Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Kyra

Chengar Qordath's page

2,415 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,415 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think a second round would be very worthwhile here, since about all the feedback they've gotten so far is "this sucks and needs to be fixed."

Plus a second round might let us see more of the actual class, given that one of the common dev answers was "Something from another part of the book that's actually still in the idea phase will totally fix this problem."


Vrog Skyreaver wrote:
We're not talking about more attacks, we're talking about bonus to hit. Rapid and multi shot both negatively impact bonus to hit. Thus, they're hurtful to a attack accuracy, not helpful.

Depends on how one defines accuracy. After all, in most cases rapid shot will improve your odds of landing a hit. Two attacks at a 50% chance to hit is a lot more likely to produce a hit than one attack at an 60% chance (75% chance that at least one of the two attacks will hit).


Yeah, as far as character power goes, the only difference between a magus with an estoc vs. a magus with a rapier is 1d6 vs. 2d4. Which, given how most of magus's damage comes from their spells and static modifiers anyway, isn't a very big deal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

I'm wondering if we'll get an UNCHAINED AVENGER down the road...

...

Uhg, I hope not.

Unchained classes are basically Paizo saying "Look, we screwed up with these classes. Here, we will give you a new version that isn't as broken". That's why we got the monk, rogue and summoner unchained (and the barbarian, because...reasons?). If the avenger ends up getting unchained or some equivalent, that means we will be stuck with several years of a crappy specialization/class before Paizo gets around to fixing it in an optional supplement.

I don't think it's Paizo saying "we screwed up," but I think it's Paizo recognizing Power Creep is a thing.

Not really, when the Unchained Barbarian and Summoner were both nerfed compared to the Chained versions.


Yeah, the RAW on the matter is pretty clear.

That said, I don't think it would be an unreasonable to houserule the estoc into the list. After all, it makes as much sense as the rapier.


chbgraphicarts wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Samy wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
My players split up all the time so I don't really understand the issue.
I wonder how common that is. At least in tabletop, I find juggling split up parties very cumbersome.

Agreed. There's the problem of keeping everyone at the table engaged in the story when some of them aren't actually participating, remembering all the important details in two different scenes going on, and all the other little problems that inevitably crop up.

One of my eternal pet peeves when it comes to split up parties is all the metagaming that happens when one of the split off people gets in trouble. "So, can we say that the rest of the party happens to be passing by and they hear my character screaming in pain?"

Had a DM once who basically went mobile with the game whenever this happened. When the party split, the players split accordingly, usually into entirely-different rooms, so that preservation of non-information could be kept.

It's especially easy if you have a double-DM setup.

It's not a bad way to handle the situation in some cases (I did it for really plot-sensitive stuff) but as you said it really needs a secondary GM if you don't want to leave half your players out of the game at any given moment.


Samy wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
My players split up all the time so I don't really understand the issue.
I wonder how common that is. At least in tabletop, I find juggling split up parties very cumbersome.

Agreed. There's the problem of keeping everyone at the table engaged in the story when some of them aren't actually participating, remembering all the important details in two different scenes going on, and all the other little problems that inevitably crop up.

One of my eternal pet peeves when it comes to split up parties is all the metagaming that happens when one of the split off people gets in trouble. "So, can we say that the rest of the party happens to be passing by and they hear my character screaming in pain?"


gamer-printer wrote:
I'd think the first time you meet some artificer, you'd take the steps and time to RP it, and that would be true for multiple artifers, smiths and craftsmen for all your needed enchanted and mundane equipment. As long as you have a homebase/hometown to return to with each adventure, the structure has been put in place, in future needs for equipment, you state what your PC is doing, but hand-wave it actually happening so you don't get bogged down in unnecessary transactions that have to be played out with every purchase.

That seems like a reasonable way to handle it. When I run campaigns with a fixed base of operations I do tend to include a cast of supporting NPCs that includes a couple friendly crafters.


gamer-printer wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
In my experience, the only reason "Magic Marts" exist is so that players can spend their gold with a relatively low amount of fuss and in-game time. I can understand the appeal of that after having one or two GMs who made shopping such a long, convoluted process that it could easily eat up an entire session.
Or you can simply find the artificers you need, contact them, pay them up front and get a date when the commissioned item will be ready. Then go to your next adventure (because it will take some time, possible delays, before its ready to pickup), and on your next trip home between adventures pick up the item you ordered - easy peasy. Many commercial services work that way in the real world. No need for long sessions, just don't expect to pay for something and get to use it today.

