Mine all mine...don't touch |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is quickly becoming my favorite article on the paizo page. I am really looking forward to seeing the comics and finalized Pathfinder stats to go with them. Im hoping the series does well enough to justify a second six issue series with more cross over content. I must admit im very curious to see how we get to john carpender of mars in a pathfinder comic. (Maybe a preview of the inevitable starfinder comic series?). Any chance of some sample art from the series?
Marco Massoudi |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A great article, Erik!
I'm looking forward to issue #1.
All that research and thorough consideration makes me realize that i desperately want a new Pathfinder adventure written by you or at least a new monster.
But i'll take the six creatures in the Worldscape articles first.
I hope the battlemaps feature into the comic story too and that we can replay the adventures in a limited way.
Now if we only had some miniatures of Red Sonya, Tarzan and John Carter... ;-)
Erik Mona Publisher, Chief Creative Officer |
Samy |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If there's one thing that this whole argument proves, it's that Pathfinder needs more archetypes (for various classes) that allow for staying competitive without armor. Giving up X to gain monk type AC bonus or something like that. Armorless warrior is a massively common image in fantasy and it's just something that's very difficult to do in Pathfinder. There aren't enough options to do it for most classes.
Erik Mona Publisher, Chief Creative Officer |
Steve Geddes |
I know you can't confirm it because it would undercut the sales of the comic, but let me just state for the record that I *REALLY* hope those archetypes will be reprinted sometime in the future in the RPG line. The PRD needs those options.
This prompts me to ask if the relevant portions of the comics are published under the OGL? I guess they have to be, given the reliance on the SRD. I've just never noticed.
Berselius |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, the "Sword Devil" archetype of the Ranger class gives up hunter's bond (or at least having an animal companion), favored enemy, favored terrain, and spellcasting.
In return, it can allow a PC to stay competitive without wearing armor (kinda useful for those nasty at night surprise attack raids or when your armor is sundered) and has a few other abilities we'll probably see later on.
Welp, only one word can describe this archetype: AWESOME! :D
Marc Radle |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So that's several signifiers that point in the direction of a ranger: Excellent bow skills, total mastery of woodlore, respect and affinity for animals, tracking ability so strong her reputation as a hunter spreads to the leaders of distant foreign nations. And one more thing so common I didn't even bother looking for images to prove it to you—Red Sonja constantly fights with two weapons, another hallmark of the Pathfinder ranger.
Of course, the Pathfinder RPG ranger has a lot of class features that aren't appropriate for Red Sonja. She doesn't have an animal companion. She doesn't seem to favor a particular type of enemy over any other. She doesn't have what Pathfinder calls "favored terrain." And, perhaps most importantly, she doesn't cast spells.
Sounds a heck of a lot like a Spell-less Ranger! ;)
Fourshadow |
Erik Mona wrote:So that's several signifiers that point in the direction of a ranger: Excellent bow skills, total mastery of woodlore, respect and affinity for animals, tracking ability so strong her reputation as a hunter spreads to the leaders of distant foreign nations. And one more thing so common I didn't even bother looking for images to prove it to you—Red Sonja constantly fights with two weapons, another hallmark of the Pathfinder ranger.
Of course, the Pathfinder RPG ranger has a lot of class features that aren't appropriate for Red Sonja. She doesn't have an animal companion. She doesn't seem to favor a particular type of enemy over any other. She doesn't have what Pathfinder calls "favored terrain." And, perhaps most importantly, she doesn't cast spells.
Sounds a heck of a lot like a Spell-less Ranger! ;)
But he (Aragorn) could heal like no one other than elves! There's a bit of magic to that.
Alzrius |
Samy wrote:I know you can't confirm it because it would undercut the sales of the comic, but let me just state for the record that I *REALLY* hope those archetypes will be reprinted sometime in the future in the RPG line. The PRD needs those options.This prompts me to ask if the relevant portions of the comics are published under the OGL? I guess they have to be, given the reliance on the SRD. I've just never noticed.
