[PF] Advanced Race Playtest Analysis

[subject42]

I've been looking over the numbers for Paizo's Advanced Race Guide Playtest and it looks like the point values are a bit of a mess. From what I can tell, most of the problems stem from their attempt at trying to maintain the fiction that all core races are perfectly equivalent.

Has anyone else looked at this? Here's what I've found so far:

Skilled: The "Skilled" racial quality, defined by one extra skill point per level, is worth 4RP. Based on favored class bonuses, 1 skill point is equivalent to 1 hit point. If you use the "Flexible" stat array to grant +2 INT and +2 CON, you can get both one skill point and one hit point per level for a grand cost of 2RP.

Skill Bonus: The "skill bonus" quality grants a +2 racial bonus to one skill for a cost of 2RP. The half elf "adaptability" grants the skill focus feat for one skill of the player's choice, which grants a +3 to +6 untyped bonus to one skill. This only costs 1RP.

[stack]

Yup, it seems to be the general opinion that Paizo fudged the skill section into pointlessness to make the core races all add up to 10 points, even if it makes no sense.

[subject42]

Yup, it seems to be the general opinion that Paizo fudged the skill section into pointlessness to make the core races all add up to 10 points, even if it makes no sense.

Is anything else out of whack? I haven't made it past skills yet.

[Luckmann]

Maybe I'm failing my roll here, but.. RP? :smallconfused:

[subject42]

Maybe I'm failing my roll here, but.. RP? :smallconfused:

Racial Points. It's a new concept Paizo has introduced in the Advanced Race Guide.

[CTrees]

Yee-up. Unfortunately, they're kind of in a bind - the points values NEED to work out to the same total for each core race, for obvious reasons. Unfortunately, making this happen is problematic, given that the system was not created before the races. The best solution is probably for them to say "a base race should be about 8-12pts, a LA +1 should be about 18-22, LA +2 should be about 27-33, and LA +3 should be 37-43pts" or something like that. Yes, I know PF doesn't have LA technically, but read the side bar on monstrous races - they do something similar to LA+automatic buyback.

Those are just rough, but really... I don't see a better solution presenting itself, given the order everything was created.

[Grendus]

Paizo's biggest problem was and remains their ties to 3.5. They need those ties to appeal to their demographic, but at the same time they need to make the system more balanced to reach new markets (namely the 4e crowd). The only solution is to either make miniscule changes to fix things - which is nearly impossible given that they don't appear have as much system mastery as their fanbase - or keep up the facade that the system is actually balanced. They seem to have chosen the latter.

As for the advanced race rules, I stand by what I said the first time I saw it. They're useful guidelines for the DM if he wants to introduce his own races (it's tempting, for example, to create half-dwarves, half-gnomes, and quarterlings), but I wouldn't let the players touch them with a 10 foot pole. Way too much room for player abuse, given that the numbers are skewed to keep the core races 'balanced'.

[Ravens_cry]

I find it hard to believe that being immune to an elemental damage type is considered the same value as +5 DR. Magic, I might add, the most sucktakular DR there is.

[Lord.Sorasen]

Yee-up. Unfortunately, they're kind of in a bind - the points values NEED to work out to the same total for each core race, for obvious reasons. Unfortunately, making this happen is problematic, given that the system was not created before the races. The best solution is probably for them to say "a base race should be about 8-12pts, a LA +1 should be about 18-22, LA +2 should be about 27-33, and LA +3 should be 37-43pts" or something like that. Yes, I know PF doesn't have LA technically, but read the side bar on monstrous races - they do something similar to LA+automatic buyback.

Those are just rough, but really... I don't see a better solution presenting itself, given the order everything was created.

I feel like they don't really need to add up, though. Because there's synergy.

There was a thread for this earlier in which someone quickly made a sorcerer race. As in, a race built entirely for sorcerers. It added up to 10 points, but there was no doubt that it was significantly stronger than the other races, at least in terms of sorcerer. The reason is that synergy between different abilities tends to be more important than the abilities on their own.

It'd be nice for there to be racial points, but I hate the scientific approach to the whole thing, given the complications. I'd rather see the points serve as guidelines, and see them made more accurately to represent their strengths. Of course the races won't come out equal; even if they were equal races, there's just too many outside factors.

[Ravens_cry]

@Lord.Sorasen:
Pretty much.
I know how to homebrew, dice darn it.
The best thing I like about it is as as a different kind of LA, reverse engineering monsters to see where they should be allowed to played. I especially like the in-built "buy-off" on the table, acknowledging that most monster abilities don't scale.

[subject42]

It'd be nice for there to be racial points, but I hate the scientific approach to the whole thing, given the complications.

