Maug

Typewriter's page

Goblin Squad Member. 30 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


magnuskn wrote:
Typewriter wrote:
A. Divine Magus without the action economy fix.

Sooo... the Inquisitor?

Typewriter wrote:
B. If the Paladin is a fighter/cleric leaning towards fighter, this is a fighter/cleric leaning more towards cleric.
Ah, so it's supposed to be... the Inquisitor?

Different spell lists, channel, bonus feats that aren't teamwork feats, the whole sacred weapon/armor things.

Yes the two characters may wind up fulfilling similar roles, but it looks to me like they do so in very different ways.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Roberta Yang wrote:
Typewriter wrote:
Swashbuckler implies high DEX low STR, but is a melee class and it doesn't give weapon finesse until level 2 meaning that going from level 1 > 2 increases your accuracy by approximately 25-30% - does this make swashbuckler a liability at level 1? Too good at level 2?
Either way it's bad design, and getting a sudden huge boost like that means that at least one of the two won't be at a good power level. Plus, that's not a new thing, Rogues already do that, so they couldn't even screw up in an original way.

I don't think you're wrong, but I also don't agree entirely - Rogue has it worse off, but this (in my opinion) is worse off from a design standpoint.

Rogues get the option of taking weapon finesse, either as a talent or as a feat at level 3. The option - yes a very important option for low STR, high DEX rogues, but still an option. Still some flexibility.

This class specifically says, "We know you need this. We know it so much it is a class feature that you will get, not an option. It is going to happen", and then proceeds to make you wait for it.


magnuskn wrote:
I'd really like to see Sean or Jason or Mark address what the concept of the Warpriest is. And especially what the concept of the Warpriest is, when compared to the Inquisitor. Why do we need two classes which seem to fill the same niche? "Selfish divine martial" is simply done better by the Inquisitor and it has great skills and way more skill points to boot. The nerfed Channel Energy of the Warpriest doesn't really compare.

It looks to me like it's supposed to be one of two things:

A. Divine Magus without the action economy fix.

B. If the Paladin is a fighter/cleric leaning towards fighter, this is a fighter/cleric leaning more towards cleric.


Headfirst wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Play. Test. Playtest.

If these were brand new classes, I would totally agree with you that playtesting is the only way to find out if they're viable and fun.

However, the nature of these hybrid classes with their "cut and pasted" features from core classes, puts us in a much better position to judge them based simply on their first drafts.

Don't get me wrong, I'm still going to playtest as much as I can, but please consider our initial feedback, too.

While I don't really care with the way the hybrid concept has been executed saying that it doesn't need to be playtested since it uses existing features isn't entirely accurate.

Have these combination of powers ever been put together? This class gets sneak attack and other abilities, is it able to get sneak attack more often as a result? Less often?

Swashbuckler implies high DEX low STR, but is a melee class and it doesn't give weapon finesse until level 2 meaning that going from level 1 > 2 increases your accuracy by approximately 25-30% - does this make swashbuckler a liability at level 1? Too good at level 2?

I don't like the execution of the hybrid classes, none of them feel like their own distinct class to me, they just feel like a random mash up of class features from existing classes. As a result I'm not going to allow these classes at the table when I DM (at least during the playtest and unless there are drastic changes between now and release probably not even then).

But mechanically speaking a playtest is still very important, it may not be important to people who aren't interested in what the book provides, but it is important for those who are.

EDIT: I realize that you didn't say playtesting was unimportant, I'm just pointing out that it's what they're interested in now - not whether people are interested in the classes or not.


So, when this book was announced I got really excited because I was hoping for something new - whenver a book came out for 3.5 it would usually provide some type of 'new' option - not just an upgrade to an existing option. Warlocks, Incarnum classes, Factotum, etc.

And that was also how I felt when earlier PF books were released - the Magus was genius, Summoner felt unique, Oracle provided a spontaneous divine class, etc. The classes introduced prior to this point provided 'new' options.