I would presume that they are, but I can't check on that since I don't have any Pathfinder comics (my understanding is that while they have stat blocks for characters and maps, there's been no new mechanics before now).
My guess would be that - while names such as "Red Sonja" and "Tars Tarkas," etc. will be Product Identity (since they're made under a license) - the actual game mechanics for things like the new archetypes will be Open Game Content.
David knott 242 |
Stay tuned for the Warlord in Worldscape #2 and probably a jungle lord (who am I kidding, definitely a jungle lord) later in the series. Lots of no-armor archetypes to come.
Pathfinder Worldscape is the "Catcher in the Rye" of armor-less martial archetypes.
Will there ever be a non-comic book product that collects all these archetypes in one place?
Dhampir984 |
This prompts me to ask if the relevant portions of the comics are published under the OGL? I guess they have to be, given the reliance on the SRD. I've just never noticed.
I'm fairly certain I've seen the massive word block salad that is the OGL in tiny print in each of my comics. Pretty sure it's because they put official game content (rules and stats, not just fluff, world building content) in there that requires the various GLs to be printed with them.
Pretty sure Mr. Publisher, Chief Creative Officer can confirm that if he has a moment. :)
Cthulhudrew |
I've been doing a lot of this Pathfinderizing-comic characters sort of deconstructionist/reconstructionist character building lately, so I find this installment of the Workbook particularly interesting. Those sequences you used to help establish Red Sonja's character type almost seem tailor made to set her up as a Ranger- if I didn't know better, I'd say that Ms. Simone was a roleplayer herself (I assume these are all from her run?).
(She may actually be; I should know but I can't recall.)
In any event, though I'm not exactly well-versed on Red Sonja's character and appearances, based on my own comic reading proclivities, I'd say you could do far worse than use Gail Simone as a primary source. From what I understand her RS run was particularly good.
(And I'd highly recommend her first run on Secret Six to anyone that hasn't read it. It sort of begins to run dry by the end of that series, but I suspect that had more to do with increasing editorial demands with crossovers and DC leading into their New-52 reboot). Come to think of it, it would be fun to stat up the Secret Six Pathfinder style.
Maybe when I get finished with the classic Thunderbolts for a twist on a Hell's Rebels campaign.
Charles Scholz |
Charles Scholz wrote:I wonder if the Sword-Devil archetype offers a healing ability? Sonja has been cut, but there are no scars.Pathfinder rules default to no scars, so problem solved right there.
I've seen her get stitched up, and no scars.
Lord Fyre RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32 |
Cole Deschain |
Is it acceptable to disagree with Erik Mona's interpretation of the Red Sonja character? :(
If you offer an alternate take, I see no reason for anyone to do more than respectfully disagree...
Lord Fyre RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32 |
Lord Fyre wrote:Is it acceptable to disagree with Erik Mona's interpretation of the Red Sonja character? :(If you offer an alternate take, I see no reason for anyone to do more than respectfully disagree...
Well, the root of my disagreement is the "gymnastics" required to justify her armor. IMHO, this always introduces to rules problems (such as the Sword-Devil archetype).
Counterwise, I have zero problem treating her attire as armor. It is the simplest solution from a rules perspective, especially since Pathfinder armor doesn't act like armor does in the real world anyway.
Also, Beauty (an ineffable quality) does not equal Charisma (a game stat.) Sonja needs a good charisma stat (she became both a general and queen), but doesn't need to have an "18."
Rysky |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cole Deschain wrote:Lord Fyre wrote:Is it acceptable to disagree with Erik Mona's interpretation of the Red Sonja character? :(If you offer an alternate take, I see no reason for anyone to do more than respectfully disagree...Well, the root of my disagreement is the "gymnastics" required to justify her armor. IMHO, this always introduces to rules problems (such as the Sword-Devil archetype).
Counterwise, I have zero problem treating her attire as armor. It is the simplest solution from a rules perspective, especially since Pathfinder armor doesn't act like armor does in the real world anyway.
