Winter-Touched Sprite

graystone's page

Organized Play Member. 7,811 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 7,811 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Steve Geddes wrote:
I feel like it's mainly nostalgia/tradition for me. I reject the claim that those are bad reasons for keeping them in

I can respect that perspective even if I don't exactly agree: it's most likely the difference between your nostalgia and my more turbulent memories of it.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
I've certainly met many people who very much fall into the category described. Your experience is not universal.

Oh, I understand that. I've helped countless people make characters over the years. From my perspective, alignment just doesn't "spark the imagination of people" the way it seems to for you. The tiny blurb in the book under alignment is dwarfed by character types the person has actually experience in book or film. and it's much easier to latch onto the idea. IMO it's far from a "very useful niche to have filled" that could be filled with actual advice on character building. I can honestly say, I don't recall anyone I played with read the alignment section and say 'oh NOW I have a good idea for a character'.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

It usually does in context, and it's a lot quicker to write (often an order of magnitude quicker, since it's two letters and a good description will be at least 20), and that's a huge deal in published adventures and the like.

And remember, Paizo probably makes more money on published adventures than anything else. Things being good for published adventures is important for Pathfinder.

Oh I understand, but they also add alignment in for NPC's that are more fleshed out: they makes a 2-3 page detailed background and profile of an NPC in the back and you have to spend ANY space on alignment? Second, it's not as much space when it covers multiple creatures. Thirdly, if "a good description" takes so much space, I think it illustrates how little the alignment actually informes. You can have diametrically opposite outlooks easily fall under the same alignment.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Replacing alignment with a more complicated and comprehensive moral system with actual mechanical weight is totally a valid option. It is not, however, the same as simply removing it, and is in fact a much more in depth change to the game and how it functions.

Oh, I think you misunderstand. A moral system doesn't need to be more complicated and that isn't what i'm advocating. Quite the opposite actually. You wrap paladin/cleric codes into the gods tenets and they work for all followers. Simple, easy and everyone can agree with clearly spelled out do's and don't. IMO, much LESS complicated that trying to figure out 'is this x alignment' we have now.

Anything else falls into 'good' and 'bad': just drop law and chaos as they seem to have little impact as is.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Finally as a sidenote: In my opinion (based on my own experience) electronic character builders are a crutch that encourages players to not learn the rules for their characters or understand the game they're playing.

While it can be, it's not universal. I know I always read the books/pdf's first and use the tools just to speed up character creation: the same way various online sites have search engines and/or reworked section like the kineticist which was MUCH better presented there than in the actual book.

David knott 242 wrote:
I had one friend who could not locate another friend's house without a GPS.

Hey! Some of us didn't have any sense of direction BEFORE GPS was a thing. ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Some people need the training wheels.

I didn't disagree. That's why I suggested something they could use that, IMO, is far superior at that job.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
in my early days it was a big help for me to build a character around

For me, I'd rather 'training wheels' be a section on roleplaying suggestions. Various archetypes to play like 'lone wolf', 'antihero', '4 color hero', ect instead. With a loose framework, you can freely build your character as you wish without being constrained by it.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
1. If you don't have an idea for who your character is as a person already firmly in mind, Alignment can serve as an excellent starting place.

Honestly, this is a foreign concept for me. I have a character in mind first, then build a character to fit that image. If the idea is so nebulous that I need alignment to focus it, it's not a character I'm spending time on. If someone come to me saying they are having an issue like this, I'd suggest personality archetypes and/or a character in film/book/ect to use as a jumping off point: Those as a MUCH firmer base to build something off of than, IMO, the more nebulous alignment descriptions.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
2. It's absolutely wonderful from a GM perspective.

IMO, a line or two of personality/goals/ect fills this need MUCH better. CN might see themselves as freedom fighters, misguided youth bullying people and taking their stuff or raving lunatics on shrooms: Cn really didn't narrow down which one of those they are.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Those that lack a moral system

A moral system doesn't require a strict alignment system. Things can be good and evil without the capital letters G and E being attached. In fact a moral system without alignment, IMO, can better emulate a living breathing one: NOW your god is actually concerned with what they care, like their tenets, instead of the random alignment attached to them.

cfalcon wrote:
Now picture a game without the alignment baseline. You have to manually come up with content as you go.