Depends on how involved the process of finding an artificer and putting in the order is. After all, if the process takes a couple minutes per piece of gear you order the time needed can easily add up once you have 4+ PCs all ordering multiple items.

As long as it's kept to the simplicity level of:
PC: "I go to that blacksmith I'm friends with and order X, Y, and Z."
GM: "He takes your money and says he'll have that ready in two weeks."
Then it seems to keep the simplicity of the "Magic Mart" system while adding an extra flourish some gamers enjoy. Personally, I'm not picky about how shopping is done so long as the group doesn't spend a ton of gametime playing Sales and Shopkeepers instead of Pathfinder. After all, shopping's usually just a distraction from the main plot of the game.


In my experience, the only reason "Magic Marts" exist is so that players can spend their gold with a relatively low amount of fuss and in-game time. I can understand the appeal of that after having one or two GMs who made shopping such a long, convoluted process that it could easily eat up an entire session.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:
Now, what this all has to do with "Cheese", the topic of this thread, is that "Cheese" doesn't really exist as an objective term. It just is a derogatory way of referring to part of a problem that dismisses the fact that you and someone else at the table have some clash of playstyle, and the important part of the solution to that issue has nothing to do the rules (although the rules might excasperbate things by being poorly designed and allowing some avoidable problems to crop up). The problem might be that the other player is a fun-ruining ***hole who gets a rise out of your unhappiness. The problem might be that you are a "badwrongfun" type who can't tolerate a difference in playstyle that otherwise has no negative impact on you. It could be that you and the other player came to the table looking for different games (which may or may not be reconcilable). Or it could just be that the other player is annoying you by doing something but they don't actually mind changing if you would just talk to them like a human being instead of dismissing what they are doing as "Cheese". The term "Cheese" is basically not conductive to actually solving anything or achieving anything or making anyone happy. It's one of those terms that shoots down any chance of a reasonable adult-like discourse whenever it gets thrown around.

Exactly this.

Labeling anything as cheese is ultimately going to kill any kind of civilized conversation over the matter. Ultimately, it has no meaning beyond "this is a thing I don't like," with a strong implication that anyone who uses thins you don't like is doing something wrong. I've seen the cheese label applied to everything from wizards using lots of complicated spells to a Barbarian swinging a greatsword with power attack.

Even if there are completely legitimate problems with the character in question, you can make your case a lot better if you don't toss out derogatory labels. Calling something cheese is just going to make everyone angry and start and start an argument.

Compare that to when I made a character who wound up being quite a bit stronger than the rest of the party, so after the game the GM pulled me aside and politely asked if I could tone things down a bit so I wouldn't overshadow everyone else. In that context, I had no problem doing exactly that. If instead he'd just labeled me as cheese, I probably would've either left the group or stuck with my current character out of sheer stubbornness.


Renegadeshepherd wrote:
Depends entirely on the GM. Ask him if he will let your efforts be meaningful or if the AP supports use of a mount.

Definitely do this. It would suck to invest a bunch of feats into mounted combat, then find out you can't actually use your mount.

Assuming a mount's viable, I'd definitely pick one up. Mounted Skirmisher gives you mobile flurrying that's a lot more flexible than what pummeling style offers (no charge limitations, can use weapons other than your fists). I did really enjoy my flurry of nodachi swings sohei when I tried that out.

As for AC, I don't think you'll suffer too much as long as you have a decent dex score. You could always grab the armor expert trait and plan on upgrading to a mithral breastplate once you had the cash for it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DominusMegadeus wrote:
Jeff Morse wrote:
We can disagree.
I don't see how we can disagree on plain facts.

It is right there in plain, unambiguous text. The ability only says it changes crit range, and says nothing about damage dice.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Are you sure you aren't just reacting to the word "ultimatum"? Because the choice seems fairly reasonable, barring the other players not wanting to have to "power up".

As a general rule, ultimatums never go over well. There's a big difference between "Hey, here are two ideas I had for how to fix the problem we've been having, which do you like better?" and "Pick one of these two options Or Else."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Robert Carter 58 wrote:
Some GMs don't want the PCs to feel "cool", I've seen this happen multiple times as a player. It's strange.

I think part of this stems from the old GM vs. PC attitude, where the GM starts feeling like he needs to compete with the players or sees it as his job to "beat" the party.

Which I've always found a bit silly, given that the GM really wants to win they can just have a level 20 lich teleport into the party's camp and cast Wail of the Banshee.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd say add more (but not stronger) enemies to your fights. The big weakness of melee powerhouse characters is that even if they auto-hit for a million damage, they can only kill the enemies that are in melee range. A couple minions in between the warpriest and the boss will do a lot to slow him down without massively increasing the danger to other characters.