Also, Beauty (an ineffable quality) does not equal Charisma (a game stat.) Sonja needs a good charisma stat (she became both a general and queen), but doesn't need to have an "18."
Of course you have to jump through hoops to justify her armor, it's a f@ing clinking bikini.
Also I don't really understand your third sentence, she needs a good Charisma but she doesn't need a good Charisma?
Lord Fyre RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32 |
Lord Fyre wrote:Of course you have to jump through hoops to justify her armor, it's a f***ing clinking bikini.Cole Deschain wrote:Lord Fyre wrote:Is it acceptable to disagree with Erik Mona's interpretation of the Red Sonja character? :(If you offer an alternate take, I see no reason for anyone to do more than respectfully disagree...Well, the root of my disagreement is the "gymnastics" required to justify her armor. IMHO, this always introduces to rules problems (such as the Sword-Devil archetype).
Counterwise, I have zero problem treating her attire as armor. It is the simplest solution from a rules perspective, especially since Pathfinder armor doesn't act like armor does in the real world anyway.
This is where you are hanging up and I am not.
As I said above "I have zero problem treating her attire as armor" regardless of its form. Doing otherwise creates problems with how the game's combat mechanics function.
Lord Fyre wrote:Also, Beauty (an ineffable quality) does not equal Charisma (a game stat.) Sonja needs a good charisma stat (she became both a general and queen), but doesn't need to have an "18."Also I don't really understand your third sentence, she needs a good Charisma but she doesn't need a good Charisma?
In Pathfinder Worldscape, Erik Mona's write up gives Red Sonja Str 14, Dex 18, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 9, and Chr 18.
Given how the character actually functions in her world, she doesn't actually need a charisma quite that high (save for the AC bonus).
The Chr 18 was because the "Sword-Devil" archetype that was created (provided in that same source) allowed her to add her Charisma Bonus to her AC. IMHO, this is worse non-sense then just treating her bikini armor as armor.
Rysky |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is where you are hanging up and I am not.
As I said above "I have zero problem treating her attire as armor" regardless of its form. Doing otherwise creates problems with how the game's combat mechanics function.
No it doesn't. It's a bikini, it's not armor. Treating it as armor WOULD break the game rules that Paizo has pushed forth. I am not bothered in the slightest that some amount of common sense is used when determine outfits, especially silly ones, function.
In Pathfinder Worldscape, Erik Mona's write up give Red Sonja Str 14, Dex 18, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 9, and Chr 18.
Given how the character actually functions in her world, she doesn't actually need a charisma quite that high (save for the AC bonus).
The Chr 18 was because the "Sword-Devil" archetype that was created (provided in that same source) allowed her to add her Charisma Bonus to her AC. IMHO, this is worse non-sense then just treating her bikini armor as armor.
She's a longstanding and a popular pulp character handled by numerous authors and artists so "actually functions" drifts from iteration to iteration.
The fact that you have an issue with her having a high Cha and don't have any, nay, would want her bikini, I repeat, a BIKINI to be treated and comparable to actual armor is outright ridiculous.
Lord Fyre RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lord Fyre wrote:No it doesn't. It's a bikini, it's not armor. Treating it as armor WOULD break the game rules that Paizo has pushed forth. I am not bothered in the slightest that some amount of common sense is used when determine outfits, especially silly ones, function.This is where you are hanging up and I am not.
As I said above "I have zero problem treating her attire as armor" regardless of its form. Doing otherwise creates problems with how the game's combat mechanics function.
It is no more ridiculous then a magic missile, an orc, or any of the other things that we deal with in Pathfinder (or any other FANTASY game).
I say again, I have zero problem treating her bikini as armor.
Rysky |
Rysky wrote:Lord Fyre wrote:No it doesn't. It's a bikini, it's not armor. Treating it as armor WOULD break the game rules that Paizo has pushed forth. I am not bothered in the slightest that some amount of common sense is used when determine outfits, especially silly ones, function.This is where you are hanging up and I am not.
