Interesting. I read that quote very differently. Not about performing or thespianizing (it's a word now), but just about picking a PC you'll want to play for the long run. "Performance" being more of an overall "how well you'll do with the character..."
I read it the same way...
If that's the case it strikes me as awfully metagamey and a little sad. If "performance" is something that can be quantifiably measured, it further creates the idea that to be a player in the game has rigorous expectations, and that people will "perform" at different levels of excellence. If that's true perhaps Gygax would have been better off using his profession:herbalism, or craft:alchemy knowledge to design a performance enhancing pill or supplement for RD (role-playing disfunction). That way instead of educating people about how poorly they are performing, he could have provided a magical blue pill that would enhance their performance for up to eight hours.
Murder Noun. Law. The killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder) and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
I really think we should change the term to second-degree-murder-nomad, or maybe even manslaughter-nomad. Murder brings with it the strong connotation of premeditation and forethought. Also the term hobo usually brings with it the connotation of a decided lack of material goods, or means to procure them. Nomads, while still having a certain connotation of less than average wealth, do have tents, and animals, and sometimes even nice weapons. More importantly nomads almost always have a means by which to procure material goods, sometimes through bartering. Manslaughter-nomad sounds so much more appealing than murderhobo. When I hear murderhobo I think of some whacked-out junkie eating people's faces because they are high on bath-salts. Clearly a manslaughter-nomad is just killing because something got in the way of their greater quest, interrupted their migration, or disrupted their economic livelihood. That type of killing isn't even recognized as a crime in some countries, right?
With occasional lapses. :P
Then, again, I suppose we all do stuff when we don't know any better.
Just for example, when I was very young, I would relieve myself of bladder or colon pressure by releasing said liquid or excrement directly into my pants. My parents, being cautious people, clothed me with an under-layer that would absorb much of the waste-matter. It did not change the fact, though, that they were none to pleased with the increasing repetition of, and increasing volume of, these happenings. When they became too tired of it, and realized that I was intelligent enough to learn differently, they potty-trained me.
Ravenloft was one of my favorite gaming experiences of all time. The GM I had at that particular time WAS sadistically lethal. He thoroughly enjoyed with great revelry every hit point he was able to "remove" from us. While the overall module was very fun, there were contentious moments at the table because it really felt like an "us versus him" game, instead of an "us versus the module" game.
Edit: After I reread that, it made me realize that I just said I had one of my most enjoyable gaming experiences at a contentious table with a sadistic and lethal GM... I need to clarify that that was one of my most enjoyable experiences as a player. Shortly thereafter I picked up GMing duties, and I haven't been able to be a player in a game since. Just so we're all on the same page, that was 1992. I guess that's more a statement about the lack of available GMs at the time, than maybe anything else.
Do you really have the proper mind-set to play the particular game persona at this time? While it isn’t possible to perform at peak level at all times, an uninteresting or a distasteful PC is sure to lower your performance drastically over a long period of time.
Those statements, and their exaggeration or perversion by people outside the gaming hobby, are exactly why the uneducated masses think everyone that plays RPGs has to be a thespian nerd. Performing a persona sounds exactly like acting camp. Of course, a bit of play-acting is, in fact, a part of this hobby, but not everyone has to be able to fully thespianize (<---that's not really a word) a character in order to fully participate in, or enjoy this game. Some people are extremely shy, and can still be active and enjoyable players at a game table.
but generally us mere mortals just have so much attention span and brain power.
Very true. The fact that two things aren't mutually exclusive, and therefore can coexist simultaneously does not also mean that their coexistence is extremely likely. Is it possible for someone to be an optimizer and a thespian? Sure. Is it statistically likely that someone who invests heavily in mechanical optimization is also excited about the prospect of performing their character's persona at a peak level? I'd argue probably not. I'd also add, in support, that at the various tables I've run over the years, I have personally only ever encountered one person that was good at both. Thankfully I still get to play with that individual. In his particular case, he sees optimization as a way to make sure his character gets to continue participating in the collective story. His fear, and it is completely legitimate, is that a character that is developmentally rich in persona playability, but lacking in mechanical goodness, could end up falling to the guillotine of the machine. Then you've invested in a character's story for naught, because they couldn't survive mechanically in the gaming world.