So when I read through the playtest for the advanced class guide I immediately felt discouraged by it. These options are not 'new' they're just variations (and many times in my opinion improvements) on existing classes/play styles.

And then I read the post, "The point of Hybrids" and it kind of makes me understand the goal a bit better. It's not trying to replace existing play styles, it's trying to make new playstyles available by combining things that previously were not easy to combine.

So that's an idea I can get behind but I have one major problem with the execution - in my opinion, many of these new hybrid classes lean too heavily towards one class, then beef it up with new features. The arcanist doesn't feel like a wizard/sorceror hybrid to me, it feels like a better wizard. If the goal is to combine ranger and rogue then do so, but combine them in some way that makes them distinct, not just a mash-up of class features.

Anyways, so I have some thoughts on the classes, based off of my understanding of what is trying to be accomplished, I've tried to keep my thoughts and concerns as constructive as possible:

Arcanist:
The goal(as I understand it) - Create an arcane caster somewhere between spontaneous and prepared, able to plan ahead for the day like a wizard does, but able to modify that plan on the go like a sorceror.

My concern - It's too close to wizard, and in my opinion better. No, they don't get a school, but they do get the ability to change their spell list every day, and that's a big deal.

Thoughts/Fix - I honestly think this class shouldn't make it to level 9 spells. I'm not saying give it the bard progression or anything, but this class is a combination of two classes and it 'balances' that by taking away the features that aren't important. Yes, bloodlines are good. Favored schools are good. Spells are better. If you really want to create a hybrid of the wizard and sorceror who isn't just 'better' then drop the spells a bit.

Give the class a favored school and/or bloodline, drop the maximum spell level known to 6 or 7, and pump up the spells per day. This would make it distinct from its parent classes.

Bloodrager:
The goal - Create a barbarian that is able to call upon magical might during times of rage by replacing rage powers and trap sense for spells and bloodline powers.

My concern - While I think the tradeoff in power (giving up rage powers and trap sense for spells and bloodlines) is fairly equivalent the problem that arises is action economy. You have a limited number of times per day you're in a rage and now in that limited time you have spells you can cast that prevent you from attacking. You gave this class spells, but made using them kind of impractical. So basically what we have is a barbarian who sometimes stops attacking to cast spells.

Thoughts/Fix - What made the magus work was that it put the action economy of being a melee caster at the forefront of it's design (or so it seemed to me). If the purpose of this class is to cast while raging then give him the ability to do that - Maybe he can cast and attack during a charge? Maybe hitting a target allows him to cast a spell quicker than normal (hit an opponent with standard, spell that would normally be standard action to cast becomes move action). Attack and cast at the same time.

Brawler:
The goal - Create a non-mystical martial combatant specialized in unarmed combat

My concern - This class has a lot going on, but it's not very focused. It wants you to focus on maneuvers, but it also wants you to focus on unarmed attacks, and for some reason your unarmed attacks become magical even though you're not mystic. Too much monk, not enough fighter.

Thoughts/Fix - Let him have heavy armor if he wants, you're trying to design a boxer, if a boxer wants to have s%%%ty dex let him, hell encourage it. Lose the AC bonus in light armor, what's it even doing on a non-mystic low Will class? Lose the Brawler strike thing too, it feels to me like something Monks had so it just had to be ported over. You know what I would like to see that would make the Brawler actually distinct from any other class?

Give them the ability to use the bonuses of magical equipment without having to hold the weapon. He takes a +2 flaming weapon, holds it in his hand, and the glow slowly moves from the blade to his hand - he puts the weapon back in its scabbard and as long as it stays on him his fist now acts as +2 flaming. How would that work lore wise - off the top of my head I don't know, maybe he's so good at martial combat that he simply knows how to steal the effect for himself temporarily, but either way does it make any less sense than him just arbitrarily doing magic damage?

This would make the class distinct amongst others and would give the party a member who could actually benefit from all that random equipment that's always being rolled.

Hunter:
The goal - Create an animal companion focused druidic warrior.

