and now you're left sifting through options trying to make them unique again.
Saying that you're looking at this objectively rather than relatively isn't going to improve the game, at least not in my opinion. Pathfinder is already balanced for the party to win. The underpinnings of the game are literally tilted in the party's favor, so there's no base deficit you need to make up. That means every time you're modifying mechanics in a particular race or classes favor, the only way to objectively gauge the impact of that change is to look at its effects relative to the other options in the game. Did you make class A or race B less relevant? Is that something you actually wanted for your game, or is it an unintended side effect of an attempt to correct a perceived issue elsewhere?
Alex, if it isn't too much trouble, could you use the quote format? Your posts are often rather long, and it becomes hard to follow them without some sort of distinction of when one paragraph ends and another begins.
Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote: because a heck of a lot of what are known as martial classes because they lack casting abilities actually seriously lack weapons proficiencies. Classic casting classes can have a wide selection of weapons proficiencies. Please provide examples.
You do often voice some of your opinions as facts, and then get dismissive when someone disproves your claim.
For example, you have repeatedly said that exotic weapon proficiency can easily be taken with mundane traits, with no link or quote. And I have asked you for said link atleast thrice now. If it exists, I would be glad to know of it.
When you don't allow us to validate your claims then the arguments based on these claims fall flat.
Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote: Looking at other sources I realise there are several traits which let you have any weapon proficiency of your choice!. Mere traits! Case in point.
Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote: "Actually, it also lets you keep your dexterity bonus to AC while climbing."
What? Oh don't try this one on, you talked about bonuses in ability to make climb checks, I remind you that it doesn't actually give them any bonuses to make climb checks, now you're bringing up something not even related to making climb checks! You know when else someone can move over obstacles while keeping their climb check?
Actually, you said that climbing speed (without the +8) only allows someone to take 10 on climb checks. I disproved this faulty claim by providing factual evidence. You completely missed the point and attacked a statement of facts as if it was an argument.
Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote:
Yup. You don't need to be a professional combatant/adventurer to see the need for a weapon.
Why shouldn't a barkeep who still wants to be a barkeep and have ranks in being a barkeep not have a "peacemaker" under the bar? That is, a bat or a club to break up fights.
He does. And when a bar fight breaks out he swings it around like crazy, and he has a pretty good chance to hit even with his nonproficiency penalty on his likely ac 10 opponents.
But then Jeremiah shows up. Hes been training the last 5 years of his life in fighting. Thats right, hes a level 1 fighter. And he whips out his long sword and makes that barkeep look like an amateur with his bat.
Because he IS an amateur with his bat.
He never trained to use the bat, he doesnt know a complex fighting style with the bat, he just owns the bat. Thus, nonproficient.
Same for the merchant. He might know that he should have a weapon and he probably knows an Estoc is a good weapon, that doesnt mean he has the training to use the estoc as well as someone who actually trained to use it.
Baval wrote: Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote:
Yup. You don't need to be a professional combatant/adventurer to see the need for a weapon.
Why shouldn't a barkeep who still wants to be a barkeep and have ranks in being a barkeep not have a "peacemaker" under the bar? That is, a bat or a club to break up fights.
He does. And when a bar fight breaks out he swings it around like crazy, and he has a pretty good chance to hit even with his nonproficiency penalty on his likely ac 10 opponents.
But then Jeremiah shows up. Hes been training the last 5 years of his life in fighting. Thats right, hes a level 1 fighter. WHAT!?!?
It takes precisely 0xp to become a 1st level fighter. Considering the scaling to get to even level 2 fighter there's just no way 5 years is for that. And being a fighter grants you more than proficiency in a single weapon.
Quote: And he whips out his long sword and makes that barkeep look like an amateur with his bat.
Because he IS an amateur with his bat.
He never trained to use the bat, he doesnt know a complex fighting style with the bat, he just owns the bat. Thus, nonproficient.
Then why is a level 0-nothing Elf proficient in both a Composite Longbow and a Longsword? Not mere familiarity, full proficiency.
This is special pleading I have a problem with, for a human to have racial proficiency in just one weapon then the game supposedly falls apart, yet every other race is granted many weapons proficiencies.
Quote: Same for the merchant. He might know that he should have a weapon and he probably knows an Estoc is a good weapon, that doesnt mean he has the training to use the estoc as well as someone who actually trained to use it. Why not? How many people in our modern reality buy the best firearms the law will allow and quite routinely become competent with them.
And back to fighters, a Level Zero barkeep is not as good as a Fighter, they don't have the BAB. They don't have the armour proficiencies. That's the distinction in skill. Non-proficient means you are EXTREMELY unusure about the weapon, you have almost no idea what's going to happen when you try to use it. A Level 1 fighter really isn't all that much, he's barely more than an amateur.
The SKILL DIFFERENCE is in things like BAB and Weapons Training bonuses and feats related to weapons and Automatic Bonus Progression.
Ssalarn wrote: It's odd that you even agree with my statement about how buffing everyone else to be able to perform the Rogue's job was a nerf to the Rogue That's obviously not even remotely close to what I said.
I cannot have any discussion with you, somewhere along the way fundamental meaning is lost which makes it categorically impossible to move on from anything. You don't seem to be actually reading what I say, just skimming over it to search for agreement or contradictions then gleaning a gist from it.
I said a NERF to a rogue was a nerf. What I shouldn't have to explain is that traps also got nerfed as they no longer NEEDED a rogue to find them. That's a quality of traps changing from losing their farcical magical quality that a non-rogue could stare at a trap for eons and never see it.
Quote: When you give away something unique to Class A so that everyone now has access to it They didn't get buffed, traps got nerfed.
Rightly. It was a terrible idea to peg one design element to only one class.
Quote: Picture the game as an XY graph, where X is something that kind of resembles your class functionality Your following description was completely incomprehensible and still obviously founded on fuzzy generalisations without any rigorous backing. Don't draw a graph for me, don't make something that looks like statistics but is numbers lucked from thin air.
Quote: Pathfinder is already balanced for the party to win. The underpinnings of the game are literally tilted in the party's favor, so there's no base deficit you need to make up. That means every time you're modifying mechanics in a particular race or classes favor, the only way to objectively gauge the impact of that change is to look at its effects relative to the other options in the game. Why bother repeating myself again, you didn't listen before, why will you listen this time?
How do I know if I tell you why that is irrelevant, that I never claimed the problem was the game had a problem with being won, even if I were to tell you it was about gameplay variety... you've proven you'll ignore that when it's convenient.
You'll go back to lecturing me about how the game can be won as if I ever said it couldn't.
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Okay, my mistake. I thought you might be a reasonable person looking for legitimate assistance, not a rude and dismissive jerk who accuses others of his own follies, more obsessed with feeling superior than actually having a two sided conversation. I can see why others have abandoned your thread already, and will follow their lead.
Good day, and good luck.
Wonderstell wrote: Please provide examples.
You do often voice some of your opinions as facts, and then get dismissive when someone disproves your claim.
For example, you have repeatedly said that exotic weapon proficiency can easily be taken with mundane traits, with no link or quote. And I have asked you for said link atleast thrice now. If it exists, I would be glad to know of it.