Above all, the player must be enthusiastic about long-term participation in the game with the chosen PC.
This quote, and what comes before it, go a long way to dispelling that myth that Gygax was a sadistic and lethal GM. He clearly had a concept that the game was meant to be played long-term, over many sessions. Many others have offered substantial reasons why Gygax may have been perceived as lethal, but clearly, even if at times he was lethal, he knew that the life of the game was going to be in campaigns with longevity. I'd be inclined to say that part of Gygax viewpoint was from a business perspective. The more players you have playing the game for long periods of time the more likely you are to be able to continue to sell them gaming materials (just look at Paizo over the past few years and you'll see a similar mentality). I'm guessing, though, that part of it was also the storyteller in him, realizing that having a "main" character means having a character that participates in a centralized and lasting conflict.
As I wrote this it struck me that my vision of gaming in the early days was that you had to adjust your "style" of play to fit into the role of the character you'd selected, and that nowadays you scoured the wealth of customizing options and designed a character to fit with your own personal style. Said another way, I envisioned the "old days" being a player fitting into the skin of their character, and modern gamers fitting a character around their existing skin, so that playing them came naturally, at least to begin with.
Within my own games I always suggest players find a character that fits with their own personality first, and then, after they've "mastered" some of the more social and subtle elements of the game they can "branch out" and play a character that might be more difficult or even completely foreign to their "normal" gaming style.
The reason that vision of the "then and now" struck me is I realized I might be waaay off, and be basing that assumption on my own personal experience only, and not on the actual collected stories of those people that have also played for the past three plus decades. Yet another reason this thread is spectacular.
You could even argue that the increased mechanical support for different roles/backgrounds/personalities is a step backwards. There are more options, but you're kind of going back to building the personality around the mechanics. Not sure I'd actually buy into that, but it's an interesting thought.
Man! Now there's flipping something on it's head, and no doubt. I never even thought about the fact that by creating a "mechanical" system for story background you were actually binding a character's personality, instead of freeing it. The Ultimate Campaign random background generation process would be a great support for that argument though. Want a dwarf that was raised in a human village? Sorry, your d100 roll says you were raised underground? Want your character to have both parents alive so you have some anchoring NPC contacts? Too bad your d100 roll says both your parents are dead, etcetera, ad nauseum. That just shows the power of perspective. I look at the background tables and see a wealth of knowledge that can help me make decisions for the rich and complex history of my character. Someone else might look at it and see shackles that restrict their creativity to play the character as they want.
Now in terms of what Gygax said:
You should be bold and aggressive as a knight, while as a worker of magic, you will tend toward reclusiveness and mystery. The rules and spirit of the game tell you what you can and cannot do in general and somewhat concrete terms, but it is very much up to the individual to take on the role of the PC and play it well.
This quote leads me to believe that Gygax assumptions of the classes were pretty rigid. A knight (fighter) is aggressive, and should seek out melee combat. A wizard is mysterious and reclusive. There doesn't seem to be any margin for leeway there. What if I want to play a fighter that is actually a bit cautious, and avoids combat whenever possible? According to Gygax that's a failure to play the "role" correctly.
You've definitely given me something to think about though. Maybe all the rich options for character background have become a set of shackles (of sorts). Maybe even just in the small way that they create a game where having a rich background can become an expectation. What's wrong with somebody rolling up a character and saying, "I have no idea who this gal is, I'll find that out as the game progresses."? Maybe nothing. I dare say, though, in Gygax view, if that gal were a cleric, her personality would be nurturing, which is part and parcel of her role...
@Alzrius -- Very thoughtful post. I agree with much of what you are saying, but I do think Holmes has a good point about the GM required knowledge. The expectation of mechanical balance does make many players balk if a GM says "no, you can't use that," but "I don't like it," isn't always the reason we, GMs, say no. Sometimes they coincide. I don't allow guns because I don't want guns in my fantasy world AND because the difficulty and time necessary to learn, understand, and successfully integrate the firearms mechanics is time I'd rather have in prepping other things for our campaigns.
Welcome back from hiatus Holmes! Great to see this thread up and running again. It's been too long since I've been in here, and I've missed out on some excellent conversations. Therefore, this post is going to be of the TLDR variety, but I'll try to give a brief summation at the end.