I think I would love the scientific approach if they were willing to admit that the core races aren't balanced. It might actually lead to future balance if Paizo was willing to take that information and introduce alternate racial traits. Unfortunately, I doubt that will happen.

[Blisstake]

Yeah, probably an oversight. Point it out on the Paizo boards and maybe they'll change it before the actual product comes out.

[stack]

Too me, the more interesting question is if the types and sizes are costed properly. Plant type gives some very nice immunities.

Unfortunately, large size is actually a nerf unless you take the advanced ability to get reach. These costs seem way off to me, as reach is the main reason to go big anyway.

I suppose a real munchkin could work it out to get two bonus feats to start with, though as DM I would shoot it down.

I think it could be useful for players, not to min/max a race for a specific character, but to customize beyond the stock alternate racials. I never liked the defensive training and hatred type abilities, so this would give more flexibility to replace them with other reasonable, thematic abilities.

[Lord.Sorasen]

I think I would love the scientific approach if they were willing to admit that the core races aren't balanced. It might actually lead to future balance if Paizo was willing to take that information and introduce alternate racial traits. Unfortunately, I doubt that will happen.

A scientific approach can theoretically be very nice. But I'm convinced it isn't going to happen at the player's level. There are just so many factors. For one I just thought of that might be overlooked, what about point buy? I'm almost certain the amount of points you have available is going to influence the value of stat bonuses.

And as I said before, synergy. Having a spell like ability is made much nicer when you don't take a penalty to that very score. And a bonus to strength is near useless in a wizard but highly beneficial for a fighter.

There could be scientific ways to analyze this. But the more you do it the more complicated things would get.

Case in point: often enough, when people try to assign individual points to class features, the monk tends to have the highest point value.

[subject42]

I don't disagree with you, Lord.Sorasen, but there's a fair bit of difference between "perfectly scientific" and "we fudged numbers to make everything equal 10". Even if it wasn't perfect, it could certainly be better than it is now.

[Drothmal]

As far as I saw, the customization of races could lead to even greater disparity between casters and non-casters. Most of all, I see this coming from the greater paragon stat distribution, which gives you +4 to a single stat and -2 to other 2 stats (1 physical and 1 mental) AND GIVES YOU EXTRA RP TO SPEND ON OTHER THINGS

I would like to bring this up in the Paizo board, but first I would like to ask for help from the playground to make the most effective caster race that you can make with 10RP

For the sake of the argument, let's make 2 races, one for wizards, one for sorcerers

humanoid (0 RP)
small race (0 RP): more AC, minimum impact of lower dmg from weapons
20 ft movement (-1 RP)
xenophobic language array (0 RP)
Greater Paragon Ability (-1 RP).

So far, the best options I can think of is
Flexible feat (4 RP)
Bonus to DC of as many schools as you can (away from book, don't remember how much this costs)
Spell like abilities for which you can use your CL (for example, mage armor)

What else?

[MukkTB]

I'd be somewhat cross with Paizo if they continue to insist on wonky values to maintain the illusion that the core races are balanced. For the same reason I'd be pretty cross with Paizo if they went on to claim that classes were balanced and the teir system didn't exist.

They just need to man up and admit that 3.5 isn't a balanced system. Then they can work on making it better. To be honest my playgroup would have moved to 4th edition if balance was a major issue or the only issue. We stayed in 3.5 because we felt that a 4th edition world was weirder than a 3.5 world.

The biggest synergy issues have to do with all racial abilities being focused on making a single class better. It might be a good idea to create a set of rules that a level adjustment 0 race shouldn't be overspecialized in any one thing.

[Larpus]

Not sure how this would add up in regards to the core races, but the problem seems to be the fact that the RP can be spent anywhere as long as the math allows you to.

If instead they went something similar to Storyteller, you'd have like points to only put in ability score adjustments, only put in skill modifiers and only put in feats or feat-like abilities. And then maybe give the option for a race to excel at one of those at the expense of the others or something.

Maybe that wouldn't fix the problem, but would be considerably easier to adjust, the way they are doing it is pretty much equal to a classless design, which is seven flavors of nightmare to even keep barely balanced without homogenization.

[Mr.Bookworm]

10 RP to spend.

Humanoid. +0 RP
Small size. +0 RP.
Base speed 20 ft. -1 RP.
Greater Paragon Ability spread (-2 Str, -2 Cha, +4 Int). -1 RP.
Xenophobic language array (Common). 0 RP

12 free RPs for whatever bennies you want.

This is pretty much useless, because a DM is going to use common sense and make-up stuff, and letting a player use it is just laughable.

[Drothmal]

10 RP to spend.

Humanoid. +0 RP
Small size. +0 RP.
Base speed 20 ft. -1 RP.
Greater Paragon Ability spread (-2 Str, -2 Cha, +4 Int). -1 RP.
Xenophobic language array (Common). 0 RP
Advanced Intelligence (x3).