This is totally false. You either have a section in the back of the books with the alignment items, to it's as hard as flipping pages. If it taken out altogether, you open of the totally free PRD, and take the alignment from the pathfinder classic rules element you want alignment for. In neither case do you have to reinvent the wheel.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I've been thinking about this, and what I like about FCBs is that they provide an incentive to stay in a single class, but what I really dislike about them is how they make humans better sorcerers than gnomes, when "sorcerer" should be the class for gnomes.

For me, human actually makes more sense as they seem to mate with ANYTHING. it seems more appropriate for them to have a benefit when it comes to power in the blood. Now creatures like gnomes, tieflings, aasimar ect could be 'stronger' in terms of the type of magic already in their blood [fey, fiendish, celestial].


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Talek & Luna wrote:
a small, tiny 5% chance that you MIGHT be temporarily inconvenienced in the same round of combat is too much for you

Now you get it! Most players seem to dislike fumbles and agree with the statement. What is the upside for those people? What about ANY inconvenience is tempting?

You're asking 'why are you complaining about getting kicked in the groin 5% of the time' and you seemed shocked when the reply is 'but I don't want to get kicked at all!'


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wheldrake wrote:
Arcana. Or Arcana points.

Esoterica.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
The druid a little as well but it is real easy to avoid teaching someone druid who even thing about that? Monk also got to be lawful but Its probably hard to enforce.

For the most part, the law/chaos axis is ignored in my experience: It's ALL about the good/evil. As such, I only ever recall a single barbarian 'acting lawful' with all the barbarians, druids and monks around.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
Getting rid of alignment is like or rather is getting rid of a part of the role playing.

I have to be honest, I've never understood this sentiment. You can play fun and rich characters full of personality that fully engage with the setting all without EVER looking at the alignment of your character. For the VAST amount of games I see, alignment is either ignored or abused: it's not really a roleplaying boon or a challenge: when it rears it's head, it's as a speed bump or hurdle to roleplaying. ex: 'you can't do that', 'that alignment means I'd do that', 'that's not x'... Instead of filling out the characters personality and mentality, it's alignment first and character second. I'd rather have an interesting and engaging character, even if that means it doesn't fit into one of the neat alignment boxes. When you don't have anything in the alignment box, you don't have someone thinking/saying 'you're doing it wrong': you're JUST playing your character to the best of your ability and the world can take your actions to form an opinion.

PS: As an example, I once played a neutral/amoral assassin. He was the 'nicest' character in the group of mostly good players. I just didn't advertise that was because it benefited me. I was loyal to the group because there's safety in numbers: not because I was lawful. I saved lots of people because I was paid or because they'd owe me: not because I was good. I ignored laws and avoided arrest to rescue the farmers daughter because I got paid and she was cute: not because I was chaotic. I used poison because it was efficient: not because it was evil. Far too often what your character should do doesn't fall into a neat box and I don't understand the desire to try.


Definitely NOT a certain Kobold wrote:
graystone wrote:

IMO:

Gnomes: stay the same
Halfling: change +cha -> +Wis
Shift goblin out of core: Stats + con and dex - wis
And add in Kobolds instead right?

LOL IMO that's make a better core 'race' than goblin. ;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
I have never had an issue with alignment at the table - never. I didn't even realise it was a problem until I started playing PF and joined the forums here.
Same. Played for 17 years using alignment never had trouble from alignment specifically.

Played since the game was in pamphlet form [blackmoor rules]. Have had alignment issues off and on over all the years with a fairly even balance of player issue, DM issues and plain old 'not seeing eye to eye'. In ALMOST every instance, they were paladin issues It led me to a 'no paladin' policy [right next to the no kender policy]. Of the 10% non-paladin issue, they were more about alignment shifts and various abilities/items linked to alignment.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
I mean I can believe it happening but I think that is more of a group or individual issue.

I've seen it with a wide variety of players and DM's over the years. I rarely encounter an alignment issue myself, but I think that's more my picking non-troublesome alignment and classes: The issue foe me is mostly an argument between Dm and player that delays/ends the game.

I think it's more of an issue of consistently playing with a set group/setting or not. Once you can gauge how others will react to an action, it makes alignment issues much easier. When you don't have that, you start from scratch every time and you might go from a group that sees alignment almost identically to one that widely varies.


IMO:
Gnomes: stay the same
Halfling: change +cha -> +Wis
Shift goblin out of core: Stats + con and dex - wis


kyrt-ryder wrote:

Grain has a unique side-benefit for those familiar with bullets, where powder and weight of the bullet are measured in grains.

