Amiros Valeri's page

They AREN"T hard coded.

"Often"

"Average"

"Typical"

Just like in real life where every ethnicity has variances the same is true in Pathfinder, you're not going to get any exact measurements on differing ethnicities any more than you're going to get which one usually has a +2 to Strength and which one has a +2 to Intelligence.

Drop it.

Commanding someone to do something is not good etiquette. Some could view that as a form of harassing (as you are attempting to get someone to do something simply by 'demanding' they do so). You have no authority over me, just as I do not have any over you.

I asked a question, then presented my side of the debate and nearly everyone that posted did so in a respectable way, regardless of which side they favor.

Thank you to everyone who did contribute to the topic in a respectful way.

It seems the 'no, there should not be such a table' side is by two different types of people opposed to such a thing.

The first ones are the ones who incorrectly think such a thing would be a 'mechanical rules set'. Again refer to table 7-3 in the core rulebook. That is as much a 'mechanical rules set' as a table that incorporates the various Golarion human ethnicities would be. If you treat table 7-3 as optional, then do the same should such a table be officially given to us. That problem is SOLVED.

The other seems to be from people who are thinking doing such a thing would offend members of our real-world ethnicities. Doing such a thing would not do it any more than the physical descriptions you have come up and published for them. If that has been an issue in the past then why would the books that came later (like Inner Sea Races) still include descriptions that could be viewed as offending members of real-world ethnicities. We players, know that Golarion used some real-world stuff as inspiration. We also know that Golarion is NOT Earth. We also know that the human ethnicities of Golarion are NOT the ethnicities of Earth (even if real-world ethnicities and cultures might have been part of the inspiration for them). As latter books, like Inner Sea Races, continue to include physical descriptions that deviate from average humans (core rulebook) it can be deduced that Paizo does not think that it is an issue to do so. Logical Deduction: they should not think having such a table to incorporate their FAKE (aka not real-world) human ethnicities is an issue. Problem solved.

Then there are the Pathfinder players who desire a table that much better reflects and incorporates the differences between the various human ethnicities of Golarion. Without such an official table given to us the problem is NOT SOLVED.

Why is it 'okay' to tell us specific Golarion human ethnicities are (on average) taller or shorter than humans of other ethnicities, but than take a stance that it is 'not okay' to make a table that does? This question is the crux of the whole discussion. The two stances are contradictory and a person should not have both stances.

Amiros Valeri wrote:

There are disclaimers in the books. Dragon Empires Gazetteer states that the Tian Xia was inspired by various real-world Asian cultures/mythos but also states that Tian Xia is not Asia.

Which means that the natives of Tian Xia aren't required to be short. If they have a less grain-fed diet they can be considerably taller than their Asian inspirations. That's why the Romans who were grain-fed were towered over by the Germanic barbarians who ate a diet that Atkins would have approved of.

You seem to be missing the point. We have been given official physical descriptions regarding the Golarion ethnicities - which about half of them includes descriptions that gives us facts regarding their average height not being the same as the default human average. You are basing your envisioning of Tians without taking into account what has been officially printed about their appearance. What requires the majority of Tians to be short is THE official given physical descriptions of Tians from the Inner Sea World Guide. It is kind of pointless to include such descriptions (which serve the purpose of us - the players - to better envision the world of Golarion) if then we are informed that such non-vague descriptions are 'vague'.

I am referring to tables that actually take into account what Paizo has decided the Golarion human ethnicities look like - which includes significant differences in the average height for about half the ethnicities compared to the average height for the remaining human ethnicities (which by default fall into range provided by the random height/weight table from the core rulebook).

Specifically regarding the Tians - from the officially published books:

"Tians tend to be smaller and slighter than people of Avistan and Garund. Men only infrequently grow as tall as 5 1/2 feet, while women often barely break 5 feet in height."

By the officially give physical descriptions the majority of Tians are indeed shorter than the other Golarion human ethnicities (with the Mwangi-Zenj being an exception).

