| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm thinking of slightly changing how race attribute bonuses work for character creation and I'd like to see what you all think.
Pretty much every race gets +2 to two stats and -2 to one.
And the +2s are to one physical stat (str, dex, con) and the other is to a mental one (int, wis, cha).
So character creation often comes down to "what class do I want to play? What are the two main stats for that class? Which one or two races get bonuses in those stats?"
Instead, I'm thinking, one of the +2s has to go into either of the two stats that the race always gets (Eg: an elf picks int or dex and gets the +2).
The other +2 has to be put into one of the three stats of the other type (physical or mental).
So if someone playing an elf puts +2 into int, the other +2 goes into str, dex, or con. (It could go into con, thereby giving you +2 to int, and the other bonus and negative cancel each other out.)
I think this would open up more race / class combinations. Eg: "I want to play an elf bard, so I'll put the +2 into dex and then the floating +2 into charisma."
(That way you're not "stuck" playing a charisma-based race when playing a bard.)
Thoughts? Opinions?
I've liked the idea of removing the penalties from the attribute spread, but I think this is also a nice step into not pigeonholing race/class combinations. These are the issues I can think of:
1. It reduces the power of Humans, but that doesn't matter, since they're the strongest
2. It reduces the attractiveness of Half-Elves and Half-Orcs. I don't know that these races were particularly powerful, barring rule abuses. It's very likely that they will be rarely played (if that's a problem).
3. It makes a Small martial a lot more attractive when they can have a bonus to AC, Hit, and also have a +2 to Str and Wis. This might lead to some frustration when NPCs have a difficult time effectively challenging your martial. But, then, you're the GM. If you can deal with the frustration, do it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've decided to do away with ability modifiers based on race entirely. I give my players a short list of options and 10 points and let them build their own elf, dwarf or whatever. As long as it makes sense.
You want a half-orc with a base speed of 40ft and scent? Sure. Or how about one with a bite attack and ferocity? You got it.
For ability scores, it's always (+2 physical, +2 mental, -2 any) or (+2 any).
|
I went sort of halfway, keeping some limits as a nod to flavor, but opening up more options for most races.
Two types of elves, those 'fresh off the boat' from their homeworld, who have yet to adapt to the biology/gravity of Golarion, with the usual +2 Dex/-2 Con/+2 Int, and those who remained on Golarion for generations and adapted, with +2 Dex/-2 Str/+2 Cha (more prone to sorcery and bardery than wizardry, and with some fey ties).
Two types of dwarves, the outdoorsy sorts commonly seen as adventurers with +2 Con/-2 Cha/+2 Wis, and the more clannish stay-at-home merchant/crafter caste with +2 Con/-2 Dex/+2 Int (more likely to man the forges, run the government, have ties to rune wizardry and geomantic/elemental earth sorcery). They are also the primary source of all special metals like adamantine and mithril, and set the market prices for masterwork armor and weapons, on which they have a crushing monopoly.
Two types of halflings, the 'city mice' who have integrated themselves over many generations into human nations of Andoran, Taldor, Ustalav and (sadly) Cheliax, and have +2 Dex/-2 Str/+2 Cha, and the 'country mice' who live in rural 'shires' of other halflings and are more down to earth with +2 Dex/-2 Str/+2 Wis.
Gnomes mix it up with +2 to any mental stat. It's not genetic, a child of two gnomes with +2 Int could end up with +2 Wis or +2 Cha. No bonus or penalty to any physical stat (they're wiry and tough, for their size, but not particularly agile).
And half-elves and half-orcs. I initially gave them *less* options, with a floating +2 in *either* Str or Wis (for half-orcs) or Dex or Cha (for half-elves), but nobody was playing them anyway. +2 to *both* (with no penalty) seems a bit over the top, and would make them the new Aasimar, beloved of min-maxers, so I didn't want to go there either...
So most races had two sets of options, and didn't end up frozen out of some classes (such as Bard or Sorcerer, in the case of Dwarves, even if they didn't have a +Cha option). Gnomes three options was a nod to 3.X, where the iconic Gnome class was either Bard or Illusionist, and now Druid, in PF, so I found it amusing to make it so that a Gnome PC could have a +2 to Cha, Int *or* Wis, and excel at any of the three.
Thanks for sharing the various options, everyone! I really appreciate it.
Kitty Catoblepas, SilvercatMoonpaw, & gnoams -- I thought about getting rid of the -2 but for now I think I'll leave it in and see how that plays out.
Kitty Catoblepas -- I was trying to decide if it was fair to humans and half-Xs, but I don't mind any of those three not being played as much. Humans, because yeah, they're always a solid choice so this might make them a little less common, and half-elves and half-orcs are still good options if you want to play that race. (And I agree, they're not played often as it is.)