Naturally a 12 grain spell would have more umph than a 10 grain spell.

I like gauge. Nothing is as satisfying than shooting something with a 12 gauge. ;)


Steve Geddes wrote:
Crayon wrote:
Circles seems a particularly poor choice as it doesn't really fit with hierarchical structure and almost sounds like unrelated forms of magic.
I think you’re supposed to think of them as concentric. So you move from the outer circle to the inner ones as you delve ever deeper into the mysteries of magic.

Circles, regular polygons, regular polyhedra, and spheres can be concentric. This means that triangles, squares, hexagons, pentagons, cubes, ect equally apply. So, again, I find circle as odd as a suggestion as cube or pentagon...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
That depends on whether you'd rather your bunch of different afterlife aspects have some underlying systemic order to them, I would think. I very much favour them having such an order, and while alignment is by no means perfect for that either, it's the best plausible option we have. (Myself I'd probably rather have something with more detailed axes and more options, but making something workable, balancing it and selling people on it seems unlikely to work, and alignment as we have it is at least a start.)

there isn't a need for a "systemic order" though". All you need is x plane attracts those those like x. y, z and dislike x, y z. No axes required at all. In fact adding extra thing like alignment and axes just needlessly complicates things. I simple description of what souls tend to go there is ALL you need.

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
I am, to put it another way, arguing that alignment is a plus on enjoyment grounds, and that assessing it on realism grounds is pointless to a degree of actively unhelpful in judging how well it works as a game mechanic.

The thing is that people look at things like alignment using their understanding of it and that's informed from their own sense of realism. As such, having humans as players makes looking at them with realism in mind an inevitability. Most people want a three dimensional character that is much more than a 2 letter alignment could hope to cover and any character with depth is never going to conform to those letters.

Even setting aside those arguments, my personal experience is that alignment doesn't work well from either an enjoyment or a mechanical point of view.

Davor wrote:
People just need to learn to stop taking a single mechanic so seriously.

People TEND to take things that remove all of your class abilities a bit seriously... :P


the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Planpanther wrote:
I really enjoyed the orders and flavor. Id like to see more abilities and archetypes that dont kneecap the cav without their mount.
But kneecapping the horses as well is just cruel.

LOL Who knows, maybe the horse DESERVED a good kneecapping. Some mounts are jerks. ;)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Crayon wrote:
Also, Circles seems a particularly poor choice as it doesn't really fit with hierarchical structure and almost sounds like unrelated forms of magic.

I agree. Circle never sounded right to me. Tier, rank, grade, layer, order, step, ect all seem fine: circle though... it doesn't imply any level of hierarchy like the others do. I mean, would squares or triangles make sense?

EDIT: now a circle COULD apply to a group of people so it could be uses for character level though i don't think I'd like that either.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
But at the end of their lives, they are going somewhere that will judge them on the basis of those rules and assign them to an afterlife accordingly, so if they have preferences about which afterlife they end up in, following the rules is only sensible.

But how does that require alignment? Wouldn't the aspects of the afterlife be more meaningful than a simple alignment descriptor?

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
A stipulation I am happy to work with for the sake of making Pathfinder a more enjoyable game; whether one buys it or not in reality seems irrelevant to that.

I'm both "not buying it" from a reality aspect and an enjoyment aspect: alignment isn't a requirement for either IMO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Given how the Planes work it's a much bigger change than any of those. It's a lot bigger than any but the Essences thing just by virtue of Detect Evil and the like existing.

Nothing stops detect evil spells from working... You just use the EXACT same method you'd use to determine if an act was evil to determine if there is anything to detect: you don't need the initials L,G,E,C and N detect good, bad, erratic or orderly things.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Not really. I mean, why are PCs immune to the rules that apply to everything else in the universe including Gods? That's weird as hell.

Why do mortals NEED to follow the rules that govern gods and planes? it's NOT about 'immune', but mortals being changeable, mercurial things. No person is a monolith of singular alignment energies. If you wanted to insist angels and devils have alignment, that's one thing. A human? Not buying it. They might DO evil or good but aren't at their essense good or evil.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Hey, I agreed with you absent an in-universe rationale. We just disagree on how extreme an in-universe rationale would be necessary.