When you don't allow us to validate your claims then the arguments based on these claims fall flat.
Weapon Style and Tattooed mystic for a few exotic weapons, Heirloom weapon certainty allows both freedom AND other bonuses with weapons proficiency. That's all the precedent I need that weapons proficiency are so utterly guarded as iron-clad class-only features. That and all my other reasoning, not least the irrefutable precedent set by other racial traits.
But I won't take your bait. I NEVER hinged ANYTHING on it having to be a perfect clone of a mundane trait. I am stating the fact that exotic weapons. This is another fallacy so to sum up so no one is falling for your fast one.
My claim: Weapons Proficiency up to exotic is fine for many reasons, as just one of many examples but not limited or dependant on this is how mundane traits allow weapons proficiency, even exotic weapons proficiency.
Quote: Actually, you said that climbing speed (without the +8) only allows someone to take 10 on climb checks. I disproved this faulty claim by providing factual evidence. You completely missed the point and attacked a statement of facts as if it was an argument. When you say things like that it makes my blood boil, because it's such a contrived attack that betrays such staggering contempt you clearly have towards me.
You know perfectly well I was replying to a claim it make checks more likely to succeed and said that it didn't, only of RELATING TO THE ACTUAL CLIMB CHECK does it allow them to take-a-ten. I made this clear from the VERY BEGINNING, to have a climb speed and all that entails EXCEPT for the +8 racial bonus. It would be stating the obvious to bring up dex bonus to climb when it was about how things could be climbed that were previously unclimbeable.
If you are going to take a lack of repeatedly stating-the-obvious as proof of ignorance or deception then you are just trying to derail this discussion.
Ssalarn wrote: Okay, my mistake. I thought you might be a reasonable person looking for legitimate assistance, not a rude and dismissive jerk who accuses others of his own follies, more obsessed with feeling superior than actually having a two sided conversation. I can see why others have abandoned your thread already, and will follow their lead.
Good day, and good luck.
The failure in this being an equitable and two sided conversation came about from your inability to actually address what I was saying rather than talk past me, just telling me how to do things without any actual reasons. That is being reasonable, to use reasons. That's legitimate assistance.
You may wish I was the one being rude and dismissive, but it's you who are dismissing me and it's you who is calling me names. That is accusing others of your own follies.
"I can see why others have abandoned your thread already, and will follow their lead."
They came here thinking all they had to do was insist forcefully enough and I would do what they wouldn't do, that I would capitulate to their demands yet they wouldn't capitulate to anyone else's.
Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote: Wonderstell wrote: Please provide examples.
You do often voice some of your opinions as facts, and then get dismissive when someone disproves your claim.
For example, you have repeatedly said that exotic weapon proficiency can easily be taken with mundane traits, with no link or quote. And I have asked you for said link atleast thrice now. If it exists, I would be glad to know of it.
When you don't allow us to validate your claims then the arguments based on these claims fall flat.
Weapon Style and Tattooed mystic for a few exotic weapons, Heirloom weapon certainty allows both freedom AND other bonuses with weapons proficiency. That's all the precedent I need that weapons proficiency are so utterly guarded as iron-clad class-only features. That and all my other reasoning, not least the irrefutable precedent set by other racial traits. Well, I'm glad you started to use quotes. It is much easier to follow what you post now.
Ignoring the videly known Heirloom weapon which only grants proficiency in that specific weapon, could you link Weapon Style? I've never heard of it, and a trait-search didn't give me anything.
====================
And I have kinda lost track of what the discussion is about right now.
|
8 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Could someone please lock this thread?
Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote: ... So, to get back on track....
Alex,
1) Do you still feel that Humans are weak compared to other classes and need changes?
2) Would you make any changes to your initial ideas in the original post now?
3) Are there any issues you would like input on?
Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote: Baval wrote: Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote:
Yup. You don't need to be a professional combatant/adventurer to see the need for a weapon.
Why shouldn't a barkeep who still wants to be a barkeep and have ranks in being a barkeep not have a "peacemaker" under the bar? That is, a bat or a club to break up fights.
He does. And when a bar fight breaks out he swings it around like crazy, and he has a pretty good chance to hit even with his nonproficiency penalty on his likely ac 10 opponents.
But then Jeremiah shows up. Hes been training the last 5 years of his life in fighting. Thats right, hes a level 1 fighter. WHAT!?!?
It takes precisely 0xp to become a 1st level fighter. Considering the scaling to get to even level 2 fighter there's just no way 5 years is for that. And being a fighter grants you more than proficiency in a single weapon.
Quote: And he whips out his long sword and makes that barkeep look like an amateur with his bat.
Because he IS an amateur with his bat.
He never trained to use the bat, he doesnt know a complex fighting style with the bat, he just owns the bat. Thus, nonproficient.
Then why is a level 0-nothing Elf proficient in both a Composite Longbow and a Longsword? Not mere familiarity, full proficiency.
This is special pleading I have a problem with, for a human to have racial proficiency in just one weapon then the game supposedly falls apart, yet every other race is granted many weapons proficiencies.
Quote: Same for the merchant. He might know that he should have a weapon and he probably knows an Estoc is a good weapon, that doesnt mean he has the training to use the estoc as well as someone who actually trained to use it. Why not? How many people in our modern reality buy the best firearms the law will allow and quite routinely become competent with them.
And back to fighters, a Level Zero barkeep is not as good as a Fighter, they don't have the BAB. They don't have the armour... 1. you have no idea what a backstory is do you? or do you thonk commoners are commoners because they like being terrorized by goblins and not because they dont have the years of training it takes to get a pc class?
2 because elves admire the weapons and almost all members of their race DO learn to use them,as part of their culture.
3. key word: become. they need to train to learn to use the firearms, we dont have a culture where every child is taught to use a gun. therefore, anyone who learns has done something to learn it of his own volition, thus that INDIVIDUAL, not the race, would get the feat or proficiency.
thats the difference between a race and an individual?
By your logic, since any human can potentially learn any weapon and any spell, all humans should have proficiency in all weapons and spell like abilities for all spells. After all, its possible to learn them.
4 nonproficiency is a -4 penalty, and a level 1 fighter has a +1bab over an expert. that amounts to a 25% less chance to hit. fight a trained swordsman, even an amateur swordsman, i GUARANTEE you will find he is more than 25% better than you at swordfighting
And no, "non proficient" doesnt mean you have no idea whats going to happen when you swing the weapon, thats ridiculous. Proficient means "skilled", synonyms include: skilled, skillful, expert, experienced, accomplished, competent, masterly, adept, adroit, deft, dexterous, able, professional, consummate, complete, master
Non proficient means you are not skilled in using that weapon, not a master, not deft. It doesnt mean youre an idiot.
As for your "special pleading" comment, its ridiculous. You said so yourself, Elves are built to be wizards, and then they get proficiency in....2 martial weapons wizards will probably never use.
Dwarves get familiarity.
Pretty much every other race gets martial weapon proficiencies if at all.
