That seems to be the consensus.Previn wrote:Well, what do you consider a huge pile of dice? 1 per possible target?
EDIT: Or to put it less weaselly: "for purposes of this question, 1 die per target is too many."
Moderator: Moderators
That seems to be the consensus.Previn wrote:Well, what do you consider a huge pile of dice? 1 per possible target?
HERO's Explosion advantage might pass this, but that would consider what you considered a "huge" pile. The procedure is:RadiantPhoenix wrote:Is there a convenient way of resolving Fireball against a crowd of basically identical elves that doesn't involve at least one of:
- Rolling a huge pile of dice
- Doing division at the table
- Either all the elves survive or all of them die
In this day and age? Yes its best to do away with stat bonuses from races like that altogether. Now, if you do need the numbers from the race for the game, just make it a choice the players can make, with maybe suggestions in the description for what most races take (+2 to two stats, Most Dwarves are tough and wise, thusly take con & wis, etc.). Simply bake it into the character creation process independent of choosing your race.Insomniac wrote:Do you think it is time to do away with class racial abilities to scores and do something more holistic like, pick a physical and a mental, pick 2 physical, pick 2 mental, etc?
This is what I've done. NPCs and monsters had BAB/AC/saves/spell DCs of 10+bonuses and PCs all rolled d20 +bonuses. The only issue was critical hits from the monsters, but I tried to stick to 20 only weapons for simplicity sake.Stubbazubba wrote:That was my next thought, as well. If you want to keep everything the same for the players, have them roll everything, both attacks and defenses, and have the GM never roll except damage. The difference between the bonus and the static score is always just 10, so everything is reversible.RadiantPhoenix wrote:@Orion: So, what you're saying is, PCs should have WARF saves, while NPCs should have WARF defenses, with the conversion set to mathematically equivalent numbers?
This runs into weird scenarios where a player is rolling fistfuls of dice and looking for 1s on their defense, and it's conceptually a bit weird because the GM would still likely roll for some things for the NPCs (like ending on-going status effects) but not attacks and spells, but other than that no immediate problems with it spring to mind. I don't know if those trade-offs really make it better than either the 3e or 4e method. Perhaps it's better to re-complicate things and have both passive and active defenses, but make spells and any effect coming from another combatant against passive defenses, while active defenses are generally only used against environmental effects. That's less conceptually weird, even if it does lose the uniformity.
That... has a lot of failure points. Basically you're asking a "raceplosion" to keep pace with the "Classplosion" to ensure that there is a complete breakfast of race/class choices available. To discuss the specific failure points, I'm going to start talking about the hypothetical Berserker specced Halfling subrace: the Jerren.MGuy wrote:I think that the best way to get races to mean something AND have it be that you can choose just about any race/class combinations is to give each race a number of traits you can choose right out the gate. 3.5 did this by basically having an elf for every day of the week. You want one that's good at being a woodland archer? Brown elves. You want one that's good at wizarding? Grey Elves. If the same is just done across the board for every race then you can have your cake (having Race mean something) and eat it too (be able to choose any race to fill any class).
Is it just me or is this describing the Pathfinder favored class mechanic, except where any race can pick whatever favored class bonus they want?MGuy wrote:I believe that avoiding at least half of these wouldn't actually be that hard. Obscurity and how well written each 'variant' is written can be avoided just by not doing write ups for each variant [Halfling]. Instead, just make the [Halfling] race, give them a general description, a single trait shared by all of them (short), then give them some optional traits. So all you need to do is get the fluff for the regular [Halflings] right and you don't have to worry about writing additional fluff for the race until you decide to expand on them. Then, if you do start making a "Races of [Halfling]" book or expansion options you can make additional traits for whatever subraces of [Halfling] you choose.
As far as writing 72 variants, I think that's unnecessary. Multiple classes can benefit from the same racial buffs. If you get something as generic as +1 Level 1 spell known that works well for any class that has that. Adding "Psion" onto the class list isn't even a problem because just about anything that helps a Wizard helps a Psion so you don't even 'have' to write new material if you don't want. At worst you might have to slightly tweak material you've already written.
As for the last two, not making the abilities over/underpowered is pretty much something you're going to concern yourself with either way.
