Sajan

Ryan Freire's page

2,251 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,251 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Consequence of not following the restrictions you agreed to when creating a character. Feelsbadman


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Find me people who have dealt with undead IRL and we'll have a conversation about that.

Its about the demographic you're looking to reach with your game. Players aren't going to be made uncomfortable by these things not being included, but a bunch of people sure will by their inclusion.


No I bring up prostitution next to slavery because they're two angles which players have a history of "being creepy" about.

And lets not delude ourselves into thinking that the not being creepy people aren't outnumbered by makes it creepy for at least one person at the table by a factor of 10 or more.

You have to realize that its not just a matter of "everyone at the table" is comfortable with this. Its people talking about their campaigns on a crowded bus (my recent experience and reason #1 I don't advertise that I play TTRPG's anymore) or things overheard in semi-public spaces. Players get excited, talk about the games they're enjoying too loudly, and when that material is involved it creeps the people around them out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Magaambyan Academy vs the Gorilla King


So...i get that these are very loose roles, but i kind of see them as the arcane "skill" class

Thinking of the dynamic of (fighter mage cleric thief) Arcane has Magus, Alchemist, Sorceror, Wizard.

Nature has
Barbarian, Druid, Ranger, Hunter

Divine has
Paladin, Oracle, Inquisitor, Cleric

And then Martials sit sadly, only able to fill two of the roles with multiple class types.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I did too, and then they thought goblins as core was a good idea.


Arachnofiend wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Depends on the mechanics of the totem. I'd be surprised if there weren't options in other classes that rivaled it. Historically paladin saves vs things like that were close to if not exceeding barbarians, without the need to refuse things like healing.
If Superstition isn't stronger than every other magic-resistance ability by a wide margin then it has utterly failed as a mechanic. Hell, if it's only as good as PF1 Superstition then we're looking at Vow of Poverty levels of uselessness.

wouldn't be the first time something failed as a mechanic. As bent out of shape as people were about "heavy armor tank" being alignment restricted (and it turns out it wont be), "able to resist spells well" isn't going to be well received if its gated behind superstition barbarian. Which means if its a "wide margin" its going to trivialize spellcasting enemies more than is probably reasonable in a game.


Depends on the mechanics of the totem. I'd be surprised if there weren't options in other classes that rivaled it. Historically paladin saves vs things like that were close to if not exceeding barbarians, without the need to refuse things like healing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

Meanwhile, back at the farm....

Is anyone else annoyed at "superstition" as a name for that totem? The word is basically pejorative, carrying a strict implication of irrationality.

A distrust of magic to the point that you resist even healing is pretty irrational in golarion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Its really not hard to throw together a rp justification to min max however you need to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nice goalpost shift, "non evil"

Of the 44 mentioned orc and halforc npc's, 4 are non evil.

of those 4 non evil ones there is a single good orc, that became good because of the divine intervention of a deity. I'm sorry but plaguing someone with visions of doom is divine intervention, not "a conversation"

The other three are CN. One step away from the standard racial alignment. One a warpriest of gorum. Another a CN druid of a CE god. and the third just a generic CN ranger.

So, if we take this framework as representative. At best you've got 2% good orcs, assuming sarenrae is sending lots of visions of doom out there. and another 6% that sit one step away at CN.

I argue that these are not representative samples, and that things like CG orcs are highlighted precisely because a splatbook exists to highlight the strange and rare in an area. But even if they were, it still doesn't rise to the level of more than exception that proves the rule.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

*digs up incredibly infintesimally small portions of a population and tries desperately to present them as statistically significant*


Oh, its just some novel. Hardly canon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ok, start showing rather than just telling, because your CG warpriest of sarenrae changed her ways after being "plagued with dreams of a flaming angel telling her that her people would face extinction if they did not choose a new path" The succubus was a direct intervention of Desna.

The AP wrote:
Arueshalae first came to the Worldwound in 4636 AR. One fateful night after she'd seduced a priestess ofDesna and drained her nearly to death, on a whim she tried an experiment. Since outsiders don't need to sleep, they don't normally dream. Out of curiosity, she stole into the thoughts ofher dying victim using detect thou!Jhts while the woman lay sleeping, only to be pulled into the Dimension of Dreams. When the priestess died, Arueshalae found herself somehow trapped, but she hadn't gone unnoticed. In daring to allow herself to dream, Arueshalae gained Desna's attention. She had already observed the succubus's murder of one of her priests, but perhaps having learned a bit of forgiveness from her own divine ally Sarenrae, Desna did not smite Arueshalae. Instead, she reached into Arueshalae's soul and quickened her larval core. Memories of her mortal life flooded back at once, memories of dreams that never came true. Desna whispered in her ear: "Even demons can dream."