As I said above "I have zero problem treating her attire as armor" regardless of its form. Doing otherwise creates problems with how the game's combat mechanics function.
It is no more ridiculous then a magic missile, an orc, or any of the other things that we deal with in Pathfinder (or any other FANTASY game).
I say again, I have zero problem treating her bikini as armor.
Then that's your problem.
Magic Missile is magic.
Orc is a race.
A bikini doesn't give you more armor than actual armor just because it may look sexier.
So why you may have no problem with something as stupid as a metal bikini being an actual set of armor I find nonsensical cheesecake based on the false adage of "sex sells" pathetic and annoying.
Steve Geddes |
I think there are lots of ways to solve the problem of representing an unrealistic thing in a fantasy world. Erik went for the same solution you did initially and eventually discarded it for something he felt is superior. I don't think there's anything wrong with disagreeing with him, but I would suggest such distinctions are 'different' rather than a matter of 'right/wrong'.
Personally, I like the idea of fleshing out a specific character with specific powers via a new archetype - how 'the armor question' is solved isn't really something I care about. My take on Erik's blog was that by not trying to shoehorn her into a pre-existing framework he could stay more true to the character he was looking to portray. I think the armor thing was a starting point but quite a trivial detail (I'd be fine with either approach).
Steve Geddes |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A bikini doesn't give you more armor than actual armor just because it may look sexier.
I'm pretty sure that isn't his point.
I think he's saying that PF's method for modelling armor is not very simulationist anyhow. There's a simple, mechanical system (just add some numbers together) and that how you might describe your armor is not always related to how high those numbers 'should' be.
Rysky |
Rysky wrote:A bikini doesn't give you more armor than actual armor just because it may look sexier.I'm pretty sure that isn't his point.
I think he's saying that PF's method for modelling armor is not very simulationist anyhow. There's a simple, mechanical system (just add some numbers together) and that how you might describe your armor is not always related to how high those numbers 'should' be.
It doesn't matter how simplistic the armor system is.
I say again, I have zero problem treating her bikini as armor.
A Bikini isn't armor.
A Bikini isn't armor.
A Bikini isn't armor.
Rysky |
Neither are ceremonial robes, but they get an armor bonus.I assume you're talking about this?
Used for ceremonial displays or occasionally worn (albeit with no additional benefit) over heavier armor, these robes consist of several layers of cloth and an outer layer of silk intricately woven with gold brocade designs and covered with metal studs.
So like Padded Armor which has the same AC bonus, it's armor that is reinforced clothing (which is a real thing).
Not a bikini.
Lord Fyre RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32 |
Steve Geddes wrote:Rysky wrote:A bikini doesn't give you more armor than actual armor just because it may look sexier.I'm pretty sure that isn't his point.
I think he's saying that PF's method for modelling armor is not very simulationist anyhow. There's a simple, mechanical system (just add some numbers together) and that how you might describe your armor is not always related to how high those numbers 'should' be.
That is exactly what I am saying. :)
It doesn't matter how simplistic the armor system is.
Lorde Fyre wrote:I say again, I have zero problem treating her bikini as armor.A Bikini isn't armor.
A Bikini isn't armor.
A Bikini isn't armor.
At this point, you have left the realm of reasonable discussion of different ways to handle something in game.
Repeating something three times does not make it less or more true.
Steve Geddes |
Steve Geddes wrote:Neither are ceremonial robes, but they get an armor bonus.I assume you're talking about this?Silken Ceremonial Armor wrote:Used for ceremonial displays or occasionally worn (albeit with no additional benefit) over heavier armor, these robes consist of several layers of cloth and an outer layer of silk intricately woven with gold brocade designs and covered with metal studs.So like Padded Armor which has the same AC bonus, it's armor that is reinforced clothing (which is a real thing).
Not a bikini.
Sure. Not a bikini. I'm not saying "Chainmail bikini is a real kind of armor". I'm pointing out that ceremonial robes are not the same as other armor which gives a +1 bonus but we just accept the disparity between the flavor and the mechanics. The point being it's a simple system and what things look like and the mechanical bonus they derive are not sensible in many ways so it doesn't matter if they're not sensible here.