I have pooped things better balanced and more thought-out than this.

This is pretty much useless, because a DM is going to use common sense and make-up stuff, and letting a player use it is just laughable.

You cannot take advanced intelligence unless you are playing with advanced race point buy

[Mr.Bookworm]

You cannot take advanced intelligence unless you are playing with advanced race point buy

Where does it say that? It doesn't have any prereqs and is a racial trait.

And you're right. That could be better worded, but anyway, I'll just go take my free +4 to Int and 12 free RP for whatever and go cry in a corner.

[subject42]

Not sure how this would add up in regards to the core races, but the problem seems to be the fact that the RP can be spent anywhere as long as the math allows you to.

There is a limit to this. Standard race point buy, for example, allows 3 qualities per category.

[Drothmal]

Where does it say that? It doesn't have any prereqs and is a racial trait.

And you're right. That could be better worded, but anyway, I'll just go take my free +4 to Int and 12 free RP for whatever and go cry in a corner.

1) It could definitely be better worded, I made the same mistake and every thread I see about it has this same issue

2) I totally agree with you... +4 to INT is in itself a reason to choose that race (welcome INT 20 in low point buy settings)

So far, the ideas I've came up with to reach that 12 RP are

Feat (4RP)
Spell resistance 11+lvl (3RP)
Skill focus (spellcraft) (1RP)
+2 to all saving throws (4RP)


EDIT: Now that I've realized that you can get SR for only 3RP, I've realized that all melee builds from now on will be done with non-core classes if they expect to be competitive against spellcasters

[Reverent-One]

10 RP to spend.

Humanoid. +0 RP
Small size. +0 RP.
Base speed 20 ft. -1 RP.
Greater Paragon Ability spread (-2 Str, -2 Cha, +4 Int). -1 RP.
Xenophobic language array (Common). 0 RP
Advanced Intelligence (x3).

I have pooped things better balanced and more thought-out than this.

This is pretty much useless, because a DM is going to use common sense and make-up stuff, and letting a player use it is just laughable.

Yeah, you totally ignored the rules is a key issue here. Xenophobic language array allows only the racial langauge, and Common isn't a racial language. A 10 RP race is a Standard race, not Advanced, which means it can't use the Advanced Intelligence trait. Also, minmaxing to focus on one attribute and dump everything else isn't likely to be a issue for DM using the system.

EDIT: Ninja'd.

And the Paizo playtest forums have pretty much universally said that trying to fit all the core races into a 10 point mold is a bad idea, and the developers have said(emphasis theirs):


Okay folks, got it. You want us to reassess some of the abilities, and you don't care if the points of all core races add up to 10 points. I will put that on the list of strong considerations for the final iteration of the system.

Thank you for the feedback. We hear you. We want to create a system that you all will like and your GM will use to create new races for the game, so this aspect of the system will be reexamined given the arguments you all put forward.


So they're listening to feedback on the matter.

[Mustard]

This post (http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/advancedRaceGuidePlaytest/coreRacesAddUpTo10&page=2#94) shows that Paizo acknowledges how strongly the community feels about the "adding up to 10" thing. So, fingers crossed?

Edit: Swordsaged, as I delayed by reading more of that thread :smalltongue:

[Infernalbargain]

There was a thread for this earlier in which someone quickly made a sorcerer race. As in, a race built entirely for sorcerers. It added up to 10 points, but there was no doubt that it was significantly stronger than the other races, at least in terms of sorcerer. The reason is that synergy between different abilities tends to be more important than the abilities on their own.

If you're talking about my undead sorcerer, then that actually doesn't work due to technicalities.

The one good thing about what they've put out is that there isn't too much that helps with casting. The bad thing is that there isn't a lot that deals with casting.

Melee's do get SR, flying, and +saves. I believe there's a few things like see invisibility as well and access to SLA's.

This is just something that bothers me. The paragon spreads give -RP and is "weaker". If you're a paragon of your race aren't you supposed to be better than your average guy? Aren't you supposed to have better stats? Paragon and greater paragon should have a higher stat array and a positive RP cost.

[Reverent-One]

This is just something that bothers me. The paragon spreads give -RP and is "weaker". If you're a paragon of your race aren't you supposed to be better than your average guy? Aren't you supposed to have better stats? Paragon and greater paragon should have a higher stat array and a positive RP cost.

It's not being a Paragon of your race. Since every other member of your race would have the same stats boosts, you're nothing special there. But it's about being a paragon of <X stat>.

[subject42]

So they're listening to feedback on the matter.

Wow, I managed to miss that when I was trawling through that thread. I hope they actually do a second playtest based on that data.