My concern - Truth be told I kind of like this class, the only concern I have here is that it doesn't really shine anywhere. Not a great warrior, not the best caster, just a guy with an animal companion... but the problem there is why play this when you could play a summoner? Different spell list? This class gets teamwork feats for themselves and their animal, but they're not a great combatant. Summoner gets evolution points, Hunter gets teamwork feats that they share with their
animals that probably won't benefit them that much.

Thoughts/Fix - Again, I actually like this class, I think it's a very good divine 'jack of all trades' with the moderate spell list and the medium attack bonus. The only thing I can think of that would make this class better (without being too better) would be to replace the teamwork feats with the ability to share feats with your animal companion.

You want him to share a teamwork feat with him? Good take one and share it. You want to take dodge so that both you and your animal companion have it? Good take that one.

Investigator:
The goal - Combine the rogue and the alchemist to create a character class that knows the inner workings of everything - from the anatomy of the people around them (sneak attack) to the finer arts of alchemy.

My concern - This class is trying to find it's own identity, but instead it just combines the best features of two different classes out proceeds to outclass them in every way. Is there any reason to ever play a Rogue instead of an Investigator? Is there any reason other than liking bombs to play an Alchemist instead of an investigator. Nearly full SA, a very good talent tree that includes the entire assortment of alchemist discoveries and rogue talents, the ability to supercharge skill checks greater than any other skill monkey, extracts, and more. Not only is that a lot of good stuff that causes the 'parent' classes to get left behind, it's also too much for a class trying to have an identity of its own.

Thoughts/Fix - I feel like this class wanted to be the Factotum from 3.5s Dungeonscape, but instead of doing anything interesting like that it just piles class features on top of one another. Drastically reduce, or outright eliminate the SA, and replace it with things befitting a class called 'Investigator'. Make him better at boosting his allies, give him the ability to make two standard actions in a round from time to time - hell, have him identify weak spots on enemies so that he can grant SA to his entire team. Maybe give him the ability to navigate the battlefield easier - let him avoid attacks of opportunity.

This class has a lot going on and I think that's a good thing, especially for a class called "Investigator", but I wish that fewer of those features were just copy/past of other classes - give him his own identity.

Shaman
The goal - Create a divine caster with a familiar and hexes. Also, ghosts?

My concern - I don't even really understand what this class is trying to do, if you wanted an Oracle with hexes why not just build that? At the very least including the familiar as well as the spirit is a bit much.

Thoughts/Fix - Not really a lot to say on this one, it feels more like an archetype than a full class to me. At the very least I would say drop the familiar, though if you want to keep the 'must commune with the familiar to prepare spells' do so, but with the spirit instead.

Skald
The goal - Bardbarian

My concern - Raging Song is only going to be good for some party compositions.

Thoughts/Fix - Make the song do something beneficial for party members that don't want to rage.

Slayer
The goal: Create a deadly class that takes all of the most lethal potential of the rogue, ranger, and assassin to deal the most damage possible.

My concern - The goal was achieved. Seriously, this class doesn't replace Rogues because it doesn't do the whole 'skill monkey' thing, but for any other purpose - yeah, why Play Rogue? And Ranger?
You know what the most common complaint I hear about ranger is? I wish there was a good ranger variant with no spells - here it is, and it, in my opinion, completely outclasses Rangers.

Thoughts/Fix - I feel like the simple version of this class would have been a ranger archetype where the combat style and spells were replaced with sneak attack. I think that would have been more balanced, and I feel like it would have been simpler.

At the very least I think the favored target thing should be tweaked to be more in line with similar existing features - make it more like the inquisitors judgement, or the rangers favored enemy, or smite.

Swashbuckler
The goal - Finally - a high dex martial combatant that doesn't rely on Sneak attack.

My concern - If you want to make a high dex/int martial character viable then do it and stop dancing around it so much. I feel like this class is screaming, "I want INT to AC in light armor" and, "I want DEX to damage", but that's too simple. Instead we have to get weapon finesse, but not really (and not at level 1 - build a high dex character, suck for a level, then hit level 2 and watch your accuracy increase by 25%) and 'nimble'.