Desna literally meddled with her demonic makeup to allow her to not be CE.

If i go dig up the redemption engine am i going to find that dvil was also the result of some deus ex machina conveniently omitted?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Choice of anathema is going to increase minmax play. Fixed anathema allows them to have bigger penalties for larger bonuses (like superstition)


7 people marked this as a favorite.

This is the sort of thing that puts new players off rather than brings them in. I cant think of a single thing in my experience that has put more potential first time rpg players off than a GM or other player getting creepy about RP slaves and prostitution.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Oh good, more of Ryan dismissing anything that contradicts his grognard biases.

I'm not dismissing it, they exist, I'm dismissive of the idea that the one or two exceptions ever printed form some trend.

Both that tribe and the non evil succubus are literal deus ex machina. These are things that exist literally because a god came down and meddled. This is why they are exceptions that prove the rule. It requires deific intervention.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh good, more pick the exception that proves the rule and inflate it as though its common enough to be treated as a norm.


Azih wrote:

Roswynn. I think the issue here is that Pathfinder is both a set of rules for a game and also a setting of Golarion.

And in the Golarion setting Paizo has very officially decided that there are some ancestries of sentient beings that are evil, the end, point blank. Orcs are evil. No ifs ands or buts. Hobgoblins are evil, no ifs, ands, or buts. These creatures are there for players to kill or be killed by and not worry about the morality of it. They're Uruk-Hai. They're Nazgul. They're chromatic dragons. They're devils. They're demons. They're evil.

The reason we need rules mechanics for it is so Smite and the like can work on them.

The reason we need it for flavour is so players don't have to feel like they're in a moral grey zone by trying to wipe them off of the face of Golarion. I think there's a bunch of stories out there of Pathfinder GMs getting it across to their players that goblins are irredeemably evil by showing goblin children torturing puppies for kicks when the players first come across them.

Heck that's why making Goblins a core player race is causing such a kerfuffle and will require Paizo to have a pretty good in universe explanation for how a formerly no ifs and or buts evil species can now be player characters.

But in a homegroup this can be removed. Your group is already doing so right? 2E will make it even easier it seems like. But for the pulpy stories that Paizo themselves seem to want to tell (Hell's Vengeance, Wrath of the Righteous etc.) I don't they'll ever make them optional for their own offical setting material.

Correlation isn't Causation but there's a reason the best selling rpgs are dominated by ones that have an alignment system. I suspect the subset of players who are interested in moral naval gazing in a grey world of perhaps antiheros is pretty small.


Caught in a Landslide wrote:
can someone please tell me how many licks does it take to get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie roll pop!!?!?!

one

On Topic again: Maybe they intended it to be a purely internal source, but beliefs don't spring out of nothing, you don't will yourself cursed, and an exotic heritage doesn't stem from inside you. A superstition wins the internal source but 1/4 is a pretty miss ratio for describing internal sources.

So if 3/4 of your supposedly internal examples have to come from outside you, and the anathema cant just be ignored which is more likely? A bunch of things that indicate an external source are actually coming from your characters own natural powers, or an internal source is a bad description for the way they come about?


Explain how a curse or exotic heritage is applied internally.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
The fact that they have anathema indicates they are very much an external thing.

Mark has posted text from the document that says differently.

Mark Seifter wrote:


You're covered: "As a barbarian, you channel the power of your rage through a totem. Traditionally, this is a spiritual or tribal symbol, but you choose what your totem means to you; it might describe a purely internal source or filter of your rage, such as a belief, curse, exotic heritage, or state of mind."

The ability to choose what KIND of external thing it is does not suddenly make it an internal thing. He's basically saying you can pick the flavor, like your rage being a curse inflicted by x totem, or a tribal belief, etc etc.

I'm just a little stunned at the people up in arms that powers occasionally come with conditions. Its a long time fantasy trope, it fits the class. Being unable to refuse a challenge is a trope back to ancient greece if not babylon and fantasy rpgs live and breathe off referencing tropes.