It is not uncommon for a tabletop session to consist entirely of walking around town, buying stuff, checking out different inns, shops, group talk, etc.
Too true! However, I've found myself with unwilling participants in the two separate groups I run at the high school where I work. If anyone wants to discuss the logistics of that let me know, but I digress. With both of these groups the participants have one thing in common. They are coming to the table top game via some "rpg" video game they loved to play. Many of them come to my groups with a specific character in mind, because that was the character they "created" for their "rpg" video game. I'm not joking when I say that the first time some of the characters of these players entered a town, a player asked me something along the lines of, "who are the notable NPCs I can talk to?"
Yikes! Just, yikes.
Obviously with that canned NPC mentality, their idea of a conversation was a selection of dialogue choices. In my experience these players think NPC dialogue is just a means to get access to side quests, or exchange goods for gold. Which is sad, because I have always prided myself on being a GM that creates notable and realistic NPCs, whom I can take the persona of, and carry on an intelligent, in-game, conversation through.
This mentality also leads itself to players using terms like: tank, aggro, spam-heal, etc. I've found a very easy, albeit extremely harsh way to destroy the "this is just a different kind of video game" mentality. I kill one of the players at low level. I mean, I kill them good. A wolf biting the throat out of a victim whilst helpless people watch from their turn in the initiative. As I said, it's harsh, but when the player realizes there's no "save point" to return to, and that they are rolling up a new character, they realize this is not a video game, and that mentality must be left at the door. They all learn, some slower than others, but they all learn.
I'm sure this makes me sound like some roleplaying taskmaster tyrant, out to teach the children of the world what real RPGing is all about. Perhaps some of that is due to me. I like to think of myself more as a guide into the differences, be they big or small and nuanced, between the video game rpg, and the table top. I can also say that I have never had a player leave the game because of my GMing style. In fact, the only time I had a player leave the game, he left because he got a job and his schedule no longer worked with the game.
I guess that about sums up my response to the MMO discussion.
I suspect the big change since Gygax wrote this is that people do the same thing, but they're playing their character, not their class.
So glad to see theJeff in here. I have come to greatly respect his opinions throughout my time here on the messageboards. I also completely agree with him in this case. The modern day Pathfinder character is not always limited to narrow and specific roles, as they would have been during Gygax' days. Pathfinder, with its archetypes, alternate racial traits, social traits, and now story feats gives a player the ability to create a truly rich character that may not fit at all into the stereotypical view of the Ranger, Wizard, etc. Nowadays you can be a cleric that severely limits their casting ability to become more like a fighter. What role does that character play? Gygax might have trouble with the answer to that. I also think Pathfinder does an excellent job of providing support for creating a character with a rich, complex, intricate, and very real history behind them. The character background options from the Ultimate Campaign book were the factor that clinched my purchase of that hardcover book. There are a wealth of ideas there, and they provide even the least creative of individuals the ability to create a truly realistic character with just the rolls of some dice.
This wealth of complexity helps to create characters that may perform tasks within the group completely outside of what the designers themselves even intended. That, to me, is the magic and power of Pathfinder. My players LOVE to create characters. So much so that I have had to actually tell some players, at various times, to put a halt on the looking at new characters and start getting to know your current character better. This diverse role-blurring, or role-mixing (which, incidentally, is part of what I think the new ACG is intending to do more completely) gives players the ability to create a fully-functioning party of characters where none of them are the "classic four." I'm guessing, and hoping actually, that Gygax may have had visions of just such a game evolving out of the one he created. Perhaps not, but as Matt Thomason seems to do, I tend to think positively about things whenever possible.
This of course brings a whole new meaning to the phrase: "roleplay your character fully and correctly." The correctness of playing something so complex and realistic can be very easy, or very challenging depending on one's viewpoint of what makes it correct. :)
Lastly, I just wanted to chime in on the reading list discussion. I learned a very long time ago (perhaps even elementary school) that I can not read non-fiction for pleasure. I've been reading fantasy fiction for so long that I've become something of a snob/connoisseur of the genre, and can only read books of excellent quality within that category. So while Of Dice and Men may be an excellent book, I'll never read it. I will, however, take other people's informed opinions about these books and blatantly steal them for my own. :P So feel free to tell me why the books are, or are not, good.