Meanwhile humans get ANY feat they want, which is likely way more usable than "I can use a longsword maybe, but probably not"
And youre proposing they ALSO get "I can choose any weapon that is actually useful to me and get proficiency in that"
And your justification is "people will probably pick bolas and lassos and keep using martial weapons"
to that there can only be one response:
lol
know what? I was at work with my original post and I responded without reading the rest of the thread, which I have just done.
Im ejecting. You play your game howeeeeever you want.
You think humans are weak? Gooood. You think humans deserve to auto pass all climb checks forever because some people can climb trees? Cooooool
You think all humans should have innate magic and proficiency in a weapon that is difficult to learn because every single human goes out of their way to learn one in their childhood? Suuuure.
Its your game, screw up the balance all you want. Doesnt bother me and you refuse to be taught why youre wrong, or even to comprehend metaphors and examples.
Later.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Going to attempt to ignore the mudslinging going around, but I doubt I’ll post again after this. Starting with problems I see in the existing thread, then moving to my own (modest) suggestions on improving humans for your game.
---
Ability Scores:
Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote: ABILITY SCORE: +2 to any Physical Ability score, +2 to any Mental score and -2 to any score. You improved this from your original, but it is still broken. Combining the model of what other races use with the flexibility to put the bonuses/penalties into the score you want just makes the human stat array flat out better than nearly every other race out there, and for nearly every class/build.
What makes the existing human work is the idea that they have flexibility where others are locked into a specific package. While the human doesn’t get two boosted stats (unless they trade out their most powerful racial option), they can pick where they want to put their boost.
Previously, you claimed that, “Trading -2 CON for all the elven stuff is a damn good deal.” However, this is your opinion. While I’m sure many others share that opinion, there are also many others that wouldn’t. That’s what makes the ability scores for other races interesting – the fact that they’re part of a package deal that you have to take or leave as a whole. For elves specifically, I have many players that simply won’t touch them because of that CON penalty making it easier for the character to die – making it too big of a cost for them to stomach.
In contrast, your flexible -2stat will just make players dump stats even harder. Have a problem with INT 7 players? Well now they’re all INT 5, solving absolutely nothing.
Climb Speed:
Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote: Fight or Flight response, humans get pretty good at climbing when under pressure. To go back to my point, they are doing WAY TOO BADLY for what makes logical sense. The prospect of changing all climb check DCs is too much and unnecessary. Again, a reasoning for human’s being better than everyone else at climbing that isn’t limited to humans at all. The fight of flight response is a common survival instinct in animals, and it would certainly be present in other humanoid races.
Additionally, your problem is that PC’s are doing too badly at Climb checks – the solution to this isn’t, “buff the GM’s favorite race,” it’s actually looking at how climb is working in your games and trying to fix that. Otherwise, all you’re trying to do is punish players that don’t pick humans by making them still have problems while humans have it solved.
Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote: Human civilisations that so often fight with each other build the tallest walls and still humans get over them. For example human soldiers are expected to reliably climb over high walls, even while being timed. So trained soldiers (with skill ranks) have climbed over high defensive walls (typically with ropes/grappling hooks/other assistance) and thus all humans are proficient enough at climbing to warrant a natural climb speed without the use of such tools? I don’t see how that makes sense at all.
Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote: See Climb Unchained:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/climb
That's basically all they are getting, climb unchained at level 1 rather than level 10.
You do realize that options limited to level 10 are typically very powerful when compared to options at level 1, right? Not to mention that Climb Unchained requires; level 10, investing 10 skill ranks (limited resource) into that skill, and taking a feat [Signature Skill] unless you are a specific class [Rogue].
Once again, if you really think this is necessary to make climbing work in your games – then give it to everyone, don’t limit it to a single race.
Finally, consider that the current (very few) races which get a natural non-land speed don’t get such because they’re kinda good at it – they get it because the entire species lives in a particular environment and has developed specifically for that environment (look at swim speed). Humans have the benefit of living in nearly every environment – but as a result aren’t specifically developed for any one environment and have to rely on other means.
Weapon Proficiency:
Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote: Yup. You don't need to be a professional combatant/adventurer to see the need for a weapon.
Why shouldn't a barkeep who still wants to be a barkeep and have ranks in being a barkeep not have a "peacemaker" under the bar? That is, a bat or a club to break up fights.
I agree fully! But this is not what you are proposing. What you just described is someone using a simple weapon (club). Most classes already have full proficiency with simple weapons and even a Commoner (NPC Class) can pick a single simple weapon to be proficient with. The idea that anyone can see the need for a (simple) weapon is already supported by the system.
Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote: This is special pleading I have a problem with, for a human to have racial proficiency in just one weapon then the game supposedly falls apart, yet every other race is granted many weapons proficiencies. Every other race? Outside of core, I can’t think of many that get automatic proficiencies period.
Also no, you’re not arguing for humans to get racial proficiency in one weapon – you’re arguing for humans to get racial proficiency in any one weapon. Those are two very different things. What you are proposing is that every human, during some period of their life, picks any one weapon that exists and strikes their fancy to gain full proficiency with it. As a result, walking through an average human village should have sights like a village girl wielding a nunchaku, town guards holding two-bladed swords, bandits attacking using a flying talon, and a grandmother skilled in use of the garrote. (Not to mention half the teen boys should be proficient with a katana because they heard it was cool.)
In any serious setting, this would come off as zany and nonsensical. [Of course, if you want a zany setting, then you should just go ahead and remove weapon proficiency entirely or give everyone a weapon proficiency for free – but giving it to just humans doesn’t make any sense outside of trying to make humans better than anyone else at weapons.]
Other:
Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote: Because I am fed up of Elven or Tiefling Wizards who don't give a crap about being an races that are so radically different from what's familiar, they only took it for the stats. This is a player problem, not a system problem. Talk to your players about the setting they are going to be playing in, which races are common in that setting, and make it clear that NPCs will react to what race they are playing (especially anything very uncommon in that region). Then follow up with this – make some NPCs treat unusual races normally, some fascinated/curious about them, and some suspicious/hostile towards them. Don’t go out of your way to punish them for doing something different, but do make it clear that their choices have effects.
In an extreme situation, I almost imagine that you’d be happier just telling players that, “these are the races commonly present in this setting and you can’t pick anything outside of this list.”
-----
Now, my personal suggestions for how you could improve humans without going overboard (though I don’t think they really need it).
Extra Skilled: Humans gain four additional skill ranks at first level and one additional rank whenever they gain a level. These ranks are granted after determining ranks from class+INT mod.
Basically, giving out some extra skill points isn’t game-breaking (my group’s done it through a flaws system + GM rewards before) and allows humans to get points in more skills compared to other races at level 1 (when it can be really important) and overall get more skill ranks at higher levels compared to races that only get a class skill. This will also let more of your players put a rank into things like Climb, instead of thinking that they need to spend all their skill points into just Perception.
Extra Trait: Humans gain an additional trait at character creation.
One of the problems with your original write up seemed to be tossing in things with the justification that they’re similar in power to a trait. So why not just give humans an extra trait to play with? And if you want to make it a bit more powerful, allow this additional trait to ignore the normal rules of being unable to be the same type as another trait (opening up numerous small combinations for humans and humans alone).