Not disagreeing: Just pointing out that one persons sea change is another's change equivalent to other changes in the works. For me, goblins is like what you're describing alignment removal as.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
WormysQueue wrote:
Well, I guess that you've read my conclusion from the post you quoted. It's not that I think of my position as very defensible.

Oh, I was just pointing out that the "mistrust" issue can go both ways and how that affects our perspective of the issue. And I too think having a group you know and trust would make the majority of our issues moot. So I agree with most of your post, it's just we're starting from different sides of the fence. ;)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Removing alignment as a mechanic profoundly changes the metaphysics of the setting.

We're making profound changes already. Equipment shifts from slots to resonance, alchemists loss 'spells' and forget mutagens, goblins turn good, ect... 10th level spells just appeared out of nowhere. Material, mental, spiritual and vital essence is now a thing. So I don't see where alignment os a bridge too far.

Secondly, the "metaphysics of the setting" can stand without the players having it. People after death can go to the plane that best matches their actions based on the old alignment.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
weird retcon and break from verisimilitude

LOL I say the EXACT same thing about core goblins but we seem to be getting them... :P

WormysQueue wrote:
This said, a lot of that probably has to do with a bit of basic mistrust I have against players I don't know very well.

For me, it's Dm's that I don't know very well and not knowing how they think. People can have WILDLY different ideas of what alignment some actions/events are.

WormysQueue wrote:
I've seen too often them trying certain (evil) shenanigans that are not acceptable at my table and alignment is an easy way to disallow for that (main reason why I won't accept evil characters in my games).

For me, I've seen it from the players side where it seemed that alignment was used as a cudgel and/or a catch 22 by a DM. I think for every horror story you have of players being an issue, I'll have one of DM being one. The difference is that in your case, it's not hard to play a neutral in an evil way so if someone wants to be disruptive, that alone isn't a barrier. Not having player limitations based on alignment actually WOULD place a limiter at least on that particular issue.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ckorik wrote:
The suggestion floated in this thread - would still make alignment something you put on a sheet - that mechanically interacts with spells, outsiders, and other such things.

Oh, I understand this compromise. If it's the best we could do, it'd be better than the current form [ie:better than nothing]. For myself though, I'd rather see the alignment on the sheet to be optional. The same 'framework' can exist and all those spells and such that interact with it too: JUST in an optional section in the back of the books. No needing to reinvent the wheel, JUST an explicit buy in by the DM/players to include it in the game.

In a 'total win' situation though, my 100% getting my way, would be it totally removed.

PS: the "Take it or leave it" part was my main issue with HWalsh's post as I plan to advocate for shifting alignment as far from default as possible. As such, there was only one thing I could pick from those options.


I sense a disturbance in the force... Maybe spell points are REALLY your midichlorian count!

On a serious note, you could just call em source [points].


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:
Rainbow reserve does sparkle with me, I wonder if it is friendship powered;)

Hug powered! Bonus points if it's cute and fluffy! ;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
After a point in PF1, virtually every monster and its mother is packing a legion of SLAs at caster levels in excess of the PCs so yeah, pretty routine to perpetually bump into stuff that are better casters than the PCs.

SLA's that included detect magic? You fighting drow exclusively?

Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Things may change in 2, but I don't see why the expectation of fairly commonly bumping into better casters than your group should be adjusted that much, which in turn begs the question of why should I bother using my valuable spell slots for something that can be so casually dismissed...

So you NEVER expect to meet animals, mooks, ect that aren't joined at the hip by a caster or someone with a detect magic? EVERY single encounter is a caster that is higher than you? You clearly play a different kind of game than I do.

Tarik Blackhands wrote:
If you could slap fire immunity on yourself as a reaction cantrip to no sell the fireballs I just threw at you that'd be just as notable a problem.

It's EVEN worse than a reaction cantrip! It's an innate ability that required NO action! Just like every creature doesn't have fire resist, not every encounter is a caster higher level than you or a SLA detect magic user...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Flower Points. I like that term.

Rainbow reserve! Does that sparkle with you? ;)


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Actually the problem with illusions is that spending any higher level slot for your permanent programmed image or whatever (or just heightened silent image) is still rendered entirely moot by the evil caster just snapping his fingers and throwing a cantrip in your general direction. His automatically scales to likely a higher level than your spell since this is adventuring and more proficient baddies are not an uncommon occurrence, your spell loses, sucks for you bucko, shoulda prepped fireballs instead.