I was thinking something similar.MGuy wrote:I believe that avoiding at least half of these wouldn't actually be that hard. Obscurity and how well written each 'variant' is written can be avoided just by not doing write ups for each variant [Halfling]. Instead, just make the [Halfling] race, give them a general description, a single trait shared by all of them (short), then give them some optional traits. So all you need to do is get the fluff for the regular [Halflings] right and you don't have to worry about writing additional fluff for the race until you decide to expand on them. Then, if you do start making a "Races of [Halfling]" book or expansion options you can make additional traits for whatever subraces of [Halfling] you choose.
As far as writing 72 variants, I think that's unnecessary. Multiple classes can benefit from the same racial buffs. If you get something as generic as +1 Level 1 spell known that works well for any class that has that. Adding "Psion" onto the class list isn't even a problem because just about anything that helps a Wizard helps a Psion so you don't even 'have' to write new material if you don't want. At worst you might have to slightly tweak material you've already written.
As for the last two, not making the abilities over/underpowered is pretty much something you're going to concern yourself with either way.
Code: Select all
Rockbiter the wild halfling orphan
Background:
Orphan, raised by dwarves : switch one positive trait for dwarven +con ( dex to con )
Wild : replace one negative trait with -cha ( str to cha )
nockermensch wrote:Advantage will lead to dicepools in D&D. Remember, you read this here first!
What if you just ran race as a secondary class and had ability trees you could pick from at specific level intervals, like Radiance does? Then you can expand those trees if you need to as time goes on and new classes are introduced, or avoid it altogether by tying specific kinds of utility exclusively to race instead of class.MGuy wrote:I believe that avoiding at least half of these wouldn't actually be that hard. Obscurity and how well written each 'variant' is written can be avoided just by not doing write ups for each variant [Halfling]. Instead, just make the [Halfling] race, give them a general description, a single trait shared by all of them (short), then give them some optional traits. So all you need to do is get the fluff for the regular [Halflings] right and you don't have to worry about writing additional fluff for the race until you decide to expand on them. Then, if you do start making a "Races of [Halfling]" book or expansion options you can make additional traits for whatever subraces of [Halfling] you choose.
As far as writing 72 variants, I think that's unnecessary. Multiple classes can benefit from the same racial buffs. If you get something as generic as +1 Level 1 spell known that works well for any class that has that. Adding "Psion" onto the class list isn't even a problem because just about anything that helps a Wizard helps a Psion so you don't even 'have' to write new material if you don't want. At worst you might have to slightly tweak material you've already written.
As for the last two, not making the abilities over/underpowered is pretty much something you're going to concern yourself with either way.
Alternate racial traits... related to classes? That's the PF Favored Class thing. Or just subrace traits that make you excel at certain classes?MGuy wrote:I think that the best way to get races to mean something AND have it be that you can choose just about any race/class combinations is to give each race a number of traits you can choose right out the gate. 3.5 did this by basically having an elf for every day of the week. You want one that's good at being a woodland archer? Brown elves. You want one that's good at wizarding? Grey Elves. If the same is just done across the board for every race then you can have your cake (having Race mean something) and eat it too (be able to choose any race to fill any class).
...
I wasn't exactly thinking about Attribute Scores. Nor was I thinking about PF's Favored Class thing (see the bit about not needing to create an ability specifically tailored to each class). Really it'd be more like alternate racial traits.
? Your response confuses me. My suggestion is that you have some generic racial description that covers a race, then a bunch of optional abilities that a person can choose from at character generation. I explicitly said to "not" tie the abilities to specific classes and that writing a bunch of subraces/racial variants was unnecessary. I certainly haven't pushed any ideas about awarding each race numeric bonuses at all.erik wrote:Alternate racial traits... related to classes? That's the PF Favored Class thing. Or just subrace traits that make you excel at certain classes?MGuy wrote:I think that the best way to get races to mean something AND have it be that you can choose just about any race/class combinations is to give each race a number of traits you can choose right out the gate. 3.5 did this by basically having an elf for every day of the week. You want one that's good at being a woodland archer? Brown elves. You want one that's good at wizarding? Grey Elves. If the same is just done across the board for every race then you can have your cake (having Race mean something) and eat it too (be able to choose any race to fill any class).
...
I wasn't exactly thinking about Attribute Scores. Nor was I thinking about PF's Favored Class thing (see the bit about not needing to create an ability specifically tailored to each class). Really it'd be more like alternate racial traits.