Brief summation: 1)MMOs and other "RPG" video games can be a great feeder for the table top, but some mentalities will need to be challenged. 2)Today's Pathfinder is not Gygax' D&D, and that's a great thing. 3) I don't read nonfiction, but I'll shamelessly steal your opinions about it for my own.
I'll have to echo blahpers here. It seems that that is an area the rules don't specifically address.
Life Link (Su): As a standard action, you may create a bond between yourself and another creature. Each round at the start of your turn, if the bonded creature is wounded for 5 or more hit points below its maximum hit points, it heals 5 hit points and you take 5 hit points of damage. You may have one bond active per oracle level. This bond continues until the bonded creature dies, you die, the distance between you and the other creature exceeds medium range, or you end it as an immediate action (if you have multiple bonds active, you may end as many as you want as part of the same immediate action).
PRD emphasis mine wrote:
Line of Effect: A line of effect is a straight, unblocked path that indicates what a spell can affect. A line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier. It's like line of sight for ranged weapons, except that it's not blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight.
d20pfsrd emphasis mine wrote:
If you put all that together it amounts to... well nothing really. The ability doesn't really specifically say you have to see the creature you are bonding with. I could see a GM in that circumstance allowing it, but I could also easily see a GM not allowing it. Rationale for allowing it? You know your companions, and you don't need to see them to know they are in danger, also, it's "magic." Magic can do some pretty amazing things. Reasons for not allowing it? You can't see the ally, and without seeing him you can't successfully activate a bond with them.
So yeah, like I said, I'll echo blahpers. In the end it really comes down to GM call.
Just so I'm clear. What you're saying is that even though in short succession after your OP a few people stated pretty much exactly the same thing. You still didn't believe them because they couldn't provide a bit of rules text that specifically supported it? When you come to a forum to get rules answers and multiple people all agree on the rule, it's a good thing, and more than likely means that's the rule. But, you're right, you should wait until someone points out a "0" on a table somewhere before actually agreeing with what everybody else has already been saying.
Actually, no, he doesn't. He can cast second level scrolls, but a scroll is a spell-completion item, not a spell. A wizard cannot cast 2nd level spells until 3rd level. It seems like you read the rules incorrectly and now are trying to come up with arguments that support your wrong interpretation.
Damiancrr, you can keep arguing about this until you're blue in the face, but you'll still be wrong. A wizard does not get any 2nd level spell slots until 3rd level. The hyphen does exactly what I said it does. It shows that the wizard does not, and in fact can not, have a spell slot at that level yet.
A wizard doesn't get access to preparing second level spells until 3rd level, even if they have a high intelligence score. When you look at the table for wizard, the "-" symbol means the character cannot prepare spells of that level yet. However, it would not prevent the wizard from casting a second level spell off of a scroll, but I don't think that's what the Theurge requirement is talking about.
Okay, I just took a good look at the twigjack, and holy crap they are no joke. Start off with that splinterspray ability, 4d6 in a 15 cone three times a day could ruin the lives of a lot of low level PCs. If you drop this thing in even a medium forest, it's going to bramble jump stealth, and at +22 stealth there aren't a whole lot of creatures going to make that perception check. Then you're talking about +2d6 sneak attack damage on the spear. For a CR 3 creature, this bad boy definitely has the capability of wiping the forest floor with just about any group of low level PCs. Oh the ideas... mwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Level 1 Commoner wrote:
I just recently, having had that same thought, threw a warband of hobgoblin worg riders at a party of 2nd and 3rd level PCs. It was a close call, the hobbies almost wiped the floor with them. It was touch and go for a moment, before the party monk rolled a critical hit and dropped the warband's leader, and the halfling wizard started the plain's grasses on fire with a fire jet. Then morale started to falter, and the group no longer operated with the same military precision.
I also totally agree with SPDCRI about the evil fey. They can create some great encounters, what with their wild and savage ways, and their propensity to play pranks on unsuspecting victims.
I'd appreciate if you could point me to the rule that states a worn familiar is treated as an object for saving throws against aoe spells.
Titania, the Summer Queen wrote:
Lincoln Hills is absolutely correct here. The familiar is a creature and follows the rule for creatures not objects. Just because it is an "equipped" creature, doesn't change it's creature status.