So illusions don't work on the boss wizard, only everyone else in the adventure? I'm not seeing that as an issue.

Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Darkness is its own problem since after all, darkvision can thwart regular darkness but what happens if I'm an enterprising jerk who spends his 3-4 slot on a Deeper version? I have unleashed some hefty battlefield control there! Well unless there's an evil wizard in the enemy mob who just throws a Light rock into it and beats it because his cantrip scales to L5 by default. Shoulda prepped fireballs again. Poor design if that's how it goes.

Is it normal for you to meet higher level casters? In every fight? You're acting like the spells can't be used because there is an evil wizard 10 levels higher than you waiting around every corner just itching to mess up your spell.

Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Shoulda prepped fireballs

Oh, no! the target has fire resistance or immunity? "Poor design"?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
MusicAddict wrote:
Here's my current big issue with scaling cantrips. Detect magic and Light are a problem as is. It removes both illusions AND darkness as appropriate fight techniques for anyone other than the biggest bad (Or the PCs if they're the biggest good against a bunch of mooks), and EVEN THEN, what we have here basically says that the Biggest Bad has to spend his highest level spell slots to make them not immediately ended by a cantrip.

Darkness already wasn't much of a threat in the game. Right now in pathfinder, I can make a character that can see through all darkness at 1st WITHOUT using an action...

As to illusions, this is as much a buff as it is a negative as detect magic doesn't work on higher level spells. This just means you have to use level appropriate spells. IMO, that makes sense: a 20th level archmage should have a much easier time seeing through a silent image than he did at 1st.

Dragon78 wrote:
I know I don't fondly remember questing for a high level priest to bring someone back from the dead...unless it was an important NPC.

If it doesn't involve the party, then it JUST a fetch quest. You can insert whatever mcguffin you wanted and that quest works. You can always have the person not want to come back and instead of finding the priest to raise, you're finding the priest to divine why the soul isn't coming back and find a way to convince it to come back.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

For myself, I'd like:
Print runs removed as a consideration of when errata comes out: once they have figured out what the errata is, post it in the errata section THEN. Then once a new print run comes out, they can move all that section into the new books.

Have centralized errata/FAQ's. Having one line looked over with a fine tooth comb and another mostly ignored isn't good. If it's not possible to put them under the same umbrella at least designate someone that CAN provide answers for each line of books.


ryric wrote:
Catharsis wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:
Assuming "we" want said to change back. Honestly I have no issues with critical failures, what I want to see is how it is working on the 20.
The system we want back did not make failure impossible, but for someone who would otherwise succeed on a 1, it turned the 1 into a failure rather than a critical failure, which makes more sense in that case.
Actually I do want failure to be impossible for easy skill checks. If you character is good enough to succeed on a 1 you shouldn't even have to roll.

I want to favorite this a thousand times! This SO much. A 20th level character with craft: blacksmith and a +100 to the roll should NEVER fail the DC 5 'make a nail' check. The possibility just shouldn't exist in the rules.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
LuZeke wrote:
Kinda takes the punch out of the old "take the remnants of your fallen companion and quest to find a high level priest" quest.

Is that a bad thing? I don't recall anyone ever fondly recalling the time they sat out while the rest of the party went on a quest without them [you known, because they are dead]... The less time players are dead, the better.


Kaladin_Stormblessed wrote:
Removing (mechanically relevant or otherwise) alignment is easier than adding mechanically relevant alignment.

Is it? Seems equally viable either way.

Kaladin_Stormblessed wrote:
The "remove alignment" argument, as many people are presenting it, requires taking away the framework for that system.

Not really: you can have the framework in the back of the books: alignment rules, spells, ect. Then straightforward list of X has Y alignment of you use it. You list monsters and such alphabetically in the books, so is it unthinkable to also list them with a [alignment] in the list? It's merely a shift in location so I don't see an 'easier' argument.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
graystone wrote:
Rituals: LOL 5e makes an appearance. ;) Luckily, it's one of the few things I actually LIKED from 5e.
What? 4e had rituals, 13th Age had rituals, Pathfinder had rituals... Ritual magic is all over this family of games- it's not a "specific to the current edition of the other game" thing.

Sigh... If you had read the thread, you'd notice i specified what I meant: rituals that any class could take. So ax pathfinder.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Occult Rituals in Pathfinder do not require the "primary caster" and "secondary casters" to be actual spellcasters

Only in the most technical sense. the skill DC's weren't particularly viable for casters let alone non-casters.