Thoughts/Fix - Drop swashbuckler finesse, we don't need a special name for it. Then give us weapon finesse at level 1 - it's going to be a cornerstone requirement for most builds of this class, why put it off until level 2? Give us DEX to damage, make it certain weapons only if you're worried about abuse. Finally - give INT to ac in light or no armor. If you're worried about people dipping then stipulate that it only applies in certain situations - rounds where you make attacks with rapiers or something.

Seriously, the goal of this class is so clear cut and defined - the goal is obvious - why dance around it so much when it could be so much simpler?

Warpriest
The goal - If the paladin is a combination the fighter and cleric with an emphasis on fighter, this is the same combination, but with an emphasis on cleric.

My concern - Trying to recreate the wheel, if the goal of this class is to combine fighter with a divine caster class (specifically cleric) why not go off of a similar base - the Magus. The magus combined casting with melee well, this class doesn't. It gives you spellcasting, it gives you blessings, it gives you sacred weapons and armor... it's all good ideas, but it could have been done better - more like Magus.

Thoughts/Fix - Give them some kind of action economy fix so that they can combine their casting with their melee, not cast some times and do melee other times.


Renesis in another thread made a comment about bundles being bugged, so I replaced my module bundles with individual parts and the button was no longer grayed out. Shipping cost went up a few dollars though.


Renesis in another thread made a comment about bundles being bugged, so I replaced my module bundles with individual parts and the button was no longer grayed out. Shipping cost went up a few dollars though.


Renesis - That worked for me, though my issue was slightly different from the one listed in this thread, so thanks.

The button to complete my order was grayed out, I replaced the bundles with the individual books and it finally worked, though the shipping cost went up a few dollars, no biggie though.


At first it wasn't determining my shipping information. That's working now, but now I have this problem, "Place your order" is greyed out.


All of a sudden it's able to calculate my shipping information, but now my "Place your order" button is greyed out.


Trying to order a couple things and can't complete. This is the error message I'm getting. I sent an e-mail as the page recommended, but further feedback would be appreciated.

Hoping to get this resolved before the sale ends/sells out.


Some enchantments are listed as having a flat cost rather than a bonus cost (+1, +2, etc.) when looking at armor and weapon enchantments.

Under the special abilities table they are categorized as being +1, +2, etc. but in the price column it just says "+4,000 GP" (glamered weapon enchant for example) as opposed to "+1 Bonus" (bane weapon enchant for example). So here's where I start to get confused...

At the bottom of the table it says "Add to enhancement bonus on the Weapon Pricing by Bonus table to determine total price."

Well, there is no listed bonus for these, they are under a bonus category, but aren't listed as having that bonus. If you look it up by itself (the full text of the enchantment) it doesn't list a bonus, just says cost 4,000, craft cost 2,000.

So I have a couple questions:

Is glamered a +1 bonus, + 4,000 GP on top of that, or is it just +4,000 GP and doesn't raise the overall 'bonus' of the weapon?

If glamered doesn't count as a bonus then does that mean that you can enchant a weapon with it without having first putting a +1 enchantment bonus on it?


That's kind of what I was thinking, but I wanted to get the thoughts of others. Thanks for the input guys.


Does a shield or set of armor with spikes automatically have spikes of the same quality as the item to which they're attached? This question refers both to masterwork quality as well as special materials - if I have an adamantine set of full plate with spikes are my spikes adamantine automatically or do I have to spend an additional 3000 GP to have my spikes (a weapon) made out of adamantine?


Boosts now work and show up as meta words. They have their associated level there with them as well.

In addition there is a button that will reset the spell for you. I hope to get a 'remove word from spell' button up soon, but we'll see how far that goes along.


I plan on adding a 'reset' function shortly. Actually I meant to add that before I published and linked it anywhere.