I think the real problem is the portrayal of Red Sonja as running around in a chainmail bikini - that doesn't go away no matter how you model the character mechanically. Erik couldn't do anything about that.
Perhaps to make the point another way consider following the path Erik chose - you're left with Red Sonja deliberately wearing a metal bikini for no benefit whatsoever. Why does she do that? Under Lord Fyre's interpretation, even if it was only +1, there'd be a reason.
Rysky |
Rysky wrote:At this point, you have left the realm of reasonable discussion of different ways to handle something in game.Steve Geddes wrote:Rysky wrote:A bikini doesn't give you more armor than actual armor just because it may look sexier.I'm pretty sure that isn't his point.
I think he's saying that PF's method for modelling armor is not very simulationist anyhow. There's a simple, mechanical system (just add some numbers together) and that how you might describe your armor is not always related to how high those numbers 'should' be.
It doesn't matter how simplistic the armor system is.
Lorde Fyre wrote:I say again, I have zero problem treating her bikini as armor.A Bikini isn't armor.
A Bikini isn't armor.
A Bikini isn't armor.
That was left the moment you tried to justify cheesecake.
Lord Fyre RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure. Not a bikini. I'm not saying "Chainmail bikini is a real kind of armor". I'm pointing out that ceremonial robes are not the same as other armor which gives a +1 bonus but we just accept the disparity between the flavor and the mechanics. The point being it's a simple system and what things look like and the mechanical bonus they derive are not sensible in many ways so it doesn't matter if they're not sensible here.I think the real problem is the portrayal of Red Sonja as running around in a chainmail bikini - that doesn't go away no matter how you model the character mechanically. Erik couldn't do anything about that.
True. (But I also have very little problem with a female character running around in unrealistic armor.)
Perhaps to make the point another way consider following the path Erik chose - you're left with Red Sonja deliberately wearing a metal bikini for no benefit whatsoever. Why does she do that? Under Lord Fyre's interpretation, even if it was only +1, there'd be a reason.
The character in play (as opposed to in art) would be unlikely to actually wear a bikini. :)
(Actually, I would give Red Sonja the full credit for wearing a masterowrk chainmail shirt, but also the Weight, Armor Check Penalty, etc.)
That was left the moment you tried to justify cheesecake.
I will leave that the the large Paizo community to decide.
Rysky |
Rysky wrote:Steve Geddes wrote:Neither are ceremonial robes, but they get an armor bonus.I assume you're talking about this?Silken Ceremonial Armor wrote:Used for ceremonial displays or occasionally worn (albeit with no additional benefit) over heavier armor, these robes consist of several layers of cloth and an outer layer of silk intricately woven with gold brocade designs and covered with metal studs.So like Padded Armor which has the same AC bonus, it's armor that is reinforced clothing (which is a real thing).
Not a bikini.
Sure. Not a bikini. I'm not saying "Chainmail bikini is a real kind of armor". I'm pointing out that ceremonial robes are not the same as other armor which gives a +1 bonus but we just accept the disparity between the flavor and the mechanics. The point being it's a simple system and what things look like and the mechanical bonus they derive are not sensible in many ways so it doesn't matter if they're not sensible here.
I think the real problem is the portrayal of Red Sonja as running around in a chainmail bikini - that doesn't go away no matter how you model the character mechanically. Erik couldn't do anything about that.
Perhaps to make the point another way consider following the path Erik chose - you're left with Red Sonja deliberately wearing a metal bikini for no benefit whatsoever. Why does she do that? Under Lord Fyre's interpretation, even if it was only +1, there'd be a reason.
Or you could not try to misinterpret what he's saying in order to stretch the benefit of the doubt. He wants to justify cheesecake. He doesn't like when artists don't use cheesecake.
Steve Geddes |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or you could not try to misinterpret what he's saying in order to stretch the benefit of the doubt.