What this does is allow humans a bit more power, while forcing them to make a choice about where to spend their limited resource (number of traits). Thematically it also flavors this bonus as something related to the individual’s experiences instead of something intrinsic to the race.
And to go along with the above – considering that you want to add exotic weapon options to the game & think (like most people) that Exotic Weapon Proficiency is too suboptimal as a feat, then why not make a version of it into a Combat Trait instead? For example:
Unusual Weapon (Combat Trait): In the past, you became fascinated with a weapon not typically used by those around you and dedicated yourself to learning its use.
Effect: Choose one type of weapon. You count as proficient with that weapon and may make attack rolls normally with it.
This will allow a greater access to exotic weapons in your game – allowing any race to pick this up as one of their starting traits (or ignore it and pick something else). Humans with their greater access to traits would also have an easier time of doing this than other races (especially if you allow human’s extra trait to potentially get them 2 combat traits instead of being limited to one per type).
I feel like my previous translation did not work as needed, perhaps we need an "anger translator?"
AlaskaRPGer wrote: 1) Do you still feel that Humans are weak compared to other classes and need changes?
2) Would you make any changes to your initial ideas in the original post now?
3) Are there any issues you would like input on?
All these questions have been asked already, and answered already.
Gulthor wrote: Could someone please lock this thread? I'm actually inclined to agree, so many people are not reading anything that is posted, many others are replying to comments that don't actually address what is said in the comment they reply to. They are repeating themselves on matters they have already had counters toas if stating them again means they won't be countered again. They are going wildly off topic, repeatedly. They are using it as a soapbox to demand their spurious theories be accepted under the threat of accusing dismissiveness.
Though that's probably not your reasoning, your problem as stated from previous comments is not that so many posters are being unreasonable, but that their unreasonable demands are not being met.
But it seems some still have some points that deserve addressing.
Baval wrote:
1. you have no idea what a backstory is do you? or do you think commoners are commoners because they like being terrorized by goblins and not because they dont have the years of training it takes to get a pc class? Keep track of the special pleading here, humans are expected to get good with weapons due to the world being dangerous, but that cannot be to an extent as limited as mere proficiency in one weapon but only as going for a particular class.
Quote: 2 because elves admire the weapons and almost all members of their race DO learn to use them,as part of their culture. And here's the special pleading, Elves can have proficiency in multiple weapons because of their culture, but humans can't have racial proficiency in anything.
Quote: 3. key word: become. they need to train to learn to use the firearms, we dont have a culture where every child is taught to use a gun. therefore, anyone who learns has done something to learn it of his own volition, thus that INDIVIDUAL, not the race, would get the feat or proficiency.
thats the difference between a race and an individual?
Then that is represented in a human who doesn't choose any proficiency. They can choose it but if they don't then fine.
Plenty of human cultures have it where EVERYONE is expected to be proficient in at least one weapon, even if it's just a knife for self-defence, whatever they deem appropriate and they don't have to become a full blown fighter for that to be the case because their day job is still as a fisherman or something.
By your logic, since any human can potentially learn any weapon and any spell Not any spell, I did set restrictions. They are spell-like insofar as they replicate a spell effect, remember, but ultimately they aren't actually a spell, it's more like they are drawing from the same natural source of magic in reality as casters do. Divine casters invoke the power of the gods, arcane casters have a special manipulation of arcane manipulation of reality, spell like ability is something innate.
Quote: all humans should have proficiency in all weapons and spell like abilities for all spells. After all, its possible to learn them That's arguing from extremes, you can't have anything as if you have anything you have EVERYTHING.
I have set limits, ONE proficiency. You can't complain I haven't set limits when I have.
This is special pleading, it's as disingenuous as objecting to humans knowing how to speak one language, by the logic that if they are excepted to know one language then they can learn all languages and that's too powerful so they cannot know any.
Quote: nonproficiency is a -4 penalty, and a level 1 fighter has a +1bab over an expert. that amounts to a 25% less chance to hit. fight a trained swordsman, even an amateur swordsman, i GUARANTEE you will find he is more than 25% better than you at swordfighting But that's the thing... THEY ARE TRAINED WITH IT!
Humans CAN be trained in a weapon of their choice, this is an equivalent of how elves get a far wider and better choice. Realise that despite a composite longbow being a martial weapon it is much harder to use than any crossbow, even repeating crossbow and it is better too, still a free action to reload only you can add strength to damage and much better arrows compared to crossbow bolts.
And no, "non proficient" doesnt mean you have no idea whats going to happen when you swing the weapon, thats ridiculous. Proficient means "skilled", synonyms include: skilled, skillful, expert, experienced, accomplished, competent, masterly, adept, adroit, deft, dexterous, able, professional, consummate, complete, master. Non proficient means you are not skilled in using that weapon, not a master, not deft. It doesnt mean youre an idiot. Conjecture.
So inexperienced means you still know how it's going to act? Lact of deft also implies knowing how it's going to be yet
Realise that -4 means they are going to miss a statue 40% of the time.
A Statue of a medium sized person would be exactly like a medium sized person with dexterity zero so AC10 -5 to ac, no armour, yet anyone with a weapon of their choice, a weapon they tried to get good with, a roll of 9 or higher is needed.
Here is what is fair: Societies may highly expect weapons proficiencies for all, in rigid cultures like elves there isn't much choice, but an upside of this standardization is it can cover more weapons. Humans - common with elves and dwarves and orcs - have similar conventions only far more open choice. A downside of everyone choosing anything is they only end up proficient in one weapon, though it could be anything.
Quote: As for your "special pleading" comment, its ridiculous. You said so yourself, Elves are built to be wizards, and then they get proficiency in....2 martial weapons wizards will probably never use. Yes, that's right, you are special pleading, it's supposedly unbalanced for humans to get great weapons proficiencies when other races get a great selection of them.
Quote: Dwarves get familiarity. And proficiencies.
Quote: Pretty much every other race gets martial weapon proficiencies if at all. Yes, in martial weapons which are better than exotic weapons.
Repeating Crossbow is not as good as a Composite Longbow. I shouldn't have to repeat my reasoning on this yet again, every time I do I get no response to it and it gets left for a few replies then brought up again.
Quote: Meanwhile humans get ANY feat they want, which is likely way more usable than "I can use a longsword maybe, but probably not" Everyone gets a feat when they take a level in anything. And variant rules give everyone even more feats at level 1. Remember, it's even explicitly phrased as "an extra feat" it's not even that special.
Quote: And youre proposing they ALSO get "I can choose any weapon that is actually useful to me and get proficiency in that" Yes, only one weapon rather than the bevy of weapons that other races get.
Quote: And your justification is "people will probably pick bolas and lassos and keep using martial weapons"
to that there can only be one response:
lol
That's because it is irrefutable that you have to resort to such a response. You probably took a look at the Exotic Weapons, realised they're all a bit naff, none of them have any real primary purpose viability. Every time I've pushed them to really say what would be unbalancing they concede that exotic weapons aren't as powerful as they presumed.