As to the rest, I didn't mention 4e as it's not 'current': being made. As to 13th age, I've NEVER played it, and have NO idea that it had rituals and/or if they require certain classes. I was thinking in D&D terms and not other games like 13th age.

Quite honestly, I'm NOT sure why this is all an issue... I noticed something that reminded me of another game and mentioned it. Was that bad?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bookrat wrote:
graystone wrote:
edduardco wrote:
Paizo introduced Rituals in Occult Adventures.
Ritual Caster feat in 5e allows any class to use rituals. Occult rituals require a caster. Hence my 5e comment: the new rituals allow anyone to use rituals. ;)
That's really awesome. Now utility spells aren't behind a caster wall. If any character can get them, then we knock down a huge barrier in the CM/D debate.

This is what excites me. For instance, we already know a rogue gets plenty of skill feats so it's easy to imagine building one that rocks at rituals! Skill monkey that allows rituals = profit! ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
edduardco wrote:
Paizo introduced Rituals in Occult Adventures.

Ritual Caster feat in 5e allows any class to use rituals. Occult rituals require a caster. Hence my 5e comment: the new rituals allow anyone to use rituals. ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lets see...

Action!: nothing new here...
Heightened Spells: Cool. No more needless reprinting of numbered spells.
Cantrips: Auto-heightened? Yes please.
Domain Powers and Beyond: Spell points? Sounds ok.
10th-Level Spells: Meh... I honestly don't foresee these in use that often as that level play rarely sees use.
Rituals: LOL 5e makes an appearance. ;) Luckily, it's one of the few things I actually LIKED from 5e.
Magical Traditions: I'll have to see this in practice.
Spells: I noticed that there was no specific material component listed for heal, so I'm hoping this means that listed specific components are a thing of the past. With divine focus filling in for them though it might just be assumed the heal is done with them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:
If Paizo put up a poll for the three races to see which was preferred, no doubt you'd see Goblins not get a lot of votes because the anti-Goblin folk would hope ignoring that poll would show they're against Goblins being in the game

I think you are oversimplifying the 'anti-goblin' side. IMO, a significant number of that side are against 'core' goblins and not any goblin: as such, I'd expect them to be interested in the stats and vote. Anyone that didn't vote most likely wouldn't even play a goblins anyway so it wouldn't really change much because they didn't reply.

Captain Morgan wrote:
This really seem like a "chill out, we will see in August" thing if ever there was one.

LOL Paizo is throwing fresh meat into the forum and people are pouncing in it like it is: It seems odd to worry about people trying to 'chew' on it. I'd be shocked if people DIDN'T...


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Mass Kneebreaker wrote:
"one true builds" are for people more intersted in their characters mechanics than the character itself. So it makes me sad to see it everytime.

Mechanics and roleplay aren't mutually exclusive. people with optimal builds can play well while those that are mechanically lax can be bad roleplayers...


8 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

See... And this is why I don't think compromise is possible.

The anti-alignment people won't settle for anything other than total victory. I offered at least sensible compromise and they wouldn't take it. So we have no choice but to dig in and give no quarter either.

You don't see it being just a BIT hypocritical that you draw a unilateral line in the sand and say 'I'm not budging from this spot' and THEN saying 'it's those OTHER guys that don't compromise!!!'. :P

All you did was go from 'alignment MUST be there for everyone" to 'alignment must be in there for everyone by default'. The end result is both default alignment. So your conditions have gone from total victory to total victory?

PS:and for perspective, for ME total victory would be total removal of any hint of alignment from the game. Leaving it in as an option is my compromise and hardly a 'total victory'.

knightnday wrote:
All rules are optional.

This is a falsehood when it's not YOU DMing and making the setting. When I play online, the 'normal' rules are the base, default rules: It severely limits your games if you are expecting/looking for optional rules in use. This is why I'd want alignment optional and not default. it allows people that are passionate about alignments to play the games they want while allowing me to continue to find games to join without having to advocate for setting changes before I even make a character...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
If it is made optional it will annoy all of the people who like alignment, and will doubly annoy any of us who also play PFS where we will be forced to play without alignment.

PFS has ALWAYS had it's own rules and different allowances. Optional alignment in core can sit alongside enforced alignment in PFS. For instance, paladins must have deities in PFS but not in the core game.