Not to mention that with six players in an AP (which are usually balanced for four), you should probably be pumping up the encounter numbers a bit anyway.


6d6


Dekalinder wrote:

I think at this point is usless to try and rein in the power of feat choice when the average PF player is already used to pseudo full bab 6 level casters like inquisitors or magus , having pounce being a requisite on all martial characters ecc. ecc.

Power creep is already here, there is little point to try and give the shaft to the late comers like the vigilante.
Especially if the amount of options is going to increase in the actual book, the only thing that makes sense to me is embracing the trend and increase the amount of character options the class have. Even if it sound suspiciusly like CharOp.

Truth. Sayings about closing the barn door after the horse is already gone spring to mind.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Logan Bonner wrote:
...especially since the vigilante will have a really large number of options.
Could you elaborate on how many options we might expect compared to what we are seeing here in the playtest? Are we only previewing half of what might be in the final class? A quarter?

This is definitely one of the biggest issues I've noticed so far with the playtest. We keep hearing about all these other things that aren't part of the actual playtest which should fix the issues being brought up with the class, many of which (to judge by dev comments in other threads) are still in the idea/development phase. It really just doesn't feel like this class is actually ready to be playtested yet. It's like trying to write a review for a movie when all you have to work with is a synopsis and trailer footage.


Yeah, I really like the idea behind slingstaff too. If not for the lack of any way to do quick reloads, it would be one of my favorite weapons in the game.


Yeah, have to agree with bookrat. At the end of the day, a whole lot of how the mechanics of a class works boils down to dice rolls and static modifiers. These things are a matter of fairly simple mathematics.

Playtest data can also have lots of problems just by it's anecdotal nature. Unusually good/bad rolls might skew perspectives, a rules mix-up might make the class perform unusually, the particular scenario might really help/hinder the class, and all other sorts of things.


Mark Seifter wrote:
1) The UI rules aren't designed yet (or even ordered). They are going to be very cool, and designed to make a really intrigue-heavy game with lots of roleplaying and social dynamics.

[snark] How can you know the rules are going to be very cool if they haven't even been designed yet? [/snark]

Honestly though, it does seem like it'd be rather hard to get a proper playtest done for the class if half its functions not only haven't been included in said playtest, but don't even exist yet.


Ssalarn wrote:
Also, didn't Paragon Surge get nerfed into only essentially offering one extra spell known per day?

Yes, but that's still enough to be really useful.


I think that, as often happens in alignment discussions, people are making the mistake of assuming that only the most extreme imaginable case of the alignment applies. Obviously a society of total law or total chaos would be completely unworkable, but if you that only the most extreme interpretation applies that 99% of societies are neutral.


Also, Golems and undead aren't immune to critical hits in Pathfinder.


I thought the point of this thread was to find ways to deal with powerful caster tricks without resorting to "I'm the GM, so I can change the rules to say it doesn't work."


Secret Wizard wrote:
Increasing damage is increasing output, son. Power Attack is a good feat.

Generally true, but 3/4 BAB classes tend to be fairly hungry for to-hit bonuses if they want a strong melee presence.


Weirdo wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
The reason Combat Expertise was not allowed originally was because it was a form of concentration with your attacks, which was demonstrated in the bonuses/penalties the feat granted. Pathfinder didn't find that sort of intent to fit with their rules, so it was changed.
Yes, Pathfinder found that the restrictions against Combat Expertise, activating command word items, etc. did not fit their intent. So why would it fit their intent to add a restriction on bardic music that did not exist in 3.5? ncreased restriction appears to run counter to the intent of rage in PF.

I would point out that Paizo has looked at copied over rules text from 3.5 and come to different conclusions about how those rules worked in the past, such as the whole metaphorical hands debacle.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, "X is better than the rogue" isn't much of an argument when even Paizo admitted that the Core Rogue was so bad it needed a do-over.


kestral287 wrote:
Cuup wrote:
I'm reminded of my first Pathfinder character - Major Biff Biff, the Halfling Barbarian. Definitely not optimized for frontline dps, but he still had some great moments of ass kicking, and the group had a great time with him out of combat, as I basically roleplayed him like GIR. Would a Human or Dwarf Barbarian have done a better job? Obviously. We still got by, though, and that's what's important for making thematic characters - keep your flavor, but make sure you won't be responsible for a TPK from design alone.
Ayup. No different from the Elf Barbarian above-- there's a massive gulf between "fully optimal" and "asset to the party", and people tend to get their wires crossed between the two.