So you do all you can do to reinforce your preconceived notions and scoff. Conveniently decide to give up on reasoning, you realise it's hopeless, despite your strongly held opinions you have no actual reasons to object. We are dealing with your stereotypical ideas and assumptions.
Quote: know what? I was at work with my original post and I responded without reading the rest of the thread, which I have just done.
Im ejecting. You play your game howeeeeever you want.
You think humans are weak? Gooood. You think humans deserve to auto pass all climb checks forever because some people can climb trees? Cooooool
You think all humans should have innate magic and proficiency in a weapon that is difficult to learn because every single human goes out of their way to learn one in their childhood? Suuuure.
Its your game, screw up the balance all you want. Doesnt bother me and you refuse to be taught why youre wrong, or even to comprehend metaphors and examples.
Later.
This is damage control.
You can't actually argue with my climb rule, so you have to attack a straw-man version of it that allows to "auto pass all climb checks forever" which is not the case because it in itself grants no bonuses to climb, you will NEVER be able to make a climb check that you could not have made before. This is a fact. This is irrefutable. You are fabricating to make out otherwise.
"You think all humans should have innate magic and proficiency in a weapon that is difficult to learn because every single human goes out of their way to learn one in their childhood? Suuuure."
You apparently think it's okay for every other race to get it.
This is damage control, you are trying to present it as unusual for one race to get weapons proficiencies or spell-like-abilities.
Spell-like abilities can only even exist for races!
You can't actually show how it's screws up balance without resorting to blatant straw-man accusations. Without special pleading "how can humans have spell like abilities!" as if other races don't get FAR more powerful spell like abilities. As if
Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote: AlaskaRPGer wrote: 1) Do you still feel that Humans are weak compared to other classes and need changes?
2) Would you make any changes to your initial ideas in the original post now?
3) Are there any issues you would like input on?
All these questions have been asked already, and answered already.
Alex - While you state that you have previously responded to these points, I respectfully disagree in what I infer you mean to imply is that there is no value in responding to them again. Re-reading this thread and your responses, my personal take on your answers, when I made my reply, would have been:
1) Yes
2) Some
3) Yes (however you are hesitant to make any changes based on some input as you feel that input is invalid).
The reason I asked these questions, even if you feel you already answered them, was to verify my understanding of your point of view. I did not want to make assumptions, and I apologize if how I understand your point of views are incorrect, but as you did not respond to my request to make it clear to me, the assumptions are all I have.
Charon Onozuka made a fantastic reply after mine, and all I ask is while understanding that you have previously responded to my 3 questions above in previous posts, while taking his response in mind, I will ask them again:
1) Do you still feel that Humans are weak compared to other classes and need changes?
2) Would you make any changes to your initial ideas in the original post now?
3) Are there any issues you would like input on?
Please note that I am not asking them again to be rude, but with the thought that it is possible that your responses have changed since your original post as you obtained different information - in particular, Charon Onozuka's reply. I also ask this to keep the topic on rails, and to help you obtain any input you are requesting.
Edited to fix my grammar.
Charon Onozuka wrote:
You improved this from your original, but it is still broken. Combining the model of what other races use with the flexibility to put the bonuses/penalties into the score you want just makes the human stat array flat out better than nearly every other race out there, and for nearly every class/build.
What makes the existing human work is the idea that they have flexibility where others are locked into a specific package. While the human doesn’t get two boosted stats (unless they trade out their most powerful racial option), they can pick where they want to put their boost.
What is actually broken here?
Be specific, don't just say it's a better option, what's broken about it? What actually leads to an insurmountable imbalance?
You go on to talk about balance for Wizards as an example. Wizards. The posterchild of OP classes.
How about you address my actual reasoning, which is that not everyone wants to play a Wizard. Because what I addressed was the overlooked classes like Paladin and Monk. It's not just about what Wizard wants, okay?
Quote: Previously, you claimed that, “Trading -2 CON for all the elven stuff is a damn good deal.” However, this is your opinion. While I’m sure many others share that opinion, there are also many others that wouldn’t. That’s what makes the ability scores for other races interesting – the fact that they’re part of a package deal that you have to take or leave as a whole. For elves specifically, I have many players that simply won’t touch them because of that CON penalty making it easier for the character to die – making it too big of a cost for them to stomach. I know exactly what you mean.
I accept that it is an unusual opinion... and it is something that should align with you wanting to play an Elf.
I want people to play an Elf because they want to play an elf, they want to role play that certain type of being as set forth by Tolkien and others, not for the ability scores. If they don't have any clue, I want them to play human, it's better than at level 5 everyone being surprised "whoa, Kevin was an Elf all this time? He never showed it".
Part of choosing a particular race is you will have overall the same ability score modifiers as a human (+2 in one physical ability score, +2 in one mental, and -2 anywhere else) but it will be in a set way to reflect the particulars of how that race is.
When you want to play an elf you need to accept you won't take inherent compromise on mental stats but will in constitution if anywhere. Because they are more fragile
And for Wizards, they often cannot lean on their HP at all. They simply cannot afford to even get hit as if they are being targeted, it's because they know they are a wizard, which means they'll be hit to disrupt their spells. Also, Wizards have so many easy ways of helping their HP such as Defending Bone and False Life.
Quote: In contrast, your flexible -2stat will just make players dump stats even harder. Have a problem with INT 7 players? Well now they’re all INT 5, solving absolutely nothing. I have my own ways of dealing with that, if anything is going to get dumped it's Charisma. Which I like to see dumped as it means the players have to compensate with role-play not simply "I roll for diplomacy on skipping real character building and scene development to give me the exposition I want"
I can deal with a few Forest Gumps in my party. It's great that some can't just roll for diplomacy on interactions, the player has to ROLE PLAY. Charisma is getting by with HOW you say it, role play is as much in what you say, your core fundamental reasoning.
Quote: Again, a reasoning for human’s being better than everyone else at climbing that isn’t limited to humans at all. They are NOT better than everyone else.
They are marginally faster, but they cannot make checks that any other race with the same ranks can make. The difference is consistency. A reasonable feature to give them.
Quote: Additionally, your problem is that PC’s are doing too badly at Climb checks – the solution to this isn’t, “buff the GM’s favorite race,” it’s actually looking at how climb is working in your games and trying to fix that. I have.
Climb speed without +8 racial bonus.
Don't tell me to go back and come to a different conclusion.
Quote: Otherwise, all you’re trying to do is punish players that don’t pick humans by making them still have problems while humans have it solved. This fallacy again.
"You can't give X anything, that's a punishment to Y"
I'm sick of repeatedly refuting it only to have my refutations ignored for it to be repeated again.
It's a mobility trait for humans, as they otherwise have no mobility trait. Many other races have buffs to so many different things.
Quote: You do realize that options limited to level 10 are typically very powerful when compared to options at level 1, right? Yeah, but still not as powerful as other racial traits. Trolls, Ogres, Giants, Cyclops are the stock in trade with serious enemy types and Dwarf get's a +4 dodge bonus against all of them.
And the point is it has clear precedent of this being a latent ability in all humanoids in the pathfinder world, that's it's not unreasonable for them to have this come sooner.