Imagine if an enemy creature of size tiny was sharing a PC's space. The GM wouldn't rule that the creature operates on your saving throw. Same applies here.
Excellent!!! You're hired, er that is to say, I wish Paizo would hire you. That sort of map is exactly what I'd like to see, except for the entire Inner Sea. Daunting task, I know, but Paizo has already proven that they are a company that listens to their consumers. I'm hoping if enough people jump in here and say, "Yes! I'd use that." We might be able to actually have such a book in our grubby mitts in a year's time.
That map (varisia player map) is, sort of, exactly what I'm looking for. The cartography is very stylized fantasy, which is okay, but, as you say seems to be much more player character designed. The fact that it has at least some detailed roads, with mileages included, makes it very much on par with what I'd be looking for. I'd actually want more detail in terms of roads, though; I'd want separate line styles for highways, roads, and trails.
I'm thinking I can't be the only GM that would use the heck out of a complete Inner Sea atlas book/poster map.
Just like the title says. I'm polling to see if I'm the only one that would buy this product. As a GM that runs a very sandbox-y campaign I'd use the ink off of a product like this. Especially if it were a book that had pages full of various region maps, and included a complete poster as well.
So, would you purchase this product?
Well I found what amounts to an official statement saying that the devs are not, at least as of the time of this thread, concerned with placing roads on any but the smallest of maps. Which I guess means I can take a digital copy of the map and draw roads on it wherever I'd like. While that might be a fun project, it is something too daunting for me to tackle at present. Anybody with a keen digital hand want to draw highways, roads, and trails (with a corresponding legend of course) on the Inner Sea map?
Lincoln Hills wrote:
Bang! You hit the nail right on the head. A Golarion atlas/gazetteer (color or black and white--I don't care which) with clearly drawn highways, roads, and trails would probably be the most used book at my tables besides the Core Rulebook. Now, how to get Paizo to realize that that is the product everyone has been waiting for...?
Steve Geddes wrote:
Yes! That's exactly what I'm asking. Which is of course a ridiculous question. Perhaps as ridiculous as trying to find a way from one point to another on a map with no discernible roads? A giant poster map with all of the wonderful locations of the Inner Sea is a beautiful thing, but as far as useability for figuring actual travel distances is concerned it leaves MUCH to be desired. Don't get me wrong, I love the fact that I have a visual reference for players that shows relative distances. It's nice to say, it's about "x" miles away. The problem is that those miles don't transfer at all to actual game mechanics. Which means the best way to find the actual travel distance between two points in Golarion is an exercise in frustration.
First one must either use a ruler (which sucks at measuring arcing or rounded distances), a knotted string (which requires that one have the skill to knot string at precise intervals), or buy an expensive map wheel to measure actual miles. Even then most of what's being measured is only guesswork because there are no roads on the map. What route does one usually take from Augustana to Canorate? If Golarion is to be a living breathing world, it must have roads. Even if some of them are nothing more than well-used game trails that travelers know about. Otherwise all travel in the entire Inner Sea is cross-country in as straight a fashion as possible.
We know this isn't true because many of the modules and campaign setting materials mention roads, some of them even have encounters that take place "on the road." Any GM running a sandbox campaign where their players can literally travel wherever they want, would have to do just as Mojorat suggests, and make the players plan their routes specifically from place to place, describing which modes of transportation they'd take from one waypoint to another. The GM and players would then have to figure out the travel times based off of what types of terrain are being traveled, what mode of transportation is being used, and whether or not the group is taking a highway, a road or trail, or moving through trackless territory. This then requires that they guess at where roads might be built, given the government and infrastructure of any nation, because, as I mentioned already, there are no roads represented on the map.
This is unless of course Golarion is where Dr. Brown is going.
Given all of the above, a quick dirty ratio for straight miles to actual travel miles seems far more desirable.
Apparently being put at gunpoint doesn't carry the weight it used to. I get that the specifics make all the difference in actual travel time. I know that the CRB covers overland movement including adjustments by terrain. I also get that taking the time to figure out a complete route with actual travel miles determined by mode of travel is a much more authentic way to do it. Just play along with me for a second, and throw all that out. What I'm asking is for an off-the-cuff, hazard a guess, no real clue-but I'll throw something out, ball-park idea. If you're looking at covering a great distance across the Inner Sea region, let's say somewhere in the neighborhood of 1000, straight-line from point A to point B, miles, and you HAD to ball-park how many actual land travel miles that would be, what ratio would you use? 1.5:1, 2:1, 3:1. I don't even care if you have a good reason. I just want to hear what other people would use.