The first quoted bit sure sounded like it was indicating attributes or a PF favored class trait since those are how certain races become uber for classes. But however you do it, you don't want to make certain races or subraces ideal for certain classes. It's the same problem as certain races being uber at classes except now you have pushed it onto specific physical appearances and societies determining the bonus, which is at least as sketchy ground.
I'm not comfortable saying "Oh, you want an elf who does archery? Then you want a blond one who lives in the xenophobic elven forests of the north. A wizard? Then an almond eyed one with silver hair with a scholarly society. Sorcerer? Pick the black skinned ones from the underdark who have an unhealthy fixation on spiders."
Just give horizontal abilities instead of vertical ones for races. They can still matter at least early on, especially if they are something roughly on par with up to level 2 spell abilities: ability to create darkness, amphibious, climb speed, create fire, create ice, sculpt wood, levitation, resist element, etc. etc. etc.
The way you want race to matter and the what I'm talking about when I say race matters seems to differ. What I mean when I say it is that your race gives you some ability that you care about mechanically. I don't have any particular desire to have specific races tied to specific classes. What you're talking about sounds like what they did in 2E and to a lesser extent in 4E and that's not at all what I'd want.Orion wrote:MGuy, what I don't understand is why you think your proposal would even be satisfying to the "race matters" crowd. I don't think it would be; at least, I'm a "race matters" player and it wouldn't be satisfying to me. At the end of the day, you've just come up with a convoluted way to say "every race is good at every class," which is the opposite of what I would want to do.
One of the main benefits of forced race/class combos is that it enables you to make classes mean something in the world. Let's take Beguilers as an example. Beguiler is a mechanical patch class that exists to give people a different set of mechanics to access mind control magic with. A Beguiler is really not different from an Illusionist wizard, a Sorcerer with a pile of illusion spells, and Arcane Trickster, or even some kind of Bard in any way that would be obvious to an outside observer; therefore, beind a beguiler doesn't "mean" anything. Now, suppose we declare that beguiler powers are "fairy magic," and therefore only elves and gnomes are allowed to be beguilers, either because only they inherited the needed power by blood or because they learn from spirits who won't deal with anyone else. Now being a beguiler means something, and as a side effect being an elf means a little more than before. You don't want to lock orcs into being just a "dumb bruiser" race or elves into being a "casters only" race, but one of the benefits of classplosion is that you can give each race a character class for each role while also giving each race its own slate of classes. For instance: suppose that Halflings are allowed to be Knights, Clerics, Rogues, or Warmages; Gnomes are allowed to be Paladins, Assassins, White Mages, or Illusionists; Elves are allowed to be Samurai, Rangers, Druids, or Beguilers; Dwarves are allowed to be Marshals, Rogues, Fire Mages, or Necromancers; and humans are allowed to be Monks, Elementalists, Sorcerers, or Samurai.
The goal on release would be for each race to have 3-4 classes and each class to have 2-3 races.
That sounds like rehashing one of the worst things to come out of AD&D. No thank you.Orion wrote:MGuy, what I don't understand is why you think your proposal would even be satisfying to the "race matters" crowd. I don't think it would be; at least, I'm a "race matters" player and it wouldn't be satisfying to me. At the end of the day, you've just come up with a convoluted way to say "every race is good at every class," which is the opposite of what I would want to do.
One of the main benefits of forced race/class combos is that it enables you to make classes mean something in the world. Let's take Beguilers as an example. Beguiler is a mechanical patch class that exists to give people a different set of mechanics to access mind control magic with. A Beguiler is really not different from an Illusionist wizard, a Sorcerer with a pile of illusion spells, and Arcane Trickster, or even some kind of Bard in any way that would be obvious to an outside observer; therefore, beind a beguiler doesn't "mean" anything. Now, suppose we declare that beguiler powers are "fairy magic," and therefore only elves and gnomes are allowed to be beguilers, either because only they inherited the needed power by blood or because they learn from spirits who won't deal with anyone else. Now being a beguiler means something, and as a side effect being an elf means a little more than before. You don't want to lock orcs into being just a "dumb bruiser" race or elves into being a "casters only" race, but one of the benefits of classplosion is that you can give each race a character class for each role while also giving each race its own slate of classes. For instance: suppose that Halflings are allowed to be Knights, Clerics, Rogues, or Warmages; Gnomes are allowed to be Paladins, Assassins, White Mages, or Illusionists; Elves are allowed to be Samurai, Rangers, Druids, or Beguilers; Dwarves are allowed to be Marshals, Rogues, Fire Mages, or Necromancers; and humans are allowed to be Monks, Elementalists, Sorcerers, or Samurai.