Quote: Also no, you’re not arguing for humans to get racial proficiency in one weapon – you’re arguing for humans to get racial proficiency in any one weapon. Yeah, I know, I want them to choose.
Quote: What you are proposing is that every human, during some period of their life, picks any one weapon that exists and strikes their fancy to gain full proficiency with it. Why not? Almost all the weapons in the game are actually used by ordinary people. Even exotic weapons.
"As a result, walking through an average human village should have sights like a village girl wielding a nunchaku"
I hope you aren't using the special pleading of "Oh so you're saying a human child can have this" no more than an Elven Child can use a Longsword and a Composite Longbow! But lets say you're using girl just as 'young woman', well Pathfinder is an extremely gender inclusive game, absolutely NO STATS vary by gender (except those directly for reproduction) so we're talking about a young human whipping around nunchuku.
Why not?
You wouldn't be so utterly aghast at a cowboy type character using a Lasso, or an animal handler using a whip? Those are exotic weapons. A Repeating Crossbow is aimed and shot just like a simple-weapon crossbow, repeating crossbows should only be rare for their price. Nunchuchu isn't against Exotic Weapons limits, it's against regional setting limits, it would be blocked on account the the PC having no connection with the East, which would stop them using a hanbo just as much.
My contention is that Exotic weapons are unusual in the sense of they are not automatically covered under standard stages of weapons training, because they are so niche. That's why they aren't martial. Composite Longbows are arguably much harder to use properly yet they are very common weapons, so when you take certain class "suite" it bunches all the good and common weapons together.
Quote: town guards holding two-bladed swords Well they'd all point and laugh, that's a terrible weapon.
It's only marginally better than a quarterstaff which absolutely sucks even for a simple weapon. And he still needs to burn a feat in two-weapon-fighting to use it remotely effectively.
Quote: bandits attacking using a flying talon Cool! It's like something out of a great adventure or something.
Everyone knows what IS overpowered, it's things like Greataxe which is standard equipment on a Cyclops but allows HUGE crits, even with creatures who can guarantee a critical threat!
Quote: grandmother skilled in use of the garrote. That's a cool idea of a murderous grandma and sounds like a great weapon of choice, the garrotte, but grandma is going to be let down by her strength roll even though she was pretty good at it in her younger years fighting in the Resistance.
Garrotte is still a terrible weapon that takes FOREVER to kill anyone as you have to wait for their constitution-score number of rounds to pass before they even begin to start suffocating. It's always been quicker and more reliable to pin them, tie them up, then cou-de-grace them. I think those targeted by a Garrotte would appreciate the long time to escape with the garotte rather than being pinned, bound and executed within three rounds.
Garrotte is only useful in the following conditions:
(1) You can approach them with near absolute certainty of catching them unaware or helpless
(2) You know you can succeed every grapple check to maintain a hold
(3) it is absolutely paramount is the need to make them verbally quiet, otherwise you'd pin->bound->coup de grace
(4) You know you won't be disturbed in this attack for well over a minute
Garrotte shouldn't even be that hard to use! Garrotte is a great example of how Exotic weapons are vastly overblown in their significance.
Quote: In any serious setting, this would come off as zany and nonsensical. That's because you picked zany and nonsensical weapons.
You just seem to have presumed that just because they are exotic they must be super powerful. But they aren't, they are overwhelmingly just zany fun that doesn't unbalance the game. A Nunchuku is just an eastern equivalent of the flail, it isn't even very good, and I think your perception that it's "zany" is from a lack of perspective on eastern folklore. After all, we're accepting of Western Folklore of the elf archetype being proficient in a Longsword!
Look, I can control my setting, which means the proficiencies chosen by human enemies will probably be something like a Bastard Sword if they are a martial class with a shield emphasis or a whip to show what cruel and wicked enemies they are.
Some Zany weapons can still be interesting, at times, never good enough to build an exploitative class around but enough for an interesting NPC. Things like flying blade with a -2 to all attacks except attacks of opportunity which don't have that penalty but a +2 to hit in that case. That's a COOL THING to have, human enemies can otherwise be really boring compared to Flame Drakes, Trolls and so on. A nice bit of flavour with human enemies is their can be fantastical in their weapons.
Imagine that, the fantastical in a Fantasy Tabletop Role Playing Game.
Quote: This is a player problem, not a system problem. You ever heard of the phrase "the customer is always right"?
It means it's no good passing to buck to what you cannot control, or what in trying to control you will only alienate and lose. My players' choices are shaped by the rules they play by.
Quote: Talk to your players about the setting they are going to be playing in, which races are common in that setting, and make it clear that NPCs will react to what race they are playing (especially anything very uncommon in that region). Been there. Done that. Got the t-shirt.
I have tried every possible approach and my players have NOT liked me telling them how to role-play, they ask me flatly, "can I play any race I want or are you going to build my character for me?" and they don't like contrived punishments for poor RP, it jsut makes the game really unpleasant to second guess their attempts at RP.
RP only works for one reason and one reason only: they want to do it in the first place. Role Play has to be the reward in and of itself. The persuasion has to come from the bottom if anywhere, the teammates have to encourage RP.
Quote: Extra Skilled: Humans gain four additional skill ranks at first level and one additional rank whenever they gain a level. These ranks are granted after determining ranks from class+INT mod. This is effectively the same as my proposal only more powerful and less concise.
If you put a rank in a class skill it gives a +3 bonus, that's not even as good as having 4 more true ranks at level 1.
There's just not much thought in "Hey, +4 ranks, thank you very much, I'll stick them wherever".
Quote: Extra Trait: Humans gain an additional trait at character creation.
One of the problems with your original write up seemed to be tossing in things with the justification that they’re similar in power to a trait.
Because that's boring and doesn't make people consider exotic weapons which are being hugely overlooked as interesting gameplay elements. And extra trait, heck that's nothing.
Traits is used as a basis that things aren't as verboten as they seem.
And your addendum on "types" of exotic weapons is too hard to apply yet is even broader in scope of my original proposal.
AlaskaRPGer wrote: Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote: AlaskaRPGer wrote: 1) Do you still feel that Humans are weak compared to other classes and need changes?
2) Would you make any changes to your initial ideas in the original post now?
3) Are there any issues you would like input on?
All these questions have been asked already, and answered already.
Alex - While you state that you have previously responded to these points, I respectfully disagree in what I infer you mean to imply is that there is no value in responding to them again. Re-reading this thread and your responses, my personal take on your answers, when I made my reply, would have been:
1) Yes
2) Some
3) Yes (however you are hesitant to make any changes based on some input as you feel that input is invalid).
The reason I asked these questions, even if you feel you already answered them, was to verify my understanding of your point of view. I did not want to make assumptions, and I apologize if how I understand your point of views are incorrect, but as you did not respond to my request to make it clear to me, the assumptions are all I have. You know, you're right. I have to show my appreciation in staying that's a pretty good summary.
Except that I've gone more than "some" changes, every single racial trait except language has been changed to be worse.
Quote: 1) Do you still feel that Humans are weak compared to other classes races [you meant races, right - Alex] and need changes?
2) Would you make any changes to your initial ideas in the original post now?
3) Are there any issues you would like input on?