Including descriptions of the average, minimum and maximum heights of the ethnicities (which are indeed given in the Inner Sea World Guide and Inner Sea Races) is most definitely not 'vague descriptions' regarding their heights. The weight differences can easily be considered vague descriptions, so a Golarion human ethnicity height table need not include the weight aspect. Please provide some clarification to the questions below (which are from the definitely not vague descriptions of Golarion human ethnicities). By doing so you will be providing GMs and players who prefer to have a random height table that better results in averages that make sense for the definitely (not vague) height parameters that have been officially published.

Vague descriptions is not accurate regarding the average height descriptions that are given in the ethnicity physical write-ups.

As determined from the random height and weight table from the core rulebook: The average human male is 5'9" and 175 pounds. The average human female is 5'4" and 140 pounds.

Garundi:
ISWG: "Typical Garundi are rather tall and solidly built."
ISR: "The average height for Garundi is several inches taller than the average human overall"

The above two officially given descriptions tells us that the average Garundi is definitely taller than the 'average' human (as determined by the core rulebook). Can you at least clarify how many inches are meant by the ISR description of 'several inches taller' - or the range that you consider several? What is the minimum height that you consider 'rather tall'?

Mwangi-Bekyar:
ISWG: "The Bekyar are exceedingly tall - many topping 7 feeting tall"
ISR: "Most of the isolationist Bekyars stand a head taller than other Mwangi and have muscular builds."

By the phrase 'topping' do you mean that 7 feet is the maximum height or that is the minimum height of the many that top 7 feet? If you mean that 7 feet is the maximum height then what is the minimum height that you consider is 'exceedingly tall'? 7 feet tall is not a viable height generated by the table in the Core rulebook. Bekyar as a whole are 'exceedingly tall' - meaning the standard human height range table would be greatly in accurate to use to generate a random height for them. That is the purpose the random height table - for GMs and players (who choose to do so) to be able to roll randomly to determine the height of a PC/NPC.

Mwangi-Mauxi:
ISWG: "These tall, patrician folk"

We now have three different ranges of tall from only Garundi, Bekyar and Mauxi. What is the different height ranges for "tall", "rather tall" and "exceedingly tall". They are obvious different (hence we know compared to average humans we know the average heights in ascending order are standard (core rulebook) human, Mauxi, Garundi, Bekyar.

Mwangi-Zenj:
ISWG: "The Zenj are slightly shorter than average humans, with slender, muscular builds with wiry black hair."
ISR: "The Zeng people of the continental interior and southern savannas are both the most numerous and the most varied in their coiffure and attire; they're the shortest of the Mwangi people and tend toward compact, athletic builds."

So we know from the descriptions for the Mwangi ethnicities that the height average for each is different: in ascending order: Zenj, Bonuwat (which would be standard core rulebook human average), Mauxi, Bekyar.

Shoanti:
ISR: "Shoanti are powerfully built, and often stand more than 6 feet tall as adults."

This one is easy enough to figure out as 6' is not more than 6' and often can easily be viewed as not quite the majority. The word often used as a parameter also tells us 40 to 50% (as that is the definition of often in the 3.5 D&D Monster Manual - as Pathfinder used the 3.5 rules set as the base rules set).

Tians:
Not touching on the weight/build differences, there are only two relevant officially given descriptions regarding Tian heights.

ISWG: "Tians tend to be smaller and slighter than people of Avistan and Garund. Men only infrequently grow as tall as 5 1/2 feet, while women often barely break 5 feet in height."
Dragon Empires Gazetteer: "As with their neighbors, the Tian-Dans and Tian-Dtangs, the Tian-Hwans tend to have thin builds and tan skin - of the three, they also tend to be the shortest."

So the definitely not vague description of Tian tells us the following: males reach 5'6" only infrequently (infrequently is less than often).
Is what was meant that the males only reach a maximum height of 5'6" or a height of 5'6" or taller.
For the females what do you consider barely breaking 5 feet? 1 inch? 2? 3? less than 4? less than 3?

Ulfen:
ISWG: "Most Ulfen are quite tall, with men starting at 6 feet and the women just a few inches shorter."
ISR: "Men and women alike often exceed 6 feet in height."

What do you mean by quite tall. Is 'quite tall' the same height as 'rather tall' (Garundi) or is one taller than the other - and if so which do you consider the taller of the 'quite tall' and 'rather tall'?