I'm not trying to misinterpret anything. I'm reading what he said here (which is an opinion about mechanics that Erik himself considered so its hardly out there or unreasonable).
I'm not basing my interpretation on anything other than what's in this thread though. I think there are many legitimate ways to model red Sonja. I think the issue of the chainmail bikini is a sad, sexist relic from the 70s (?) and i wish they would abandon it.
You didnt answer the question though. Having adopted the view that a chainmail bikini is not armor (in your belief that taking that mechanical route avoids 'cheesecake') why does she wear it?
I really think the problem is with the art. Once thats there, any faithful representation is going to have sexist undertones. Either women are encouraged to wear sexy armor mechanically or a suppoosedly strong, independent woman has made this silly, unmotivated choice of running around in useless 'armor'.
As i said, i prefer erik's solution (partly because it would hopefully stop a proliferation of such characters) but i dont think trying to portray an inherently sexist subject a different way makes one guilty of 'defending cheescake'.
Rysky |
Rysky wrote:Or you could not try to misinterpret what he's saying in order to stretch the benefit of the doubt.I'm not trying to misinterpret anything. I'm reading what he said here (which is an opinion about mechanics that Erik himself considered so its hardly out there or unreasonable).
I'm not basing my interpretation on anything other than what's in this thread though. I think there are many legitimate ways to model red Sonja. I think the issue of the chainmail bikini is a sad, sexist relic from the 70s (?) and i wish they would abandon it.
You didnt answer the question though. Having adopted the view that a chainmail bikini is not armor (in your belief that taking that mechanical route avoids 'cheesecake') why does she wear it?
I really think the problem is with the art. Once thats there, any faithful representation is going to have sexist undertones. Either women are encouraged to wear sexy armor mechanically or a suppoosedly strong, independent woman has made this silly, unmotivated choice of running around in useless 'armor'.
As i said, i prefer erik's solution (partly because it would hopefully stop a proliferation of such characters) but i dont think trying to portray an inherently sexist subject a different way makes one guilty of 'defending cheescake'.
For this iteration: because of tradition concerning Red Sonja.
For every other artist: operating under the false assumption that sex sells.
Meta for this iteration: probably the same reason most of my character's don't wear armor, they have other abilities that supplement it or they just don't care.
And trying to portray a chainmail bikini as mechanically beneficial is defending cheesecake.
Steve Geddes |
I think you misunderstood my question. I mean what reason, 'in-game' would Red Sonja have for wearing that armor, given it gives her no benefit?
I disagree with the last sentence - I think it's leaving her in silly armor 'for tradition' that's defending cheesecake, personally. (Although, fwiw, I really don't like that term).
Rysky |
I think you misunderstood my question. I mean what reason, 'in-game' would Red Sonja have for wearing that armor, given it gives her no benefit?
I disagree with the last sentence - I think it's leaving her in silly armor 'for tradition' that's defending cheesecake, personally. (Although, fwiw, I really don't like that term).
Since I haven't gotten my copy of the comic I don't know what in-game reason reason for why she wears it, which is why I listed the others. My fault for not attaching this to that.
Oh, I agree, I would have preferred her not in the bikini as well, continuing it is perpetuating and defending the sexist ideology, but so is trying to make a bikini into armor. And bending over backwards trying to defend making it into armor.
Charles Scholz |
Steve Geddes wrote:Rysky wrote:A bikini doesn't give you more armor than actual armor just because it may look sexier.I'm pretty sure that isn't his point.
I think he's saying that PF's method for modelling armor is not very simulationist anyhow. There's a simple, mechanical system (just add some numbers together) and that how you might describe your armor is not always related to how high those numbers 'should' be.
It doesn't matter how simplistic the armor system is.
Lorde Fyre wrote:I say again, I have zero problem treating her bikini as armor.A Bikini isn't armor.
A Bikini isn't armor.
A Bikini isn't armor.
A bikini is armor, but it only protects the areas it covers.