HWalsh wrote:
Take it or leave it.

IMO, leave it. At the worst, I'd want no alignment as the base and leave an option for people that want it. I don't play PFS, so you can knife fight for alignment there.


Shadrayl of the Mountain wrote:
Zaister wrote:
What is "handringing"?
That's what you're doing when you put on your rings in the morning, right?

Its what you do with a ring not meant for your ear. [or nose, belly button, ect]

or you can infer that the word was meant to be handwringing. ;)


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Which is why that complaint rings hollow to me. It's an OOC complaint that making goblins not evil causes issues when it doesn't.

I'm not sure how more non-evil goblins in the mix wouldn't cause more issues.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
I've never had any PCs

I expect more goblin involvement in future products to 'highlight/showcase' the new core race. As such, I'm not sure how the past is a good place to inform future goblin use.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Yeah, killing goblins just for existing would be immoral in any game I ran...

LOL And I've never been in a game where anyone thought twice about killing encountered goblins or recalled anyone saying 'lets wait and see if these are BAD goblins first...' This might not be the case in the future and I don't see that as good thing.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
I just don't think it's quite as big a change as you do, since I think people are less scared by/threatened by goblins than you seem to.

I can't see an upside to not treating them as a threat. It's KNOWN that they breed like crazy and are a constant threat to property and health with disease and fire... Even a goblin with not currently attacking your town can start a forest fire, foul your water supply, ect...

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Goblins tend to be pretty territorial with other goblins. You probably have some idea just from where it happened. Also, different goblin tribes often dress and behave very differently and distinctly. Read some of the goblin tribe descriptions. So...no, if you're paying attention it's not super hard to tell different groups of goblins apart (even if individuals are tricky).

I DID read the tribe info AND looked at the images... I'd be hard pressed to tell them apart. Maybe the goblins are better at telling them apart than I am.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Rise of the Runelords

Maybe? I recall tribal banners, cave markings and such and NOT the goblins themselves as distinct. it's been a while though, so I could be wrong.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
By this logic they have no idea if random humans are the same people as the masked bandits who attacked them earlier either and should thus just kill all humans they see.

Humans aren't KNOWN as all bandits though. THAT'S the difference. Goblins are almost universally reviled. For the average person, the exact tribe attacking you is meaningless: that's what goblins do. Much like bandits. Not humans though.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Having some tribes of goblins be friendly and make sure to dress distinctly from the unfriendly ones is pretty easy. Some Evil goblins may dress the same and try a false flag operation, but most goblins aren't inclined to that kind of subtlety, and there are ways to counter that (wearing writing leaps to mind for a tribe that's embraced literacy), as well as precautions to be taken (not allowing more than a few goblins into town at once even from friendly groups).

Doable if you overcome the initial mistrust and there's the rub/catch 22. You have to know they are friendly first:

Secondly, with goblins being the 'easy' target for other races to control then, it doesn't seem unlikely to find 'bad' goblins with 'good' goblin dress and even writing prepared by their 'masters'. As to small groups... How many goblins does it take to set the town on fire, especially if you send in sorcerer's...

Deadmanwalking wrote:

And once again we hit our core disagreement:

You think people feel threatened enough by goblins they wouldn't be willing to take this sort of risk. I don't think people generally feel threatened enough by individual goblins that they won't give them a chance. There's gonna be a very real 'what's the worst that could happen?' feeling in regards to single goblins or small numbers of them, which makes any decent odds of them being friendly a gamble most people will be fine taking.

Slightly off. I feel that there is NO upside to people would "be willing to take this sort of risk". A goblin left alone today is thousands in a few years. As to "what's the worst that could happen?", a single goblin can spread disease, set the town/field on fire, run off with an animal/child.

My question is "what's the best that happens?". I don't see "any decent odds" of a beneficial result. How high do those 'odds' have to make it to make it worth the risk?

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Now, as noted above, I'd expect most towns not to allow any large groups of goblins into their town, even from supposedly 'friendly' groups simply because they might not be firendly. But one or two goblins, from a group that's supposedly friendly? Sure. People just aren't worried enough by a single goblin (or even two or three) that they'd feel a need to perform a 'better safe than sorry' murder/banishment.

I JUST can't see this. Even if we assume they are 'friendly', they are known to spread disease... And are obsessed with starting fires... And hate dogs/horses... And what again, to they have to make all that worthwhile? What benefit does letting the goblins into town have?