The goal on release would be for each race to have 3-4 classes and each class to have 2-3 races.
Okay... first bit on top. I keep quoting it because you wrote it and it contradicts what you are saying now. You said you wanted to have races mean something and be viable for all classes, and cited 3.5 elven subraces as an example proceeding to describe how 3.5 had a bevy of elf subraces with different attribute bonuses that favored certain classes... and recommended doing the elven-subrace solution for every race to solve the problem.MGuy wrote:I think that the best way to get races to mean something AND have it be that you can choose just about any race/class combinations is to give each race a number of traits you can choose right out the gate. 3.5 did this by basically having an elf for every day of the week. You want one that's good at being a woodland archer? Brown elves. You want one that's good at wizarding? Grey Elves. If the same is just done across the board for every race then you can have your cake (having Race mean something) and eat it too (be able to choose any race to fill any class).
...
My suggestion is that you have some generic racial description that covers a race, then a bunch of optional abilities that a person can choose from at character generation. I explicitly said to "not" tie the abilities to specific classes and that writing a bunch of subraces/racial variants was unnecessary. I certainly haven't pushed any ideas about awarding each race numeric bonuses at all.
If you don't like subraces "for every day of the week" (i.e. class)... then I don't know why you said it. You explicitly gave examples of tying specific subraces to classes with attribute bumps and have explicitly said not to do that either. So I agree, you are confused.MGuy wrote:Your response confuses me
The CYOA setup in the first post meets these criteria. There are 12 races and 18 classes and each class has two races attached to it and each race appears on three classes. That's 36 available options. And this is quite an ambitious lineup for a board game. But for an RPG, it's rather poor. It's literally not even as good as AD&D, which offered 34 single classed Race/Class options and 24 Multi-class or prestige options.Orion wrote:The goal on release would be for each race to have 3-4 classes and each class to have 2-3 races.
You don't know why I said "3.5 did this with subraces"? The reason I brought up subraces is because that's what they did in 3.5. I'm not sure how I could make that anymore clear. You seem to be the one confused here which is why your responses continue to confuse me. Even if you got tripped up by that I explicitly say that there's no reason to use subraces in response to Frank mentioning that writing a bunch of variants would be problematic.erik wrote:Okay... first bit on top. I keep quoting it because you wrote it and it contradicts what you are saying now. You said you wanted to have races mean something and be viable for all classes, and cited 3.5 elven subraces as an example proceeding to describe how 3.5 had a bevy of elf subraces with different attribute bonuses that favored certain classes... and recommended doing the elven-subrace solution for every race to solve the problem.MGuy wrote:I think that the best way to get races to mean something AND have it be that you can choose just about any race/class combinations is to give each race a number of traits you can choose right out the gate. 3.5 did this by basically having an elf for every day of the week. You want one that's good at being a woodland archer? Brown elves. You want one that's good at wizarding? Grey Elves. If the same is just done across the board for every race then you can have your cake (having Race mean something) and eat it too (be able to choose any race to fill any class).
...
My suggestion is that you have some generic racial description that covers a race, then a bunch of optional abilities that a person can choose from at character generation. I explicitly said to "not" tie the abilities to specific classes and that writing a bunch of subraces/racial variants was unnecessary. I certainly haven't pushed any ideas about awarding each race numeric bonuses at all.
Frank already listed so many of the ways that idea is horrible, I just wanted to state that it doesn't even solve anything. Since every race gets "every day of the week", then on that level races mean even less. And since every subrace has a specific niche it just replaces the ickiness of certain races of being better at classes with certain subraces each being better (so every rogue is X Elf, X Halfing, X Dwarf, every wizard is Y Elf, Y Halfing, Y Dwarf). I also wanted to offer a worthwhile way to make races interesting without making them tilted towards particular classes (give horizontal racial abilities).
If you don't like subraces "for every day of the week" (i.e. class)... then I don't know why you said it. You explicitly gave examples of tying specific subraces to classes with attribute bumps and have explicitly said not to do that either. So I agree, you are confused.MGuy wrote:Your response confuses me
So it seems you read what Frank said then missed the part where I said "You don't even need to do that and in fact it's better if you do it this other way".me wrote: Obscurity and how well written each 'variant' is written can be avoided just by not doing write ups for each variant [Halfling].
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.