The fact that they have anathema indicates they are very much an external thing.


Terquem wrote:

I have played every version of D&D

Every Version

I've never played a game with characters over level 11

I have played every version as well. I have 5, 1-17+ level characters under my belt.


Saint Evil wrote:

I see what Pandora seems to get at: The Anathama's for the barb go beyond just flavor and dictate personality.

Or seems that way.

I will hold judgement until full text but I am uncertain, from past experience, that a chewy / crunchy balancing at is not very workable.

Your character doesn't have to LIKE it. Its the entry cost for the totem to want to support you.

It doesn't dictate anything for personality, just behavior.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

A balanced party gives every party member the chance to shine and have their niche that they are "best" at. That's the non mechanical reason to want balanced parties. It also reduces competition for loot. My gm tends to be very by the book about whether or not a given magic item is available in a town and there are markedly fewer metropolis' that have all cheap items than you'd think.


Seisho wrote:
Revan wrote:
For that matter, rage does not have to be pure instinct-driven frothing fury. Indeed, evidence is arguably firmer that it's not, as a raging barbarian is still perfectly capable of tactical consideration and distinguishing friend from for. One could just as easily think of it as ancold, focused 'battle trance'.
I've considered just today to make an elvish barbarian that classifies himself more as a 'Battle dancer' and reflavoring the rage as a battle trance - should work just fine without mechanics tweaking

Honestly thats why i preferred UBarb. The stances seeming more fighter than barbarian aside its a more versatile class as far as fighting style and even theme. You can go dex build without taking a rage nerf, Its strictly superior for TWF (frenzybarb ftw) which is a thing that kind of blows me away that people weren't more into as barb was the only real martial with pounce. Its only big greatweapon that takes much of a hit and its not THAT big of a hit given how prone barbs are to dramatic overkill anyway.


I made a staff slayer who used ascetic style. It was a lot of fun whaling on people with 2d6 quarterstaff strikes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Azih wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
To be frank, any rule that makes it impossible to build Sun Wukong as a Monk is a failed rule.
Sun Wukong is a supernatural being and his legends are based on him being a supernaturally strong and quick warrior. The fact that he used a staff and martial arts does not a monk make. Most of his supernatural abilities stem from stealing things he had no right to.
So Sun Wukong is a rogue?

Given that most of his feats involve either tricking, lying, or defeating people with physical prowess, probably fighter/rogue.

Its just easy for people to go MONK! cause martial arts, forgetting that it isn't just a monk thing in the culture that envisioned sun wukong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The variables involved in "RAG" are too widespread and scattered to warrant legitimate conversation unless its about a very specific item, and even then its a discussion surrounding 1 table.

With PF2 being golarion centric the only thing that really matters is "RAP". Tables have been modifying setting and rules since TTRPG's first came out. Pathfinder isn't going to be the next generic system and people are going to have to continue to modify it to fit what they enjoy.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
To be frank, any rule that makes it impossible to build Sun Wukong as a Monk is a failed rule.

Sun Wukong is a supernatural being and his legends are based on him being a supernaturally strong and quick warrior. The fact that he used a staff and martial arts does not a monk make. Most of his supernatural abilities stem from stealing things he had no right to.


Arachnofiend wrote:

I know Paladins were better than Fighters in PF1, but that's because the balance in PF1 sucked (Barbarians were better than Paladins if you knew what you were doing). I'm more talking about design philosophy than reality - should this be true, rather than is it true.

Barbarians did damage better than paladins. They didnt do survivability, or rando utility anywhere near as good.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
Corrik wrote:
Quote:
Also, canonically, all cheery elf and dwarf songs are about killing invading humans, so the real question isn't why goblins get the PR boost, it's why they didn't get it in the first place. All those murder songs that get brought up as a point against them are the same things at least two other core races are on record as doing, and both of those races are less populous than goblins.
Yep, that off handed joke from a Tier 4 canon source definitely equates Dwarves and Elves with Goblins. Congratulations sir, excellent argument!

It's arguably better than just asking "What about kobolds?" over and over, but to each their own.