I'm at work now, but that'll be the first thing I do when I get home.

As for Boosts - that's number 2. It would be really easy if not for the fact that some words have two boost effects. And one single boost has class restrictions on it.

Removing words from the final spell is going to be a bit tricky and will probably come later.

Thanks for the feedback :)

EDIT:
If you change your class or the highest word level drop down it should reset the spell. Not ideal, but probably better than nothing for now.


So it's not perfect, but I've got a tool up to help create spells out of the words of power system for pathfinder.

Again, this tool is not yet perfect, nor complete.

If you change one of the top two drop down boxes, you will get a list of all words that class can use. You can add meta words to the word as well using a button shaped like a plus sign. Once you have your word, and all meta words added, hit "add word to spell" and it will move that word to your final spell area where it will go ahead and update your current spell level(sort of). It also trims out any target words you can no longer use.

This is very much a work in progress, so if anyone has any feedback, please feel free to crush my spirit (just kidding, please be nice :P).


OK, so I preordered a case the first day and I've been checking the discussion thread periodically for updates to information, and I have a couple questions. Please forgive if ignorance abounds in my post.

1. The Black Dragon currently has no price, and there is no way to order said Black Dragon?

2. Are the minis going to be subscribable?

3. If it's decided to make a subscription out of them how will people who have already ordered be handled? Will we have to cancel our current order, and re-order?

4. I know some effort is being put into cases getting a 'complete set' (no guarantees, I understand), but how is this going to work as more sets come out? The next set is going to have 60 minis (or at least I believe that's the number that's been tossed around), and with a case containing only a total of 76 boxes it seems like it'll be rough to keep it distributed. What if a set comes out that has 13 large minis in it? The case would have to come with all 12 larges as unique, and you'd still be out one that you'd have to scrounge for.

5. Is there a place where this information will be posted without having to dig through 1000 posts in the discussion thread?

I'm sure a couple of my questions seem a bit goofy, but I'm very interested in getting every single mini that comes out, so I want to make sure I get as much information as I can as soon as I can.


I also had a similar thread to this recently, and while I came up with an answer it still left me with questions...

What I figured out:

Overrun can normally be done in place of an attack during a charge. Charge through gives you the ability to charge through an occupied square on your way to the target.

OK then, here's Question 1:

Since the normal 'movement rules' for charging are being ignored (have to end in the first square you can attack the target from), how far through can you overrun, or do you have to end in the first empt square?

Example:
H = Hero
B = Baddie
# = Referenced empty squares

H1234B5678

With a double move I could easily get to 8, but since it's a charge I have to stop at 4. Overrun stipulates that I have to go to at least 5, and since the charge rules for movement aren't in affect can I just go to 8, even though I'm charging?

Question 2 is a bit simpler, and I think I already know the answer...

If I'm overruning someone then I don't provoke for the maneuver, but moving through threatened squares on the way to them still provokes? As in a large opponent, or an opponent with reach?

XXXXXBBXXXX
H1234BB5678

As I charge through square 3 into 4 I provoke for moving through threatened squares, but don't provoke from moving from four into the opponents square and beyond? Or is the Overrun protect me for the entire movement?

As I said I don't think that's quite how it works, but the wording is just... poor in my opinion.


Bad Sintax wrote:


The feat says:
"You do not provoke an attack of opportunity when performing an overrun combat maneuver. In addition, you receive a +2 bonus on checks made to overrrun a foe. You also receive a +2 bonus to your Combat Maneuver Defense whenever an opponent tries to overrun you. Targets of your overrun attempt may not chose to avoid you."

The feat doesn't say anything about "initiating" an overrun; it simply states that you don't provoke when performing the maneuver. Meaning performing the Overrun maneuver (including the movement and the actual moving through the space) is just like anything else that does not provoke an AoO, like drawing a weapon. There is no AoO from the target, period: whether before or after moving through the target's space. It just so happens that you can move while doing this action. The maneuver and the movement are one and the same, not separate ("as part of your movement"). Whether the target is prone or not does not apply.