Regarding the ISWG description: all male Ulfen start at 6' or that most male Ulfen start at 6 feet? What do you consider a few inches (or which range do you consider a few inches)?

Regarding the ISR description: standard female humans (from the core rulebook) have a maximum height of 6'1". - often (40 to 50%). So based on the description and the standard height range for female humans - about half of Ulfen females are exactly 6'1" with the remaining half being within a range that is either A) only a few inches shorter than 6 feet or B) the rest of the standard range for female humans (4'7" to 6'0").

The average height of the Golarion human ethnicities has already been hard-coded from the physical descriptions that have been officially published in the Inner Sea World Guide, Inner Sea Races and (to a lesser extent) Dragon Empires Gazetteer.

A suggestion for future books if you want to not 'hard-code' average racial/ethnicity heights: Use descriptors such as 'some' or 'many' instead of words like 'average', 'most', 'often' (as these three words 'hard-code').

According the core rulebook, a player (RAW) does not even get to choose the height and weight of their character but is instructed to determine their character's height and weight by using the Random Height and Weight Table. This means by using the standard (and only officially existing) table that many results do not properly align up with about half of the Golarion human ethnicities. Hence the request that an official random height table for the various Golarion human ethnicities is a very reasonable (and logical) request.

Jessica> The appearances of Golarion human ethnicities have already been dictated by the descriptions that have been given in the Inner Sea World Guide, Inner Sea Races and Dragon Empires Gazetteer. If Paizo's stance had changed since printing the Inner Sea World Guide regarding feeling that they do not want to 'dictate' the appearances of human ethnicities any longer, then why did Inner Sea Races also include such appearance descriptions?

If you were not interested in doing something like that, than why do the ethnicity physical appearances write-ups include ones that specifically point out they are taller or shorter than average humans?

In short: there are already officially released books containing physical descriptions (including specific ethnicity height and weight differences compared to 'average humans' - which there is an official existing height/weight table for). So how is it that making a human ethnicity height and weight table that simply incorporates the already physical height/weight descriptions published in Pathfinder books be a 'bad thing' while the descriptions of the ethnicities in the book are not a 'bad thing'?

Another way to word it: Paizo has decided to give us a great detailed variety of human ethnicities for Golarion, which include descriptions of physical features and how they compare to each other regarding height and weight/build. How is having an offical height/weight table that actually reflects the different heights/weights of the Golarion human ethnicities that Paizo decided to create for the game a bad thing?

Simply put: it is silly to give physical descriptions that include the different average heights of the various human ethnicities then claim that it would be 'wrong' to create a height/weight table to reflect such differences that have already been described in the physical appearance write-ups.

There are disclaimers in the books. Dragon Empires Gazetteer states that the Tian Xia was inspired by various real-world Asian cultures/mythos but also states that Tian Xia is not Asia.

Your reply/stance contradicts with what has already been given to us (the ethnicity descriptions that dictate what each ethnicity looks like - including height differences between the ethnicities).

Jessica and Larkos> I am not referring to mechanical games rules that affect gameplay (the height and weight of a PC is trivial). I am referring to random height and weight tables that actually reflect the write-ups of the various human ethnicities in the Campaign Settings books. For example the height given in one of the ethnicities' write-ups is impossible to generate with the random height table from the core rulebook (Mwangi-Bekyar). I am not sure how the miscommunication happened. Playing Chelaxian's advocate: based on your stance there should not be any random height and weight tables for any of the races. The current (and only official) random height table for humans generates heights that are not average for about half of the ethnicities.

Charles> The core rulebook does not take into account the human ethnicities (since the Core rules are not campaign-world specific.

RDM42> I agree that they would not be problematic. If they were that means that any and all such tables (that do exist) are problematic (which they are not).

Chris> I have not checked since my last post so I did not see the baiting post. Thank you for removing it.

I have come up with a way to generate heights (that stay within the standard human range) so that the results weight the non-average height human ethnicities to become closer to the descriptions the ethnicities are given in the books. It is by using the roll-keep mechanic of L5R. For example if a GM wants to make it so that Ulfen males are at least 6 feet tall (which one sourcebook states they start at 6 feet) make the roll 3k2d10 (which makes 53% of Ulfen males be at least 6 feet tall). 4k2d10 would make 70% of Ulfen males be at least 6 feet tall. 5k2d10 would make 81% of them at least 6 feet tall. 6k2d10 would make 88% of them at least 6 feet tall.

