"Race Points" – What?

[Extra Anchovies]

How do they work? Are they a level adjustment equivalent? Is there some suggested method for trading class levels for race points when starting at ECL>1? It would be silly to allow, say, a 1st-level Centaur (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/more-races/monstrous-races-21-30-rp/centaur-28-rp) in a party of 1st-level humans, but I've looked all over the SRD and can't find anything on how exactly race points should be used to balance characters. Help me out here please :smallbiggrin:

[the clumsy bard]

Here (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/creating-new-races)

It's a reference to the advanced race guide, which has a section about creating new races.

The points give you an idea of the power level of the races compared to the regular races.

Level adjustment doesn't exist in Pathfinder the race points are a guideline for GMs, so basically ask your gm about the race most of them will not allow a 1st level centaur in a party of regular races, but a party with a centaur, ogre and trox, maybe more balanced in terms of a party.

Also pay attention to the Sidebar: Challenging Advanced and Monstrous Races found on the link above, it gives you a good idea of "adjustments" based on Race Points.

[squiggit]

There isn't any really.

Though there is a table http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advancedRaceGuide/raceBuilder.html under "Challenging Advanced and Monstrous Races" that gives some suggestions for adjusting CR for a party of monstrous races.


And there's a sidebar on the drow noble (41rp) entry that suggests you have them start one level lower than other races.

[Red Fel]

This page (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/creating-new-races) explains a lot of it.

Basically, race points (RP) are like a point-buy system, only instead of being used to generate a character, you use them to generate an entire species. The idea is that races with similar RP costs should be similar in power, and that features with similar RP costs should be balanced against one another.

For example, a Human is 9 RP. Catfolk are also 9 RP. Humans and Catfolk are totally balanced against one another. Ifrit are 6 RP, and as such are visibly weaker than Humans. Aasimar are 15 RP and are noticeably more powerful.

[Extra Anchovies]

This page (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/creating-new-races) explains a lot of it.

Basically, race points (RP) are like a point-buy system, only instead of being used to generate a character, you use them to generate an entire species. The idea is that races with similar RP costs should be similar in power, and that features with similar RP costs should be balanced against one another.

For example, a Human is 9 RP. Catfolk are also 9 RP. Humans and Catfolk are totally balanced against one another. Ifrit are 6 RP, and as such are visibly weaker than Humans. Aasimar are 15 RP and are noticeably more powerful.

I assume, based on your blue-text, that the actual power order is Ifrit>Humans>Catfolk>Aasimar?

Also, thank you all for the suggestions! I guess I'd either missed that page entirely, or just not read all the way down. Also, PF is really permissible with races. Odd, because D&D sticks you with RHD and LA if you want anything from a Monster Manual, really.

[Vhaidara]

No, I would say it goes Aasimar (they are really really good) > Human>Ifrit>Catfolk.

The biggest gap is the Aasimar, but it's hard to beat humans. Ifrit have some really fun options (+4 initiative as a racial)

Honestly, except the Aasimar, they're all about even

[Psyren]

The point values are there as a very broad guideline to help the DM know when a given race is starting to get out of band with the other races in the party. There are no hard-and-fast LA rules unless you're actually grabbing a monster out of the bestiary to use as a PC.

The idea is that designing a race, like designing a monster or spell, is equal parts art and science. Any definitive metric they came up with would just be broken in one direction or the other.

But if you wanted a rule of thumb - a high point-value race like Svirfneblin (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/uncommon-races/arg-svirfneblin) (24 RP) or Kasatha (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/more-races/advanced-races-11-20-rp/kasatha-20-rp) (20 RP) could be considered the top end of what we would call "LA 0." Higher than those and you start to get to LA +1 territory.

[Kudaku]

They're useful for creating your own races - the Advanced Race Guide came with a "make-your-own-race" easy bake set that gives you a rough idea of how you should value different race aspects. I've used it to make custom races and I find it a good help.

I would however never let a player design his own race without GM oversight. It's extremely easy to make min/max RP to make a class-optimized race while staying within your RP-budget.

[StreamOfTheSky]

How do they work?

You remember the laughably horrible "feat points system" SKR made long ago whereby some feats were judged to be really strong (like weapon focus) and others middling to weak (like you know....Natural Spell) and thus the latter were worth less points and you had the option of taking a load of the awful feats or trade them all in for a smaller amount of real power play feats like Cleave.

Race points are just like that, except for racial features, and published officially by a respected gaming company.

[Extra Anchovies]

You remember the laughably horrible "feat points system" SKR made long ago whereby some feats were judged to be really strong (like weapon focus) and others middling to weak (like you know....Natural Spell) and thus the latter were worth less points and you had the option of taking a load of the awful feats or trade them all in for a smaller amount of real power play feats like Cleave.

Race points are just like that, except for racial features, and published officially by a respected gaming company.