Indeed. I think a lot of people tend to overlook the middle ground in favor of focusing on the two extremes. When people hear about an unoptimized character, too many think of the useless kobold I mentioned, not the very useful but not 100% optimized elf barbarian.

Player attitude is also a big factor, I find. Someone who makes a slightly unoptimal pick in order to match their character concept is usually aiming at something fun and different. Whereas in my experience a lot of the players who make utterly terrible characters tend to blame the GM, the others players, and everyone but themselves and their build choices for why their character can't do anything useful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

TWF has always been better at pure damage than THF if you can get all the gold/feats/class abilities you need to support it.

THF's big advantage has always been doing very solid damage without needing a ton of feats, synergistic class abilities, or paying for two different weapons. While the TWF is still working down their feat chain, the THF is free to grab whatever other feats they want. Plus there are other little bonuses like better standard action attacks and being better vs. DR.


PIXIE DUST wrote:
LazarX wrote:
PIXIE DUST wrote:
Oh and the Alchemist has one of the most brutal Melee Killing machine builds in Pathfinder... by combining the Vivisectionist and the beastmorph. Granted you cannot play that combo in PFS since Vivisectionist is banned (I still can't understand why it is banned...),
Yes, you do... you just answered that question with your second sentence. To balance PFS scenarios against that combo, they'd have to make them insta-kill against everyone else.
How is it any different than The CAGM Barbarian? Or just a well made two handed fighter? Or Gheleena the Conqueror Ooze? There are a lot of power houses you can make...

Actually, as I recall the Vivisectionist was one of several archetypes with evil-ish flavor that got banned as a group from PFS.

Personally, I think banning the Vivisectionist for flavor reasons was a mistake. Or perhaps the mistake was the devs defining such a specific flavor for that particular archetype. In either case, I would say that the player should ultimately be the one deciding upon the flavor for their character, not what's in the book.


Bandw2 wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:


No wonder they took to firearms so readily and pike formations for melee.
Pike formations ruled almost all of history... Every period had someone doing crazy stuff with pike formations.

Yeah, a well-disciplined pike/spear formation was just about always the best form of melee infantry you could get.


Kalindlara wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
Krell44 wrote:
Kalindlara, can you explain a bit about the Unchained Barbarian and Dervish Dance?

You're familiar with Dervish Dance, right?

The core barbarian's rage gives her a bonus to Str and Dex - this does little for a character meant to benefit most from Dervish Dance.

The Unchained barbarian's rage, however, gives a bonus directly to melee attack and damage rolls - this bonus applies equally well even if the character is using Dexterity for those statistics.

Does that make sense? ^_^

Or you could stick with a "chained" Barbarian and take the Urban Barbarian archetype, which lets you boost your dex with rages.

Good catch!

I personally think that the Unchained barbarian is still the better of the two options. Urban barbarian doesn't give even the shadow of a Con increase. Plus, in my opinion, 90% of Unchained's rage powers are better. Each to their own, though.

Personally I'm not overly fond of the Unchained Barbarian. A lot of the less used rage power options got buffs, but that came at the price of nerfing or removing all the top 10% of rage powers. No more in-class flight or spell sunder, weaker superstition and Come and Get Me, worse action economy due to stances, etc.


Kalindlara wrote:
Krell44 wrote:
Kalindlara, can you explain a bit about the Unchained Barbarian and Dervish Dance?

You're familiar with Dervish Dance, right?

The core barbarian's rage gives her a bonus to Str and Dex - this does little for a character meant to benefit most from Dervish Dance.

The Unchained barbarian's rage, however, gives a bonus directly to melee attack and damage rolls - this bonus applies equally well even if the character is using Dexterity for those statistics.

Does that make sense? ^_^

Or you could stick with a "chained" Barbarian and take the Urban Barbarian archetype, which lets you boost your dex with rages.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CryntheCrow wrote:

A masterwork backpack weighs 4 lbs, nearly cancelling itself out in the weight department. Its not even a patch job on the core problem of 'light armor and light weapons can't be worn by a competent adventurer.'

Seriously, what chain shirt weighs 25 lbs? Full plate could be as light as 33 lbs if it was of good craftsmanship. You're telling me that something I can wear under my shirt and nowhere else weighs that much? Does no one else think its a bit silly that a character with no below average stats is barely able to carry anything around? People keep saying that average strength isn't enough for a hero, I'm saying that if the armor weight wasn't trumped up to absurd degrees, most people could handle that equipment layout in real life.