Jessica> An official release of a proper human ethnicity height and weight table would be good to have. It would not be problematic as it has nothing to do with mechanical rules (such as traits, which your post suggests that is what you thought this thread was about). If you still believe that a such a table (just for human ethnicities' height and weight) would be problematic, could you kindly explain how the official existing height and weight tables for the other races are not problematic?

*scratches his head and wonders how a simple question got non-related aspects (traits/game mechanic rules) attached to it*

Correct. The GM has the authority to ressurect dead PCs in any manner, and the PFS character does not need to pay for removal of conditions from the campaign mode PC. What happens in Campaign Mode stays in Campaign Mode.

Thank you. One of my worries has been if one of the PCs die then it would put a considerable dent in our 2+ year's worth plan of our future PFS character campaign. That completely removes that potential significant hiccup to our plans.

Thank you, Lamplighter, Claude and Steven. That gets an athach's three thumbs up.

Amiros Valeri wrote:

I am running Skulls & Shackles for my home group using home-brew rules. (...)

AP's using Campaign mode is not the same as getting pregen credit, so you don' have to worry about this happening.

Yes, it is. We are using the home-brewed rules, applying pre-gen credit towards actual PFS campaign characters.

Page 11 of the new guide, starting in the last paragraph of the first column "Credit is applied to an appropriate Roleplaying Guild character as if the character created was a pregenerated character."

> Andrew: if needed, please ensure that modification to the current wording of the new guide specifically lets us know if the new 'choose before you play' rule only applies to when you are playing iconic pre-gens in a PFS scenario, and not for modules and adventure paths.

As only gold point surcharges were listed for level 1, 4 and 7 pre-gens it would seem the intent was only for iconic pre-gens played in scenarios.

The Chelaxian's advocate viewpoint would be since there is no specific exceptions listed that it applies to ALL pre-gens (whether iconic or home-brewed PCs using campaign mode). With no surcharge unless the pre-gen being played is exactly level 4 or level 7. This is an example of why the current wording in the new guide is unclear.

I'm going to miss playing Seoni. :/

If there was a 'sad' (negative sign instead of positive sign) to click, this post would have received one from me.

That is another issue that was not really addressed specifically before. Some people have favorite iconics and play them for that reason. This new rule change means some (many?) will either stop playing their favorite iconics or assign a new -xx character to the iconic. Some of the players will weigh the ability to earn the chronicle sheet for a character they like to play is more importantly than playing an iconic they love to play. That means those players are probably going to stop playing pre-gens.

In addition to the player that normally plays a favorite iconic chooses to not risk doing so - others who game with that player that enjoy how she/he plays that iconic no longer have that 'fun factor' as part of their PFS experience.

Player F: "He was on a series of pregens that had 'bad luck', guys. Go easy."

All but B, thought: "Why should we have to play with someone who doesn't even have the money to buy the right gear?"

That is a good point. Easy fix to that situation: Have a standardized list of 'pre-gen' gear for each character level. The character receives the gear before the scenario starts. The character does not get to retain any of that gear after the scenario is over and is not allowed to sell of that gear for the benefit of his/her own character, but is allowed to sell it off towards helping out the other characters at the table.

That solution fixes the problem you pointed out, AND it also means the player can help to remove statuses from other characters at the table. Still a penalty for the player's character, but not a penalty to the other players at the table.

My original suggestion of +0 XP, +0 PP, +0 gold and no boons prevents that situation as well. The player has gained credit for the chronicle (so cannot play it again in the same campaign mode). He wants a character (in the same campaign mode) to get that sheet. He will have to GM 10 games (if he was not a GM before) and use his first GM star replay so he can receive the chronicle (for another character). This solution does not penalize new players, and it also could encourage some players to become GMS because they want to get the benefits of a given chronicle sheet applied to one of their characters.