Wait, that happened? Dammit, Reynolds! If it's online, a link would be nice. I want a good laugh.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Gah, looks like he removed it due to all the ridicule (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/featpointsystem.html). Anyone good with using the Wayback Machine? It's too funny to let go of. :smallsmile:

EDIT: There's a giantitp thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?245177-Fixing-SKR-s-Feat-Point-System) that quoted some of his intro stuff, has some examples of how he valued the feats. Sadly, only martial examples, but in general the caster ones were vastly cheaper, and I'm almost certain he put Natural Spell at 5, it's joked about quite a lot.

[Psyren]

Gah, looks like he removed it due to all the ridicule (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/featpointsystem.html). Anyone good with using the Wayback Machine? It's too funny to let go of. :smallsmile:

I'm guessing you didn't read what he wrote in its place? Because it sounds like he was addressing it directly to folks doing exactly what you're doing.

[Khosan]

Anyone good with using the Wayback Machine? It's too funny to let go of. :smallsmile:

Here (http://web.archive.org/web/20140202043441/http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/featpointsystem.html) you go!

The concept is potentially workable, though probably easier to start from scratch with than assign a fair point value to all feats.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I'm guessing you didn't read what he wrote in its place? Because it sounds like he was addressing it directly to folks doing exactly what you're doing.

Where do you think I got the idea to ask about Wayback from?

If you want to do so, I'm sure you can find someone who has it or a link on the Wayback Machine to the original post.

His argument that "it was 11 years" and a "speculative experiement" is also laughable, because everyone who'd actually played the game knew TWF wasn't worth twice as much as Natural Spell since the moment he posted his "speculative experiement".


Here (http://web.archive.org/web/20140202043441/http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/featpointsystem.html) you go!

The concept is potentially workable, though probably easier to start from scratch with than assign a fair point value to all feats.

Thanks! And yeah, I knew it was 5 points, that was practically a meme back in the day. :smallbiggrin:

I inherently dislike the idea of a points system, such a thing will always be flawed and thus allow for abuse or for traps / "Timmy Cards" worse than the normal rules already supply. That said, I'm sure one could use a random number generator for points of each feat and come up w/ a better balanced end result than SKR did.

[Psyren]

Where do you think I got the idea to ask about Wayback from?

Right - the "if you want to do so" in your quote, refers to the previous sentence on that page, beginning with "Some people." Just checking.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Right - the "if you want to do so" in your quote, refers to the previous sentence on that page, beginning with "Some people." Just checking.

SKR doesn't like us, and we don't like SKR. *shrug* I'm not going to get upset if he has petty personal insults about us just because we tore apart the mechanics of his game rule ideas. Good job being subtle, though. Totally had no idea what you were implying.

[EisenKreutzer]

SKR doesn't like us, and we don't like SKR. *shrug* I'm not going to get upset if he has petty personal insults about us just because we tore apart the mechanics of his game rule ideas. Good job being subtle, though. Totally had no idea what you were implying.

Theres a difference between saying "There are flaws with these proposed rules." and "This is retarded, and you are retarded!"

Not implying you have been anything but civil in your critique mind you, just a general observation.

Anyway, was the idea really so terribly broken and pants-on-head-retarded? Or was it the execution that was flawed (i.e. the actual point costs for the Feats he proposed)?

[Vhaidara]

Anyway, was the idea really so terribly broken and pants-on-head-retarded? Or was it the execution that was flawed (i.e. the actual point costs for the Feats he proposed)?

The implementation. Weapon Focus cost 10 (a full feat level), as did Great Fortitude. Meanwhile, Metamagics and Natural Spell cost 5. So, in one level, you could take Natural Spell and a metamagic. Or you could take Weapon Focus. TWF cost 11 points.

[EisenKreutzer]

The implementation. Weapon Focus cost 10 (a full feat level), as did Great Fortitude. Meanwhile, Metamagics and Natural Spell cost 5. So, in one level, you could take Natural Spell and a metamagic. Or you could take Weapon Focus. TWF cost 11 points.

So, people basically tore SKR a new one over a first draft that had some imbalances in it?

[Vhaidara]

So, people basically tore SKR a new one over a first draft that had some imbalances in it?

That had some glaringly obvious imbalances in it that anyone who has any level of system mastery can recognize, yes.

I think a big part of it is that he points out that he was comparing Natural Spell to Combat Casting, Silent Spell, and Still Spell, and decided that it was half as good as Weapon Focus.

Also, Leadership is 8 points. Cheaper than the "+2 to 2 skills" feats.

[EisenKreutzer]

That had some glaringly obvious imbalances in it that anyone who has any level of system mastery can recognize, yes.

I think a big part of it is that he points out that he was comparing Natural Spell to Combat Casting, Silent Spell, and Still Spell, and decided that it was half as good as Weapon Focus.