I haven't seen a small martial in play so I don't have an idea as to how it could play out. And I'm okay with them giving me a hard time. (My players usually do, so I'm used to it :D )
gnoams -- I really like the idea of 15 point buy, two +2s and no negatives! I suggested that to my players but they all like the idea of the races being at least a little distinct.
Quixote -- I like that idea too, but again, my players want the races to be a little more distinct than just description and abilities. (They like the one set bonus and the negative)
Set -- Love that idea! But I'm too lazy and don't want to change things too much.
...my players want the races to be a little more distinct than just description and abilities. (They like the one set bonus and the negative)
I get it. It's such am iconic element of the game at this point.
But given the rate of wokeness in the world at large, I wanted to try and get ahead of the curve. Saying "race X has ingrained, unavoidable weakness Y" is...problematic, to say the least. 5th may be doing away with the term "race" all together. I think it's just a matter of time before the idea that orcs are dumb or elves are fragile is a thing of the past.Plus, I've been mixing and matching stuff for so long. Swapping weapon familiarity for other proficiencies or even some other basic feat, changing favored classes or bonuses to skills. An elf with +2 to Concentration checks instead of +2 to penetrate SR doesn't feel less mystical, just different. And an elf that trades either of them away for a bonus to Acrobatics doesn't feel less elvish, just a different facet of what that terms means.
No one should agree with me if they don't want to: simply explaining my perspective.
I'm sorry, I don't think I understand your perspective. What is it, exactly?
Hm. I'd be interested in seeing some examples.
My ability score generation method (any scores, three even and three odd, with a sum modifier of +6) is such that no one really pays much attention to racial modifiers anyway; my games tend to reward well-rounded characters over top-heavy or overly focused ones, so extremely high/low scores aren't too common, which is really the only time racial modifiers would be noticeable with this method.
It is interesting, with this new pseudo-race builder, that you could...have a dwarf that isn't Stable? Sort of seems like that should always come with that physical build. But whatever. I'll sacrifice a little believability for a lot of flexibility any day.
Pretty sure it's just being as broad as you are tall. Low center of gravity, etc.
Centaurs get the +4 situational bonus to their CMD because they have four legs.
I've seen some pictures that don't portray them so broad...
Artwork in the books that contains said rule? Or just like. Different interpretations of the mythology?
'Cause I've seen plenty of Tiny-sized elves with ugly faces, pointy hats and green skin. There are just so many different versions of mythological people and creatures even before you get to the deviations due to creative license. In D&D and Pathfinder, dwarves are described as being broad in the shoulder and chest, stout or stocky. I would consider any artwork that significantly deviates from this description to be an inconsistency rather than proof of some alternative fact.(Also, admittedly, I just don't like dwarves.)
I'm not sure what you're implying, here. Or is it just a side comment, not meant to weigh in on the subject.
You know you can already trade out dwarf stability with alternate racial traits, no homebrew required. So yeah, non stable dwarves is cannon for Golarion.
I did not. I have next to no exposure to any of the Golarion canon and extremely limited exposure to anything beyond the core book.
Regardless, it still feels...odd? Like, a half-orc with a bite attack or +1 to saves instead of orc ferocity is easy to accept. But the bonuses that supposedly come from being solid n' stocky not being present, despite one's solidity and stockiness seems less intuitive. But you could always explain it away with an unathletic dwarf or whatever.
|
Looking at all the options on the archives, it looks like dwarves have options to trade out every racial trait except slow and steady. To me it makes plenty sense, there's a lot of diversity among people. Why wouldn't dwarves have different body types too?
|
|
Regardless, it still feels...odd? Like, a half-orc with a bite attack or +1 to saves instead of orc ferocity is easy to accept. But the bonuses that supposedly come from being solid n' stocky not being present, despite one's solidity and stockiness seems less intuitive. But you could always explain it away with an unathletic dwarf or whatever.
One could have a more top-heavy build than others (bandy legs, big shoulders), or be unusually thin 'for a dwarf.'
Or yeah, just terrible balance. Kicked by a mule as a child. :)
*Rolls eyes at "wokeness"*
Language is constantly changing and evolving. I am not always a fan of the directions it develops in (I usually use current slang such as the aforementioned term with a goodly helping of sarcasm), but it's going to keep right on changing, with or without my or anyone else's blessing, so I figure I may as well try and accept it.
As to the body of your post, I would agree. The term "race" is possibly being done away with due to the multiple definitions you've described, and how easy it is for people of sinister intent to take a fantasy people with an in-game mechanical weakness or flaw and apply it to a real-world people or culture.
It would be easier, cleaner and clearer to do away with those elements that make such comparisons possible in the first place. I mean, elves have +2 Dex, but there's nothing stopping you from assigning a 7 there and having a clumsy, uncoordinated elf. And if you removed the set racial modifiers altogether but knew that elves "tend to be graceful, agile and quick", there'd be nothing stopping you from putting a high stat there anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think this new approach will erase the old at all. Elves are still elves, dwarves are dwarves, etc. We'll just be removing the potentially offensive or harmful aspects of those old ideas.