Before I start, I don't want any posters jumping in and saying why don't you just handwave it with a couple encounters. Just assume, for the moment, that I'm a completely out of his mind GM, and I'm actually going to force my players to roleplay every day and night of travel from point A to point B, with a percentage of built in encounters, a percentage chance for random encounters, and myriad stops at notable Inner Sea locations.
When measuring distances using the Inner Sea poster map, what is a good ratio to use to determine actual travel miles versus as-the-crow-flies miles? Yes I realize that's an entirely ambiguous question. What's point A; what's point B; are they traveling by foot; are they traveling by horse; horse-drawn wagon; boat; ship, etc. ad nauseum. Ignore the specifics. If you were forced at gunpoint to come up with a ratio like 2:1 or 3:1, what ratio would you use to transfer as-the-crow-flies miles into actual land traveling miles?
It's possible that I'm a complete moron, but I've looked over the map and the description of the River Queen a few times now, and I don't see any passageway from the main deck to the lower deck. The stairs down at the bow of the ship are walled off from the lower deck on the map, and only lead directly to the forecastle/magazine. The only place on the map that I can see that even offers access to the lower deck and the engine, is the latticed hatch in the floor of the main deck. The map of the lower deck shows light coming through to the floor through that hatch, but at no point does it reference a regular entrance or exit. Please help the illage vidiot out, and point me to the regular entrance for the lower deck.
In my experience map and ruler are the preferred method. I don't believe there are listings anywhere for common travel times to and from distances. If you're digitally inclined, I, sick of ruler calculations, just started using GIMP (which has a ruler function) to measure distances on the Inner Sea map. You can use the ruler tool to find out a decent pixel:mile ratio by measuring the legend reference, and then go from there.
It's important to remember that NPC stands for Non-Player Character. Just because a character has a level or two in a core class does not make them a "full fledged character," if by that you mean player character. Just take a look at the NPC Gallery and you'll see that several of the listed NPCs have core class levels. Just taking a level or two in a core class does not revoke NPC status. Really the only difference between an NPC and a PC is who is running it. If the GM is running it, it's an NPC. If a player is running it, it's a PC. It's really that simple. The specific NPC classes are designed to do a lot of "normal" things, so a GM can flesh out a campaign world with barmaids and innkeepers, and such.
Edit: Ninja'd by Kolokotroni
To answer the OP I, like many others have said, think that striving for a balance between the two is the most fun.
In the interest of keeping track of who's up. I always like to point people to Kyle Olson's Combat Manager application. I use this handy dandy little device with a laptop at the table (he does have an iPad version also -- though that one isn't free) and a dual monitor. I throw the "initiative window" onto the second screen and it shows exactly who's up and who's on deck. It is a very handy tool, in many ways, not the least of which are: intuitive rules and spell reference tabs, ability to track player and monster hit points, ability to roll attacks, damage, saves, and skill checks for monsters with just a few clicks (including rolling for groups of monsters simultaneously). Insofar as I strive for balance between rules-centered tactics and cinematic combat, this tool is priceless (and did I mention it's free?).
THIS!!! Oh my goodness, so much this. Why people ever respond to these threads with anything other than a "so this is the rollplay versus roleplay thread of the minute." Is beyond me. Seriously, we're all playing a game, and, hopefully, enjoying it. Who gives a crap about how other people play it? Pretty soon I'm going to start responding to threads like this with something along these lines.
It's come to my attention that some people are playing this game using only virtual/electronic dice, instead of actual sets of polyhedrals. I'd like to know which is better, electronic dice or real dice.
Why? Because it's equally as pointless. No matter how everyone plays the game, we're all playing the same game. Play the game in the nude for all I care. Just keep playing it, so Paizo can keep producing Pathfinder awesomeness for me to partake in.
James Risner wrote:
I just figured since the raw in this case is a little iffy, a complete set of acceptable mechanical stats might be a good fix. You are correct though, that in a rules forum a house-ruled fix doesn't really fit.