Also, Leadership is 8 points. Cheaper than the "+2 to 2 skills" feats.

Still, theres a pretty large leap from that to "your rules are bad, and you should feel bad." I mean, a little tinkering and this system could actually have been usable.

[Vhaidara]

Still, theres a pretty large leap from that to "your rules are bad, and you should feel bad." I mean, a little tinkering and this system could actually have been usable.

Oh, certainly. Which I think is more why the attacks had a personal feel.

"Your system isn't bad, but you clearly have no idea what these feats do, given your numbers. We're going to fix that."

I personally would make like every Fighter bonus feat worth like 3 points at most.

[Blackhawk748]

I think Power Attack is worth 5 personally, it is pretty sweet, though pretty much every other Fighter feat would be 4 or less

[Vhaidara]

I think Power Attack is worth 5 personally, it is pretty sweet, though pretty much every other Fighter feat would be 4 or less

Power Attack itself is actually really balanced. It's Shock Trooper that breaks it by changing it from a shift in offensive priority to a trade of defense for offense (and offense wins in 3.5)

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Power Attack itself is actually really balanced. It's Shock Trooper that breaks it by changing it from a shift in offensive priority to a trade of defense for offense (and offense wins in 3.5)

To be fair, there are other feats that can contribute to large power attack multipliers, but Shock Trooper is certainly the main offender. I know it has two other tactical options, but I'll be damned if I can ever remember what they do due to how insane the most prominent option is.

I really do wish the feat point system had more refinement to it, but SKR's first draft is pretty much indefensible. It probably also gets more complicated with feat trees, because then you have to weigh the value of the feat itself (Shock Trooper and its power attack shenanigans three options) versus the cost of the feats to get to it. I know I encountered another player years ago who recommended a much simpler version where feats were worth either one or two points based on what they did. The +2/+2 skill feats and Skill Focus where almost universally seen as the cheaper one point option while things like metamagic and power attack - things you actually wanted rather than just a tax - were the two pointers.

[Khosan]

The main problem with SKR's feat points, in my eyes, was that he was looking at them almost regardless of the power of whatever each feat was affecting.

Skill feats might be permanent, but even for skillmonkeys these are mediocre choices at best. Metamagic falls into the same boat, just on the opposite side of it, it might have a cost (raising the spell level) but spells themselves are vastly more powerful than skills are. If you take his 'benchmarks' as suggestions for how much a feat of that variety should be worth relative to feats of the same type, it's kind of workable once you figure out what the benchmark is worth in actual feat points.

Except for Natural Spell. I don't understand how Natural Spell is justifiable at 5 points according to his own rules. It's breaking rules 8 and 9 and is severely underplaying rule 4. The difference between no spellcasting as a melee juggernaut and full spellcasting as a melee juggernaut is immense. To even get to a five point value on Natural Spell, it'd have to be an actual metamagic.

[Blackhawk748]

Power Attack itself is actually really balanced. It's Shock Trooper that breaks it by changing it from a shift in offensive priority to a trade of defense for offense (and offense wins in 3.5)

Which is why its 5 points, as i understand it that still means you can grab another feat at that level. Honestly Power Attack is a wonderful feat and Shock Trooper just ramps it up a ton, but the melee guys need that.

[caimbuel]

Race points, They are broken as hell to me, you can make a large, combat monster for the same points as a human. The points are wildly off in certain areas. GM's beware of cherry picking racials as this can get quickly out of balance.

Now if a GM wants they can make new races for a campaign and they are decent guidelines when fluff is equal to crunch. But I am sure a lot of GM's have made races before this, and probably did about as well as they would with points.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Race points, They are broken as hell to me, you can make a large, combat monster for the same points as a human. The points are wildly off in certain areas. GM's beware of cherry picking racials as this can get quickly out of balance.

To get back on topic, that's what I meant by satirically comparing them to feat points. The point values are wildly imbalanced, some overvalued, others under-valued. Originally, Paizo even explicitly based the points around the concept that "all the core races are 10 points and equally balanced!" (I'll wait for you to finish laughing) and assigned values in order to make those fanciful daydreams a reality. Lots of people got upset about that, and they backed off from that method of assigning point values, iirc. But that tells you a lot about their sense and motivations when it comes to racial balance.

[Psyren]

Now if a GM wants they can make new races for a campaign and they are decent guidelines when fluff is equal to crunch. But I am sure a lot of GM's have made races before this, and probably did about as well as they would with points.

Some could, sure. But the point of a splat is to get your juices flowing and give you ideas. Anybody under the sun can homebrew or freeform. That's what you're paying for - or not paying for, since it's OGL.

And it's a lot easier to tweak an existing framework than it is to develop one from scratch, especially a framework that has hundreds if not thousands of pairs of eyes on it scrutinizing and discussing the best and worst bits.