[Infernalbargain]

After having read through a few pages of that thread, I found this thread to be basically the encapsulment of many of the main issues with the guide.

Pricing analysis (http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/advancedRaceGuidePlaytest/advancedRaceGuidePlaytestPricingThoughts)

[Baroncognito]

Skilled: The "Skilled" racial quality, defined by one extra skill point per level, is worth 4RP. Based on favored class bonuses, 1 skill point is equivalent to 1 hit point. If you use the "Flexible" stat array to grant +2 INT and +2 CON, you can get both one skill point and one hit point per level for a grand cost of 2RP.

Skill Bonus: The "skill bonus" quality grants a +2 racial bonus to one skill for a cost of 2RP. The half elf "adaptability" grants the skill focus feat for one skill of the player's choice, which grants a +3 to +6 untyped bonus to one skill. This only costs 1RP.

If you use the "Flexible" stat array, then at race creation you must select +2 INT and +2 Con. Which won't be as useful for a draconic heritage sorcerer.

It seems that the more choices you make at or during character creation, the more the racial ability costs.

Getting a specific feat costs 1 or 2 race points. Getting any feat at character creation costs 4 race points.

It makes sense when designing a race for general use. Having the potential to be good at anything means that you won't be as good at something specific as a race that's designed to be good at it.

However, as they don't include a system for alternate favoured class bonuses, I don't see human losing anything for having such expensive abilities.

[Arbane]

I think I would love the scientific approach if they were willing to admit that the core races aren't balanced. It might actually lead to future balance if Paizo was willing to take that information and introduce alternate racial traits. Unfortunately, I doubt that will happen.

Out of curiosity, which core races are regarded as the best/worst, and why?

[subject42]

Out of curiosity, which core races are regarded as the best/worst, and why?

I'm sure other people can expound on this in much greater detail than me, but I'll give it a try.

Humans and Dwarves are largely seen to be at the top of the core race heap.

For humans the main reason is the bonus feat. The extra flexibility (or even just raw power) provided by the feat can often emulate or eclipse racial abilities, particularly when it's used as a prerequisite.

Dwarves get a big grab-bag of useful racial abilities, a bonus to an ability score that is useful for every class (Constitution), a penalty to an ability score that is a dump stat for many classes (Charisma), and a speed penalty that doesn't matter for most characters that wear armor.

[Baroncognito]

For humans the main reason is the bonus feat. The extra flexibility (or even just raw power) provided by the feat can often emulate or eclipse racial abilities, particularly when it's used as a prerequisite.

Not to mention that the human favoured class alternatives are very nice.

[sreservoir]

Not to mention that the human favoured class alternatives are very nice.

FC alternatives aren't really considered for balancing races between each other.

[Curious]

FC alternatives aren't really considered for balancing races between each other.

They are when comparing sorcerer builds.

[Infernalbargain]

They are when comparing sorcerer builds.

Everyone always forgets that Oracles get the same thing.

[Baroncognito]

Everyone always forgets that Oracles get the same thing.

And bards.

[DeMouse]

Everyone always forgets that Oracles get the same thing.

They also forget that the Human favored class bonus for sorcerors still has nothing on the Half-Elf favored class bonus for summoners.

[Infernalbargain]

They also forget that the Human favored class bonus for sorcerors still has nothing on the Half-Elf favored class bonus for summoners.

If you estimate it by feat count, the humans come out way ahead with 10 feats over 20 levels vs. 5 feats over 20 levels. So while the Half-elf bonus to summoners is very good, it doesn't have the tier-shifting power of the human bonus.

[DeMouse]

If you estimate it by feat count, the humans come out way ahead with 10 feats over 20 levels vs. 5 feats over 20 levels. So while the Half-elf bonus to summoners is very good, it doesn't have the tier-shifting power of the human bonus.

Yes but you can only take extra evolutions a limited number of times and almost every summoner will be taking it every time they can.


The Extra Spells feat on the otherhand is just somthing to grab if there is nothing else you need.

[Tanuki Tales]

Well, I've read/skimmed through the playtest and I've noticed something weird.

Fey can get DR 5/Cold Iron for 3 RP as an Advanced option but crappy DR 5/Magic is 4 RP for a Monstrous and DR 10/Magic is 6 RP.

DR 5/Alignment is 6 rp and I assume DR 10/Alignment is 8 RP.

DR 5/Cold Iron for 3 RP I see as being a good measuring stick for DR 5/Material, but am I the only one who sees it odd that DR 5/Material is half DR 5/Alignment when both can be just as good depending on the circumstances?

And if we can get some decent damage reduction from the menu of abilities and Energy Resistances and outright Immunity, then why isn't Fast Healing or Regeneration one of the options?