I somehow managed to space on the wording of the feat itself and was too focused on the wording of the Overrun ability. That actually makes overrun very nice when fighting things with a ridiculous reach then, because you can cross through its 10/15/20/alot feet of threatened area and not provoke. Thanks for catching what I missed.

@James Risner

I had originally had a similar thought to what you have (that you can normally make an Overrun attempt for free in addition to your charge at an opponent), but the very existence of the feat "Charge Through" and a thread on these forums is what got me thinking that's not how it works, and that - instead - the wording implies you can use Overrun in place of the melee attack at the end of a charge. That's what leads to the quesion of "How do I end a charge with something that requires further, undefined, movement?".


My first question is on attacks of opportunity:

OK, so clearly initiating the overrun does not provoke if you have improved Overrun.

If your CMB check is higher than their CMD then you move through their square, and onward. But won't continuing provoke? Initiating the overrun does not provoke - that is stated clearly, but what happens when you continue moving through their square, the square next to them that they threaten, and then beyond that?

If you beat the CMD by 5 or more the target is knocked prone, but you can still make attacks of opportunity while prone, and you still threaten all squares normally.

So.... looking at this I have to think that the intent is that the target of your overrun cannot make attacks of opportunity against you unless they have reach (when moving towards them you'd provoke, before you move into their square which is what the feat protects you from), but that's not what it says. Reading it RAW sounds to me like you will always provoke at some point during an Overrun, unless you end your turn in the square directly behind your target, which seems pretty pointless.

So, am I missing something or interpreting something incorrectly?

My second question is about charging.

They say you can do overrun as part of a charge, but the implication seems to be that they mean you can do it in place of your normal attack at the end of a charge - but how does this work? You normally have to end a charge at the closest square, but Overrun specifically takes you through the nearest square which means that it violates the rules of charging. Since the wording on Overrun is so poor I don't really get what they were trying to do.

My first throught was that you could Overrun one person between you and your charge target, but the inclusion of a feat called "Charge Through" specifically allows for that, so I don't really know what their intent was.

I would like to think that you can basically perform a "Charge" attack as a double move, and you get a Overrun somewhere during it. As in, an opponent is 20 feet away, you charge/overrun through him and can continue on up to ((move*2)-20) past. I would like to think that but it sounds completely counter to what a charge normally is...

Lastly,

If anyone has any tips on boosting CMB please let me know. Thanks.


Senevri wrote:
Well... in NWN rogues, if they pass the disable DC by 10 or something, can in fact deconstruct the trap and take it with them.

Yeah, I remember that, but there doesn't seem to be any actual rules to back that up. The trap rules are so vaguely defined that it really makes me think that you can pretty much just do whatever you can imagine. I just wish that assembly/disassembly was little better defined.


So, one of the new rogue talents allows a rogue to deploy preassembled traps as a full round action.

This is awesome, but has led me to some other questions.

My halfling is able to craft arrow firing traps, and deploy it in the middle of a canyon. But then... what? It's in the canyon forever? There are no rules in place for disassembling the trap and taking it with me, and what's more, this rogue talent allows you to do something there were never any rules for before in a full round action.

So without the rogue talent you have to build the trap where it's going to be placed, with it you have increased your versatility by 1000%.

Are there rules for disassembling traps? Or stealing them? Or moving them?

Here's another question: Do traps have to be stationary? Couldn't I have a auto-reset arrow launch from my back every round? Set the trigger as sound with an automatic reset, and it goes off every round. There is nothing that says traps have to be stationary, or even that they intrinsically are.

Am I missing something?


Alternative theory:

Jack walks into the coop and the farmer looses an arrow. He probably misses the level 5 rogue. The farmer uses his move action to reload.

Jack grabs a chicken and snaps its neck.

Farmer brown runs up to the coop and looses an arrow, and probably misses(he probably has a -4 from chickens attacking Jack causing him to effectively be shooting into melee).