Please note that I am not asking them again to be rude, but with the thought that it is possible that your responses have changed since your original post as you obtained different information - in particular, Charon Onozuka's reply. I also ask this to keep the topic on rails, and to help you obtain any input you are requesting.
Edited to fix my grammar.
Humans are a lot of things compared to other races, less powerful but also less interesting. One thing Charon Onozuka really failed to do was compare to other races, I made more comparisons in my attempts to refute his reasoning. Like the special pleading of young girls and old ladies of the humans having weapons proficiencies, when the same applies just as much to every race that have weapons proficiencies.
I have already made MANY changes from my original post, and I'm not going to back down from the weapons proficiency one over scoffing that Exotic Weapons must be powerful because they are hard to get, and inconsistent reasoning that it's hard.
"Please note that I am not asking them again to be rude, but with the thought that it is possible that your responses have changed since your original post as you obtained different information"
Very well.
I want specific problems with my proposal in practice.
Not sweeping generalisations. Not vague platitudes. Not spurious theories of game design.
Quite specifically: if you have it this way then this can happen or will happen and that is bad for this reason.
I did get a bit of that in between the scoffing of a granny having Garotte proficiency, though I broke down how it wasn't as powerful as they were possibly alluding to.
Just find me a weapon that you think it a problem.
Lets take a REAL worst case scenario, the worst I can conceive. A Large Flacata, with Effortless Lace (so despite being large sized this one handed weapon can be wielded 2 handed without penalty by a medium creature) and enhanced it with Keen so it's base damage was 2d6 and with a Strength 22 character. Say even that their attack bonus relative to the enemies I was throwing at them meant the Falcata wielder only needed a 6 on his d20 to hit.
Here's a round breakdown of my math
6 to 16 = 11 of d20 = 55% of the time HIT WITHOUT THREATENING A CRITICAL
2d6 +9(strength)+2(Lead Lined)+1(WepTrain)
= 19hp
17 to 20 = 4 of 20 = 20% of the time THREATEN A CRITICAL
.45 x .20 = 9% FAILURE IN CRITICAL CONFIRMATION
Roll normal damage
= 19hp
OR
.55 x .20 = 11% SUCCEED IN CRITICAL CONFIRMATION
= 19 x3
= 57hp
Bottom 25% of the attacks: miss doing zero damage
Middle 64% of the time: hit doing 19 damage, about 41% chance the damage roll will be 21 so actually knock a 20hp enemy out in 1 hit
Top 11% of the time: hit doing 57 damage
Average 57 damage seems high, it's a 50% chance of slaying a Flame Drake in one hit, but there's only a 5.5% chance of that actually happening. I cannot see how that can ruin games, especially all that is given up to get that. They have to invest in keen and effortless lace and give up any prospect of getting reach, all for an 11% chance of a crit.
I've GM'd with crits before, they were just too fickle to worry about, especially with x2 multiplier. Such an investment as that deserves a payoff of occasionally being able to slay something like a Fire Drake in one hit, especially considering all a Fire Drake can do in a round, even abusing fly to bombard Fireball attacks. Then you have a dilemma, you could set a ready action to move out of the way of any Fireball as it comes which is a sure fire defence, or ready an action to 5ft step into their reach to attack them when they swoop in to take a bite out of you!
I think these are pretty good odds, two rounds spent up close and personal there's about a 21% chance either of the hits is a crit, this can really keep game a lot more up in the air. Contrast with ranged classes or even reach classes let alone wizards.
Especially as things like Flame Drakes aren't only supposed to be singular massively risky challenges, their bestiary lore says they are supposed to be in groups as large as 16! Known as a Rampage of Dragons. That's CR13, epic level for level 10, truly an epic fight. What's that, a martial extremely relevant at level 10 and not simply playing second fiddle to a Wizard? That's more of what we need. The focus was so much on all the nothing a Wizard could do with a Falcata but you couldn't see how it could keep martial classes relevant at massive CR's.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Charon Onozuka wrote: and a grandmother skilled in use of the garrote. Grandma just freaking straggled Santa.
Walking home from our house Christmas eve.
You can say there's no such thing as Santa,
But as for me and the police, we believe.
She used a freaking hook shot to get it,
And had a killer dexterity score.
Aided by two free +2 wherever she pleased,
And she used a climb speed to get into the sleigh.
When they found her Christmas morning,
At the scene of the attack.
She had hoof shoes on her necklace,
And incriminating Claus marks in her purse.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
ATSD, I think we can all tell you why none of the other players wanted to tell you their characters' names now.
Gulthor wrote: ATSD, I think we can all tell you why none of the other players wanted to tell you their characters' names now. Why?
Because you refuse to give actual reasons why my houserules would cause any problem at all?
Imagine that, you were to just state your reasons... assuming you have any reasons, at all. If you did, you've have given them by now.
You've been spamming this thread for days now, contributing nothing except to contrive hollow personal attacks against me and certainly not contribute anything to the topic of discussion. You are the problem.
The Mortonator wrote: Charon Onozuka wrote: and a grandmother skilled in use of the garrote. Grandma just freaking straggled Santa.
Walking home from our house Christmas eve.
You can say there's no such thing as Santa,
But as for me and the police, we believe.
She used a freaking hook shot to get it,
And had a killer dexterity score.
Aided by two free +2 wherever she pleased,
And she used a climb speed to get into the sleigh.
When they found her Christmas morning,
At the scene of the attack.
She had hoof shoes on her necklace,
And incriminating Claus marks in her purse. Do one for Toddler dwarves getting +4 dodge bonus against giants! Don't forget to work in their effective use of Warhammers.
You do a great job of highlighting how hysterical and detached from proportion these so called problems are.
Eventually no racial traits will be allowed to exist because they wouldn't fit for infants or elderly, or worse of all, females! Imagine that, a woman with nunchukus. Can't have that. It's best to have Nunchukus locked behind a feat, even though it has almost identical stats to a Light Mace, a simple weapon. Even though it's a cool weapon that every other player has asked for but can't afford the feat for it.
Welcome to Pathfinder. No fun allowed.
Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote: Eventually no racial traits will be allowed to exist because they wouldn't fit for infants or elderly, or worse of all, females! Imagine that, a woman with nunchukus. Can't have that. Contrary to popular belief, Nunchakus were actually invented and used by the female followers of a now forgotten god in the pathfinder pantheon. An ancient instrument of torture were his symbol, and he demanded that his followers had no god before him.
Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote: It's best to have Nunchukus locked behind a feat, even though it has almost identical stats to a Light Mace, a simple weapon. Even though it's a cool weapon that every other player has asked for but can't afford the feat for it.
Welcome to Pathfinder. No fun allowed.
Then why do you have to take the high road? If it has identical stats then you should just hand-wave the requirement. It is your games, after all.
Gulthor wrote: ATSD, I think we can all tell you why none of the other players wanted to tell you their characters' names now. Wait, is ATSD the guy from the thread about all the moody lone wolfs who refused to tell anyone their names?
I can't believe I'm going to add to this mess, but here goes. I've lurked long enough. I'll try to be mostly constructive and stick on topic.