Yeah, a lot of the weights for items in Pathfinder do kinda seem like the devs just pulled random numbers out of a hat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Froth Maw wrote:
If you make them overcome their weaknesses, like Wraithstrike said, that's all fine and dandy. That's good character development. I've played with a TON of awful characters that were made that way for "role-play reasons" though, and the people who are complaining that the min maxers "aren't letting them play their character the way they wanted" are usually keeping everyone else in the party from playing the way that they want by expecting to have their hand held. It makes no sense for the party to not just kill them and take their stuff.

Yeah, when it comes to an unoptimized character, there are definitely varying degrees of unoptimized. I'll bring out two characters I've actually seen other people play for comparison.

First off, there was the strength-based Elf Barbarian someone played in one of my games (basically, he wanted to make the least "elf-y" elf ever). Yeah, elf stats don't synergize too well with a barbarian, but he used a reasonably effective build that made the most of what he had. Sure, a human would've done the exact same thing with slightly higher numbers, but he enjoyed his character and we enjoyed playing with him.

I will now contrast him against what I privately think of as one of the worst PCs I ever played with. A Kobold fighter who used two-weapon fighting with two unfinessable one-handed weapons while having a strength of ten. Needless to say, this resulted in him not being able to hit anything (Happens when you're at +0 to hit at level three) and doing miniscule damage whenever he did hit.


mourge40k wrote:
Speaking from the GM perspective, you can't always catch how a character is going to act from the get-go, especially if you're dealing with some new people in the group that you haven't actually played with before. When I'm looking over characters, I'm generally going from a mechanics standpoint first to see what sort of challenges I can actually throw at them without a wholesale slaughter. The story stuff is mostly secondary and generally developed during the course of the game itself, so beyond grabbing some good tidbits from backstory, I generally just let it through.

Truth. Character behavior is often hard to predict until everyone sits around the table and starts playing.

Heck, I recall one Dark Heresy game where myself and the GM both thought it would be funny for my character with a voice implant to have a weird verbal tic/malfunction that made his spout out devotional platitudes at random times. Talking it over a couple days beforehand, it sounded entertainingly quirky. In actual gameplay, it quickly became annoying.

Granted, that meant that within the first two hours of the session my character's malfunctioning vox-implant was repaired, and the annoying thing went away and never returned.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, to stick with the military metaphors, min-maxing is really about making sure your characters are assigned to units that suit their capabilities. It's making sure the guy who's incredibly good at languages is a translator, while the guy who's really good with a rifle is the sniper.

Ultimately, an optimized/min-maxed character is all about having the right (game mechanics) tools to do their job. It's about not putting the guy who can't run a quarter mile or shoot straight on the front lines, or putting the guy who can barely speak his own language in charge of translation.


Indeed. The "build your own eidolon" aspect of the original summoner allowed for a whole lot of creative ideas that just can't be done with the Unchained Summoner's eidolon being locked into pre-defined flavor.

And yes, I always find it ironic that the Unchained Summoner is a massively restrictive class compared to his "chained" counterpart.


Necrovox wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Erm, channeling kinda sucks in Pathfinder unless you spec for it. No reason why you can't ignore that you have the feature entirely, the Cleric is still a very powerful class without it and is significantly less MAD.

Maybe this is a holdover from 3.5, but I find the Cleric to be very weak compared to its old incarnation, Paladin, Warpriest, and Oracle.

Edit: I am trying to recall what exactly it was that gives me this impression other than playing basically the same Cleric under both systems and feeling really underpowered, or perhaps balanced, while the rest is heavily overpowered.

The 3.5 cleric did lose a couple of their best tricks in the transition to Pathfinder, most notably divine metamagic and (3.5) persistent spell allowing them run their combat buffs all day long can't be done in Pathfinder. And naturally the spell list got trimmed down compared to how much you could do with the 3.5 spell compendium.

So far as I can tell, the area where Paizo does semi-consistently try to reign in casters is when it comes to being better with weapon attacks then martial characters.


RDM42 wrote:
You havent watched much star trek if you think most episodes 'revolve around the technology"

Depends on the era, to some extent. But yeah, a whole lot of Star Trek technology is pretty much just wizards casting spells with computers and technobabble instead of instead of spellbooks and incantations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm starting to wonder if DM_Blake is actually reading anything people are posting. It seems like he's just made up his mind that the OP is a terrible, stupid, subhuman person, and will not allow any inconvenient facts about the actual game get in the way of that.