Nostalgia is powerful and a big part of my hobbies, but I just don't think I can justify keeping something around if it's part of some form of big-picture ignorance or subtly harmful paradigm.
Getting rid of the term "race" and population-specific ability modifiers is nothing but good, as far as I can see. It cuts out the possibility for racial coding and doesn't actually damage the original fantasy concept.
What flavor or mechanics does it seem I'm suggesting I cut out, exactly?
|
|
My reasoning to cut out ability modifiers from races is this:
Pathfinder ability score rules such as they are, it is a major benefit having your racial ability modifiers add to you primary ability scores. These are not small, flavorful modifiers. If you want to make a character of a specific race that does not utilize the ability scores granted by the race, you have to take a significant disability to do so. This is bad design imo. I want to encourage and facilitate my players to choose the race they want, not feel forced to choose the race that is mechanically the best for their class.
@Sysryke: I believe I understand the principal behind your stance, but I don't think what I'm suggesting actually threatens it.
Say we change the ability score modifiers to "get +2 to two scores and -2 to one score" or "get +2 to one score".
Then say elves tend to be agile/swift dwarves are often grim /tough, those of orc blood are commonly strong/imposing-- just go ahead and describe the different peoples exactly as they are (or however you'd like them to fit your setting).
Now, a player can take their character and make them "iconic" or "contrasting", depending on how they array their scores, just like before. Right? So really, what have we lost?
I have never personally seen any sort of racial coding in D&D or The Lord of the Rings or anything like that. But then, I don't have much in the way of firsthand experience with racism so I'm not very sensitive to/aware of it.
I rolled with someone a few years back who pointed out the half-orc's "existing on the fringe of society, hated and feared" trope coupled with the +2 Str, -2 Int and Cha from 3rd, and connected the dots to their own experiences being hated and feared and how it made them...less than comfortable.
It wasn't this huge deal for them but it was a deal of some kind. It was tiresome and annoying, made all the more so by most people's complete ignorance of it.
So I figure, if we can work towards cutting things like that out of the game, we really should.
And since the aforementioned changes and adjustments don't prohibit us from running the games we want to or damaging our experiences in any significant, noticeable, reasonable way...it just feels like a no-brainer.
|
|
My reasoning to cut out ability modifiers from races is this:
Pathfinder ability score rules such as they are, it is a major benefit having your racial ability modifiers add to you primary ability scores. These are not small, flavorful modifiers. If you want to make a character of a specific race that does not utilize the ability scores granted by the race, you have to take a significant disability to do so. This is bad design imo. I want to encourage and facilitate my players to choose the race they want, not feel forced to choose the race that is mechanically the best for their class.
That was one of my primary reasons for wanting to have each race have at least two options, to encourage more diversity in race/class 'optimal' choices.
Another was my own preconceptions. I think of elves as innately magical (too much Tolkein, as a child), fey (some Greyhawk influence) and well suited to be Bards, all of which would suggest a +Cha option, instead of +Int. I tend to think of dwarves as being the best crafters of the setting, and so a +Int option would fit, and yet I also don't think of them as being utterly hopeless at geomantic sorcery, so a variant that had, if not a plus to Charisma, at least no penalty to Charisma, seemed welcome. Halfings being able to excel as Druids also seemed to fit the rural / pastoral / shire view I had of them growing up, where they even had a Druid-y goddess (Sheela Peryroyl) back in 1st edition AD&D.
And the Gnome, I allowed a +2 to Int, Wis *or* Cha, because in the last decade I've seen a gnomish Iconic Druid (PF), Bard (3.5) and Illusionist (3.0), and I felt like opening them up to all three (and eliminating the Str penalty that felt like it was handicapping them from being Fighters, Rangers or Barbarians).
That last bit was key for me. I didn't necessarily always want to make sure that anyone could get a +2 in their primary stat, no matter their race, but I did want to make sure that nobody necessarily had to eat a *penalty* in their primary stat, because of race.
(And even then, both country and city halflings ended up with a Str penalty, so I didn't quite succeed at that...)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm all for houserules and case-by-case changes; at this point, my games and settings are more my creation than Paizo's. I regularly ignore non-Core alternate rules, archetypes and the like and make up my own for each separate situation where they come up. In my current game, I've reinvented Wild Shape, created a new cleric domain, completely changed several rage powers and even the entire concept of the creature type system.
But with all that considered, I think there's something to be said about game design and world-building. I think there are enough people who have experienced prejudice and racism in their lives to warrant that, at least some of the time, mainstream gaming/fantasy makes them the target audience, rather than asking them to take a backseat and yet again exercise understanding and patience. "Oh, wow. I'm sorry that horrible stuff happened to you. I didn't intend for my fantasy setting to reflect the same sort of systemic prejudice you have to deal with for real. I just don't really think about issues like that, because they don't affect me..."