Amiros Valeri wrote:

How would people feel about it if they change it to the following:

"If your pre-gen dies, and you do not remove the death status, you apply the Chronicle sheet to your associated PFS character with 0 XP, 0 PP, 0 Gold and all boons and items are crossed off the Chronicle Sheet. The associated character does not gain any statuses that the pre-gen gained."

That's worth discussing. I'd note that 1 XP, 0 PP, 0 Gold, would actually be a slightly worse penalty, if a higher level of risk is wanted.

That is more of a penalty as it means the character is further to leveling up without the normal resources that normally go along with leveling up. With that you could have a level 1 PFS character potentially reach higher levels with still having only a beginning PC's wealth (150 gold) with nothing else. I think people would agree that is definitely a penalty.

Player A: "What do you mean you are level 3 with no fame or additional wealth?"

Player B: "I have had some really bad luck playing pre-gens."

How would people feel about it if they change it to the following:

"If your pre-gen dies, and you do not remove the death status, you apply the Chronicle sheet to your associated PFS character with 0 XP, 0 PP, 0 Gold and all boons and items are crossed off the Chronicle Sheet. The associated character does not gain any statuses that the pre-gen gained."

There is still a penalty with handling it this way. Most players will not be able to play that scenario for credit again (since only GM stars grant replay credit for non-evergreen scenarios/modules). That is still a risk. It is a good way to prevent new players from losing interest in PFS by having their first character die before even creating the character. The player has played the scenario and cannot play it again (for credit). It lets the new player become aware that characters can die without forcing them to have their own actual character die before even getting the chance to play him/her.

Here's an example of how this rule could also create negative feelings in some players and a suggestion on how to remove the RAW penalty for brand new players having their first PFS character dying before getting a chance to play him/her.

A player has played an adventure path in 'pre-gen campaign mode' and has applied some/all of the chronicle sheets to one of her PFS characters. She has not reached the levels of of some/all of the chronicle sheets yet. She has gained these chronicle sheets before the guide for season 8 was released.

She goes to an event and her PFS character is not high enough level yet to play her character in the scenario being played. She plays an iconic pre-gen. The pre-gen dies. Let's say she does not have the resources to purchase raise dead. Now her PFS character is dead. What happens to all the higher-level chronicle sheets she has assigned to her PFS character?

Another example: sanctioned modules (Plunder & Peril for example) that grant a bonus chronicle sheet if all three previous chronicle sheets were assigned to the same PFS character. If a player has already played two of the three parts of the module before the season 8 guide was released - they now have to gamble the character if they want to be eligible to obtain the bonus chronicle sheet.

I suggest that the chronicle sheet for the scenario/adventure the pre-gen died in to be resolved when the assigned PFS character reaches the level of the pre-gen played in the fatal scenario/adventure. This would allow players the option of being sure they save money/prestige points before they reach the level of the pre-gen. This would also make it so new players who play a non-first level iconic the ability to not have their very first PFS die as a result of the very first PFS game the player plays in.

For the ones who have asked 'why even ask?' The answer is simple and straight forward. I wanted clarification that the players making use of my PF library is legal for them to use for their PFS characters that I run scenarios for. I was being a responsible GM and taking steps to ensure everything about their PFS characters are above board. What would have sucked is not getting clarification, having them invest in their PFS character ideas(for months) and then them being told their PFS characters are illegal. Finding out before they invest the time and pregen level credits instead of waiting to find out after they have spent months leveling up their PFS characters (via the campaign mode pregen credit) with the possibility of discovering that they were never allowed to use my books (because technically that is how the PFS rules are written). The consensus has given that the goal of PFS outweighs the 'technically' in this regard. They do not need to 'own' a copy of the book/pdf at my table (making use of my books/pdfs) as long as the PFS characters are only played at my table. Before they play their characters anywhere else they will need to ensure they have their own copy to be able to do so.

For the potential naysayers sprouting 'but Paizo does not get sales that way'. They most certainly do: from me and only a portion of the PF books/pdfs I have are being made use of for my groups' PFS characters. If my group only purchased the books needed for our PFS characters (everyone buying their own books/pdfs needed) then the total amount of sales from my players and I would be considerably less.

It seems like some who joined this discussion recently did not comprehend the purpose of why my query was asked in the first place.