I'm trying to show that Pathfinder is a deep and complex world with lore that spans multiple sources. The Kingmaker computer game presents the possibility that there is a goblin who's in tight with a king (or queen) of the River Kingdoms. There are multiple sources (not just the comics) that make it clear that even established core races aren't particularly fond of humans, and most of them have fared much better in their dealings with humans than the goblins have. There's a Chelaxian nobleman with his own personal tribe of goblins. Goblin pirates in the Shackles are well known to be more merciful than their non-goblin counterparts. Magnimar peacefully coexists with multiple tribes of goblins who live right under their feet. There is at least one goblin merchant in Katapesh, and a goblin rat-catcher in Absalom. Goblins are better positioned than any other race to get a big PR boost now that we know the last AP will feature Tar-Baphon as the BBEG.

.

This is a profound misrepresentation of these sources. The chelaxian norbleman is an evil lord using a personal goblin tribe as a whip to hunt down escaped slaves. The goblin pirates are more "merciful" unless they're hungry, and their mercy stems from cowardace, not goodwill. Magnimar holds the tribes under their feet because its too much trouble and too dangerous to enter small caverns under the city to root out god knows how many goblins. Katapesh is a borderline evil city where slaving and drug sales are business as usual and absalom is the largest city in the inner sea.

Those only work as examples if you remove literally all context surrounding them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tholomyes wrote:

This thread highlights one of my biggest issues with Pathfinder (and other RPGs with "Always Evil" races, by RAW). I don't think I've ever played a game where you have any creature types with universal immutable alignments. Maybe there are goblin tribes that are bloodthirsty murder gremlins, and maybe they're the majority in goblin society, but they're not universal, and any world that doesn't reflect that is, to be honest, not a setting I'd like to play in. Maybe Goblin PCs will experience racism from NPCs, because of the association of Goblins with the image of bloodthirsty murder gremlins. Ok, but why does that mean that they can't be a core race? Half-orcs often have the same issues, due to their heritage, but that's never been a problem.

I don't even care about goblins, but I do care about the implications bandied about here that goblins aren't fit to be core races, because the holy god of the bestiary declared them to be always Evil. Hell, even Golarion lore has recognized that that's not the case, since the first AP.

This thread is why i loathe the "open alignment" arguments. Players always latch on to the exceptions, even if that exception is literally the only documented case in the multiverse and wield it as though it had more weight than it actually does as an argument. You see it a ton with that one succubus from that one adventure path. Never mind that it took literal deific intervention, that she still registers as evil to detection and that its actually a ton of freaking work in AP to keep her from backsliding, the example is there ergo all demons aren't evil.

Non evil goblins in canon are like that, the exception, not the rule.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I DO want to be able to play a merchant adventurer who buys trade goods and resells them for profit as they travel and adventure.


ENHenry wrote:

So Brondy, you’d rather have a bunch of mandatory abilities to be replaced by another bunch of mandatory abilities, rather than a subset of choices replaced by another subset of choices?

The funny thing for me is how similar D&D5’s subclasses are to PF1’s Archetypes - it’s a very similar model, except that the key levels where the subclass abilities kick in don’t have a “default” choice, they’re just open for the subclass chosen to fill in the blanks, whereas PF1 archetypes just had to shoehorn in the changes wherever they could.

I don’t know about anyone else but given the extremely open nature of class abilities in PF2, is there even a need for archetypes still? I can’t wait to see what they actually look like, to see how they’ve made them relevant in such a choice-rich system.

Yes, even if they're just buckets of feats one must assume they have level reqs on their feats as well.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Eh, they're naturally going to look like buckets of feats given that archetypes were just alternate class abilities and now those are feats.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Um. Im pretty sure they're putting archetypes in, they just havent been previewed/spoiled yet.

In fact the framework theyve shown for pf2.0 is even MORE archetype friendly, as "class feats" are likely gained at the same levels across classes, archetypes an be created that may be applied generally to multiple base classes.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:


To view them as heroes you have to overlook that they're all NE and one specifically likes to torture small helpless animals to death.

That bolded part is what it is not true, and it's the part that the second edition will probably expand the explanation on.

Only outsiders (and other [Alignment] tagged creatures, like dragons) are bound by their alignment "genetics". Everyone else can be raised in different aligments, if they get themselves surrounded by the proper social communities. Even half-outsiders, like tieflings, can be of any aligment. There are good communities of orcs in Belkzen, who follow Saerenrae, and the orcs of Garund are reportedly non-evil.