It seems like the reason you're finding humans weak is because your house rules are giving everyone a big bunch of feats (at least 3) right at the start (as you said right back at post 71). My primary suggestion for buffing humans is consequentially: don't do that. If you're giving basically the best thing about being human to everyone, twice, of course they're going to seem weak! By all means, tweak feat trees to make them less feat intensive (we all know they need that), but you should let humans keep the thing that makes them special. It's almost surprising you'd have any humans at all.
But, that aside, if you still want to improve humans...
I suppose I'm fine with your liberal interpretation of flexible, but I'm aware that it's still very strong and worth a lot. Since you're so liberal with feats I'd scrap the bonus feat completely and just go with even more skill ranks. I'm a big fan of the Focused Study alternate race trait, so you could throw that in there as well. Make the humans good with skills since their feat isn't really a thing anymore. That'd be my choice of things to alter from basic humans.
As for the rest of your proposed features? I'd scrap them. I'll be the token person who foolishly tries to bring real world examples to the abstraction because no-one else seems to have and maybe it will finally convince you that they really don't make sense (And regret it when I look through later and see how you or someone else viscously rips it apart).
I don't know about you, but I certainly couldn't reliably climb at 0.5m/s with ease, even up something simple like a ladder, and especially not if people were being shot at or something nearby. And by 'ease' here I mean for an extended period of time as easily as walking. I don't think I could effectively dodge an attack if I was climbing, either. I'd call myself slightly on the less fit side of average, but still, I think that's something most people would struggle with. With that in consideration, I think it's tough to justify the climb speed, since if humans had a climb speed, everyone would be able to do that.
Since we have guns everywhere, that makes them simple weapons. Not that I've ever used a real one, I can imagine most people would be able to use one without a lot of difficulty, and they'd be the weapon of choice. BAM, commoner's simple weapon proficiency dealt with. Other stuff, like clubs, spears, daggers? Maybe less so, but lots of people today would be experts and be able to use them anyway. People able to use other stuff, like swords or bows effectively? That's getting a lot rarer. If the basic NPC classes can take care of the weapon proficiencies actual people have, it's probably not necessary to give everyone weapon proficiency in something else as well.
Decided to come back here for amusement.
Paraphrasing here:
"Oh, its not pass every climb check forever because you still cant pass a climb check you couldnt pass before"
Scene:
A man is hanging from a cliff. His friend is desperately hanging on to his arm. Its life or death.
Player: Lol I take 10. This is a normal rocky cliff right? I use my climb speed to climb up. Whatever
End Scene.
"But what if that player has 0 ranks in climb, then he would fall!" (preemptive)
Right, a PC in one of your campaigns, where youve repeatedly said you love to put climbing challenges in, is going to not make sure he can pass a 15 on a 10. That will happen.
"Oh you cant argue with my airtight PROOF that exotic weapons are no better than martial weapons so youre just running away. I mean the Estoc is EXACTLY like a Falchion"
Except its one handed, which means I can dual wield them or use them with a shield. And its not like the Bastard Sword isnt strictly superior to the Longsword or anything. But suuuuuure, no ones going to want any bonus damage when they could possibly sometimes throw a Bola that might maybe trip an enemy. If the Wizard doesnt feel like stopping said enemy first. Or the Ranger.
Or the Monk.
"I dont understand the difference between holding a weapon and being trained to use it"
And you apparently never will, which is why you cant understand why humans don't get proficiency in any weapon they happen to have on their person. Of course, you wont get the sarcasm in this section and respond to it as if I said you actually literally put "Humans get proficiency everything" in your idea.
"Well the statue! A person has a whole 40% chance to miss it."
No, a person has a 40% chance to fail to meaningfully damage the statue.
"Thats what hardness is for" (preemptive)
No, hardness works in conjunction with AC but a swing that hits on a bad angle or hits a particularly hard spot will still fail to do meaningful damage. Hence why armor adds to AC and not DR, or why turtles have a ton of natural armor not a ton of DR.
"I also dont understand metaphors"
I know, you didnt even get why your thread is the same as a thread saying "How can we buff Wizards?" as seen on page 2, and took it as the person saying your change to humans would buff Wizards.
"Everything is special pleading because I don't understand the difference between a races trait due to their culture and an individual or a specific society training people a certain way."
Yeah, its not like you could make a new alternate racial trait to give players exotic weapon proficiency. Not that you would need it, since a Human can just spend hi extra feat to get it and say its because of his backround in a martial society, or say because she really liked dueling swords as a kid.
"If a player doesnt want a weapon proficiency, they can just not take one!"
Definitely something people are going to do. I know I often just ignore my races benefits for no reason.
"I love when my players dump their charisma and then roleplay a high charisma anyway, and reward them for it by skipping the games mechanics by giving them what they wanted instead of just a bonus"
Youre part of the reason everyone dumps charisma, and a bad DM. If a player dumps charisma, theyre not a "Forrest Gump", he had a high charisma and a low INT. Theyre a Fat Bastard (of Austin Powers fame).
"I didnt make humans better at climbing than everyone else, because theyre not as better as they can be, theyre only moderately better, and that means theyre not better."
Yeah, never messing up doesnt make you better than someone at that thing, it just means you never make mistakes! Thats why im exactly as skilled at Super Smash Bros as pro gamers, because I can reliably wave dash under controlled conditions, and can pull it off sometimes in an actual fight, which is exactly as skilled as the people who can do it 100% of the time in pro tournaments.
"An extra bonus feat is nbd"
Ive lost track of the amount of times ive thought "Man, Im level 5 and my builds complete, what am I going to do with all these extra feats ive got."
Oh wait, no thats never happened.
Ever
EVER
Im bored of typing now, ill probably check up on this thread again. I guess im a bit of a masochist but I like arguing with people, especially the willingly ignorant. TTYL
Wonderstell wrote: Wait, is ATSD the guy from the thread about all the moody lone wolfs who refused to tell anyone their names? Sure is!
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote: Do one for Toddler dwarves getting +4 dodge bonus against giants! Don't forget to work in their effective use of Warhammers. Alright, guess it is requests night!
Ahem.
Long ago, there was a dwarven lass
Who found her fortune to be quite crass
Fate's cruel hand, her father stole
He was struck down deep within their hole
A sudden sortie deep within the mines
The monster had broken father's spine
He was large, a giant to be sure!
But even a dwarf lass may endure
This child knew he would slam her
So, she did lift her father's hammer
He swung at her, missing by a breath
And she swung back with eyes of death!
It truly was a sight to behold
Against a giant a child was so bold
There was never a hope for him
Against a lass that was so grim
Upon his corpse she made her bed
Beside his leg she broke her bread
Until they found her deep below
Sitting on a foolish giant's toe
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Great poem, but you forgot the parts about her hearing stories about the centuries of Dwarves fighting giants, so she knows how they move, or that her father taught her how to use a hammer from a young age since theyre great for breaking up stone in the mine as well as fighting aforementioned giants.
(You know, like how the human grandmother had all those stories about how santa fights and how useful a garrote is in her daily life)
(not a dig at you Mortonator, seriously good impromptu poetry)
|