Jack walks out and runs into the corn with the dead chicken, provoking an attack of opportunity from the farmer that hits for 2 damage. The farmer looses one more arrow and hits for another 4 points of damage.

Jack eats a chicken and is almost completely healed overnight.

This doesn't prove anything about stealth, but neither does a scenario specifically geared towards nerfing stealth....


Yeah, I ran into that issue with some of my old players in the past(3.5) and it was always difficult to get them to listen to reason...it was easy to take advantage of when they were DMing, but when I was DMing and they were trying to abuse it...very hard to get them to listen to reason...

I suppose the question at this point is, in PF, what is the intended correlation between Player Characters, CR, and monstrous races? I think the "Monsters as PCs" section does a pretty good job, though it did take me a while to find.

Any idea as to whether or not there will ever be a savage species esque book for Pathfinder?


Isn't that what "Monsters as PCs" says to do though?

It even says that a sixth level party with a minotaur would have a minotaur(CR 4) and 2 class levels.


The other thing I think would have worked well would have been if, instead of having an example drow, then a "drow characters" section, you simply had all the information from "drow characters" under Drow. Then there'd be no potentially confusing wording, and there wouldn't be any confusion created by what is essentially race duplication.

Of course, that's really not important any more since the book is already out and all that :)

I think it works this way for people who are familiar to 3.5, but I also think it will be more confusing to people who are unfamiliar, and starting off with PF.


It makes a good amount of sense, but it still just seems off. I think the biggest reason it bothers me is this:

They're labeled as characters, not DM tools, DM options, Non player character, etc. etc. Just Characters, which I think leads most to assume means "Player Character" or "Non-Player Character".

Most people I know who play will see "Character" and assume it's usable by everyone. If that's not the intent, then that's fine, but I don't think they should have said "Characters". The word DM, NPC, etc. all would have done a good job of clarifying this.

But on the other hand Paizo doesn't want to discourage people from doing this, they just want it to be left up to DMs, so instead of specifically labelling them as off limits, they refer to them in a vague way, with rules for how to deal with them hidden away. If a player finds a race he thinks he can play, it's pretty much all good - UNTIL that player finds a discrepancy with something. My race isn't as good as others because of this, or is unbalanced because of that. Now the answer becomes "Well that's not for you".

I don't really see the purpose of those "as characters" stat blocks exist. I'm the DM for my group, and I will never use those when perfectly viable options already exist. The drow warrior 1 has a CR of 1/3. If I want to up him with class levels I can do that without much fear of that 1/3 CR coming back to bite me. The only logical reason I can imagine the "Characters" block existing is for players who want to play that race, and their DM has allowed it.

I say it's lazy because Paizo is giving access to these races to the players with the built in argument that it's not for them. I think a small bit of work could have easily cleared up any confusion that arises, but if they wanted to cut things off before they started to get messy, they should specify "Non-Player Characters" rather than "Characters" because characters comes at the end of both player and non-player.

For the record I love pathfinder, and am playing it exclusively with my group. I love the bestiary, and I don't anticipate having a lot of trouble incorporating it into my games, I just don't understand why they went with what appears to me to be a poorly done design in regards to racial "characters".


Yeah, I looked for a bit trying to find the answer I was looking for, and after posting this I stumbled into the errata thread and saw it talked about there.

I don't really understand why they did it the way they did, I mean there are 11(12 if you count noble drow) races listed as "Race as characters" and they all seem close to balanced with base races. It just seems lazy to have it laid out in such a way that promotes playing these extra races, then claim that it's not intended for such. Just seems like it's an excuse to not have to proofread.


So I saw "Drow characters" and read through it. They get some decent stuff, but then I noticed "Drow Noble Characters" just below that, and they seem to be vastly superior, all the way from their stat increases, to their lack of light sensitivy, to their SR. The only thing they don't have is sleep immunity.

My initial guess would be that it's not intended for players but it's labeled "Drow Noble Characters"....am I reading something wrong?