Dude you quoted out of context. That was in response to the "heros" of we be goblins. They're ALL NE and one specifically likes to torture small animals to death.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

LG only paladins and no goblin pcs in core


I'm honestly not interested in their explanation of why it happens. They'll be banned from my home games and i wont play in games where they're allowed. They're basically adding kender to pathfinder and kender are trash.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Reloading seems like a really good thing to attach to your proficiency (trained expert master legendary or whatev) TBQh.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

There should be an attempt at parity between crossbows and normal bows. There should be an ATTEMPT at parity between most weapons. Weapons as a flavor and style choice > weapons chosen because of mechanical advantage IMO on game design.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
You CAN make an army of LN drizzt clone fighter drow too. It doesn't mean it fits as a major portion of the setting.
and we run into that wall again: is the Paladin the blessed warrior with a code and a patron, or is it a beefed up cavalier order of LG knights? If you see it (as I do) as the blessed warrior class, then yes, Cayden sure would have them, tgey might fight differently, but equipment is props, at least imho.
Except you can't mandate CG and manage a behaviorally restrictive code that holds any meaning at all.
Chaotic gods (good, neutral, or evil) having anathema and chaotic clerics (good, neutral, or evil) abding by those anathema says you totally can.
Yes, it is very true. But Paladins have an anathema AND and a Code. Anathemas are general guidelines that are generic enough to be not too restrictive on the individual. The traditional Code (by its very nature) pushes it much farther and is too restrictive on the Chaotic individual.
Except..it isn't, in RAW it is not, CE Anti-Paladins manage just fine with a code, as do C(whatever) Cavaliers, you can head canon chaotic being gibbering lunacy, but RAW it isn't, another nail in the coffin of the endless LG best G arguments.

Except that the CE anti-paladin code sums up to "be CE" It has VERY little in the way of restrictive behaviors by comparsion. Which is the problem generic Chaotic codes always sum up to "do what you would have based on your alignment anyway" The cavalier codes are all very specific things, a subset of a larger class, they don't fit for crap as a generic all X follow this code, and even then most of them aren't remotely near the behavior restrictions of a paladin code. They are not on the same level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
You CAN make an army of LN drizzt clone fighter drow too. It doesn't mean it fits as a major portion of the setting.
and we run into that wall again: is the Paladin the blessed warrior with a code and a patron, or is it a beefed up cavalier order of LG knights? If you see it (as I do) as the blessed warrior class, then yes, Cayden sure would have them, tgey might fight differently, but equipment is props, at least imho.

Except you can't mandate CG and manage a behaviorally restrictive code that holds any meaning at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You CAN make an army of LN drizzt clone fighter drow too. It doesn't mean it fits as a major portion of the setting.


Because gods like iomedae torag, abadar et-al make sense for a heavily armored warrior with a mount of some kind, whereas dialing down the spellcasting is not really an in theme thing for nethys to do, nor is being heavily armored for cayden, or norgorber. While making their holy warriors archetypes of swashbuckler, rogue, bard, or in the case of nethys mage/sorceror/magus is a profoundly stronger fit thematically.

Also because no one seems able to come up with a chaotic or evil code that provides anything resembling a similar behavior restriction.


Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
The issue is, imo, as a golarion centric rpg there's no reason for nethys and caiden, and irori, and rovagug to use even remotely similar base chassis for their holy warriors. The modularity of "class feats" lets each god have an archetype that slots onto 1 or 2 different classes and modify say, a rogue or alchemist, or monk into a holy warrior. Paladin, on its own can be a fine base chassis for gods like iomedae, sarenrae, torag, abadar and the like. It begins to stretch as a chassis for norgorber, or nethys, or rovagug.
That's a neat idea...

Plus its a good way to add content to a book about inner sea gods.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The issue is, imo, as a golarion centric rpg there's no reason for nethys and caiden, and irori, and rovagug to use even remotely similar base chassis for their holy warriors. The modularity of "class feats" lets each god have an archetype that slots onto 1 or 2 different classes and modify say, a rogue or alchemist, or monk into a holy warrior. Paladin, on its own can be a fine base chassis for gods like iomedae, sarenrae, torag, abadar and the like. It begins to stretch as a chassis for norgorber, or nethys, or rovagug.


Iron_Matt17 wrote:


Yeah, that's right. That's why I think that the CG Paladin...

God based divine powered archetypes that apply to other classes rather than a base class all on its own.

1 to 50 of 2,251 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>