Paizo Top Nav Branding
Welcome, guest! | Sign In | My Account | My Subscriptions | My Downloads | My Wishlists | Shopping Cart   Shopping Cart | Help/FAQ
About Paizo   Messageboards   News   Paizo Blog   Help/FAQ  
Search
Links
Shop
Recent Reviews

Way of the Samurai (PFRPG) PDF
***** by Endzeitgeist

Scions of Evil (PFRPG) PDF
***** by Endzeitgeist

Book of Friends and Foes: Assassins in the River Nations (PFRPG) PDF
***( )( ) by Endzeitgeist

Power Word Spells: Lore of the First Language (PFRPG) PDF
***** by Endzeitgeist

Wicked Fantasy—Humans: The Reign of Men (PFRPG) PDF
***( )( ) by Endzeitgeist

   RSS Posts    RSS Reviews    RSS Wishlists
Vaarsuvius

Suzaku's page

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 367 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 3 Pathfinder Society characters.



lol. This is only a problem for control freaks.

To deny players the ability to roleplay their characters as they see fit, especially in such a logical fashion, is antithetical to the game.
Such behavior should be immediately punished by stripping said GM of his title and responsibilities.

Besides, any GM worth his salt could easily fix the problem simply by handing out more treasure that the other players would actually want, and less such trinkets to the artificer. It will all balance out as he crafts more for himself and less for the others.

(Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber)

Blazej wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Blazej wrote:
Ceefood wrote:
1) firstly thanks to Stephen for listening & agreeing to a change everyone has all agreed on - was amazing to see the unified agreeement.
Except everyone didn't post agreement with it.
I count 1 out of maybe 50 and you being the one, didn't chime in until after he had relented to the 50 or so.

That doesn't really matter does it though. I only originally posted when it seemed that people were incorrectly speaking for me by claiming that everyone supported their position. Something people continue to do and something that you are trying to defend right now.

I don't feel that I have to anymore to explain why core races normalized to 10 is a good idea. I think that Paizo has that end covered.

It's not that having them normalized to 10 wouldn't be good; it would. It's that artificially forcing a normalization that doesn't exist, power-wise, is a bad idea. We (being the majority of Paizo posters) feel that some races are mechanically superior to others and prefer to see this represented in the point costs of abilities. If that means halflings wind up significantly lower-point than dwarves or elves, that's OK because it means the building blocks are appropriately costed.

As it is, pluses to skills cost more than they should based on their power, in order to force halflings up to 10 points. Certain abilities that dwarves get are too cheap for their power, to shoehorn dwarves into a 10 RP buy. Neither of those situations is good for the system as a whole. That is why having core races normalized to 10 points is a bad idea.



©2002–2012 Paizo Publishing, LLC®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Publishing, LLC, Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Publishing, LLC, and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, 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 Publishing, LLC. 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 Publishing 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.