RDM42 wrote:
Guns exist in whatever category you want to put _Golarion_ in, you mean.

Pathfinder's rulebooks feature guns and gun-focused characters and classes too. Ergo, guns are part of Pathfinder. Guns are as much a part of Pathfinder as Oracles, traits, archetypes, and anything else that came out in the expanded core rules.

As stated before, that doesn't mean every single game played with the Pathfinder rules must include them.


thejeff wrote:
Others are doing the reverse - Guns exist in some subgenres of fantasy, therefore they must fit in whatever subgenre PF play is in.

In fairness, by default guns do exist in whatever category of fantasy you want to put Pathfinder in, because there are gun and gun-using characters in the rulebook and default Golarion setting.

Now, whether guns belong in a particular game being played with the Pathfinder rules (even if that game is set in Golarion) is another matter entirely.


I'd say Aasimar are no more unbalanced than a lot of the other options in the books. Strong if you pick your class and abilities well, weak if you don't. In other words ... normal for Pathfinder.


137ben wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Jessica Price wrote:
I like fantasy. I like some horror. Many of my favorite fantasy novels could easily be classified as horror, but I'm always going to go to the fantasy section first when browsing. A novel like Barbara Hambly's Those Who Hunt The Night (which I found in the SF/F section) could go in either. If it's tagged with both the fantasy and horror genres, both I and people who like fantasy but head for the horror section first can find it.
Indeed. Fantasy and Horror don't really conflict with one another in any way, because the two genres are focused on different things. Fantasy is about your setting, while Horror is about what kind of story you're telling.
Which really goes back to what Asimov said about science fiction/fantasy not being a genre, so much as the level of technology and/or magic in the world.

Indeed. Asimov himself was quite fond of showing how you could tell just about any type of story within the scope of science fiction.


Jessica Price wrote:
I like fantasy. I like some horror. Many of my favorite fantasy novels could easily be classified as horror, but I'm always going to go to the fantasy section first when browsing. A novel like Barbara Hambly's Those Who Hunt The Night (which I found in the SF/F section) could go in either. If it's tagged with both the fantasy and horror genres, both I and people who like fantasy but head for the horror section first can find it.

Indeed. Fantasy and Horror don't really conflict with one another in any way, because the two genres are focused on different things. Fantasy is about your setting, while Horror is about what kind of story you're telling.


Jessica Price wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Books are shades. Genres are colors. Trying to argue that something isn't fantasy because it's also horror or because it doesn't have as much fantasy as LotR is just without any point at all.

Taxonomy of RPGs. Individual books are Species. The Pathfinder RPG is one species. Books in a series are a Genus. All the D&D 3.x derived material is a genus. D&D and it's derivatives are a Family, and includes AD&D, ACKS, BD&D, 4e D&D, and plenty of others. Fantasy RPGs are an Order, with D&D and Runequest and Exalted and others. And RPGs in general are a Class, with Orders including Fantasy, Horror, SF, Alternative History, and History below it.

For taxonomy of literary genres, you'd have different categories, but a similar sort of result including a few things that would create arguments. Biologists have been doing that for years -and the arguments go on.

Nah, because you can only be one species. A book can easily fit into multiple genres.

Exactly. Genres are, by definition, broad, sweeping categories. It's easy to imagine a story that could fit across three or four different genres.

A detective in a magical steampunk version of the Old West is being stalked by a mysterious serial killer, and must learn the killer's identity before they become the next victim.

Fantasy (There's magic)
Sci-fi (Steampunk)
Western (It's in the Old West)
Horror (Protagonist being stalked by a killer)
Mystery (Protagonist must find out who the killer is)


Anzyr wrote:
thejeff wrote:
More it's completely irrelevant to the larger question because Pathfinder is a particular subgenre of fantasy - it doesn't even pretend to handle all possible variations and genres of fantasy. So saying "X" can belong in fantasy says absolutely nothing about whether it belongs in PF.
I'd say Pathfinder is actually trying very hard to handle as many genres of fantasy as it possibly can. See Golarion for details.

Indeed. Paizo has pretty clearly tried to make Pathfinder as broad as possible within the fantasy genre. Traditional medieval fantasy? They have it. Eastern fantasy? Head to Tian Xia. Sci-fi elements? Buy the tech guide. Want guns in your fantasy. There's a gunslinger class and a bunch of gun-using archetypes.

1 to 50 of 2,415 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.