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Now, if the whole PC group are goblins, that'd definitely be pushing it, and I'd expect most towns to require no more than a couple of them to come inside the town, but cities are probably more cosmopolitan and might be fine with four or five. A whole tribe is probably not gonna get in anywhere, but that's hardly an issue with them being PCs.

If goblins have 'minders' that can vouch for lack of disease and are tamed and house trained, sure.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
citricking wrote:
I'd like for most character concepts to work in a sense at level 1.

This. You'd NEED high level play to work if it takes 5-6 levels to 'get to the starting point', meaning you'll only get 14-15 levels in your actual concept... This is especially troublesome if you could make that concept at 1st in pathfinder classic but 5th in new pathfinder: that's a LOT of time/levels NOT playing your concept.


Malachandra wrote:
Goblins and humans cannot both be original to an area. Setting information is consistent with the idea that goblins lived in central Avistan first and that humans colonized later. Since then, goblins have been pushed into an increasingly small territory. So it makes sense they'd push back. And really, they have that right.

Not as consistent as you may think. "In the intervening millennia, the form and spirit of goblins have remained largely unchanged. They follow the migrations of humans and other peoples, and have spread out to colonize nearly all of Golarion. They stalk caravans, hide in the holds of ships, and ride a league behind other travelers, spreading like rats and living off the refuse of more industrious peoples. No newly discovered corner of the world remains goblin-free for long. Where humans tread, goblins scamper behind."

The above quote from inner seas races paints a picture of GOBLINS following after humans, not humans coming to where goblins are. As 'parasites', they need other civilized races for food, equipment and entertainment. A goblin tribe near no one would need to feed themselves, and that's something they are too lazy to do: hence, needing someone to steal from.


avr wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
1 in 8000 seems pretty unlikely to me.

Physical dice are slightly more likely to produce the same result on a reroll than a different roll, unless you get fancy. It's still pretty unlikely to roll 3 1s in a row but more than 1/8000.

Computerised dice rollers may have hidden biases and those are hard to check.

I know some online dice rollers that seems to get 'stuck in a rut' sometimes: times when it tends to skew high or low. There are times I wait to roll/post in a game if the trend has been bad.

Physical dice: I know I have a set of dice that always seems to roll better than average. A combo of minor imperfections in the die and your personal throwing method can easily shift the odds in your favor.


Unicore wrote:
If you knew that a 3rd or 4th level PF2 character was designed to be the equivalent of a PF1 character, would it feel as much like "losing?"

Yes. A LOT.

Unicore wrote:
For me, levels 15+ in PF1 look cool, but have proven to be all but unplayable when put in to practice. I'd rather get those levels back at the cost of some upfront.

For me, I KNOW it's unlikely I'll EVER see those levels. Not because it's 'unplayable' but online gaming groups tend to end before then as real life inevitably intrudes. So slowing down the starting levels that's I'll actually see in play to expect the play into level I most likely am not going to see is a net loss for me. From my experience, games break down around 8-12 at best: this means I'm going to spend 2-3 of my playable levels as an 'apprentice' while never seeing the 'benefits' of starting 'less front loaded'.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Orville Redenbacher wrote:
All negative and positive comments should be removed. Lets keep it neutral around here.

Futurama says it best:

Neutral President: I have no strong feelings one way or the other.

Neutral President: All I know is my gut says maybe.

Neutral President: If I don't survive, tell my wife, "Hello."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
This assumes that people (particularly PCs) can't distinguish between goblins who attack people and those who don't even though they can distinguish between humans who attack people (ie: bandits) and those who don't. That's a super weird assumption to make.

I honestly can't imagine most people would be able to tell various goblins apart: I'm sure they could pick one out they interacted with significantly, but tell one group/tribe apart? Not unless they have a significant marker. See goblins are ID'd as goblins first. Like my set up you were sent to kill GOBLINS not bandits/raiders that happened to be goblins: When you're sent out to kill bandit, you're there to kill bandits that happen to be humans, elves, ect.

Add to that that they "dress in rags and scraps" ", "bear coarsely cobbled-together equipment" and "Many humans and similar races find it hard to distinguish goblin genders": there is literally nothing distinguishing from one goblin group/tribe to the next. The most common trait among goblins is that they vary so much from each other.

Lastly, they generally attack when adventitious so at night or are attacked in someplace dark. This further muddies the water as far as IDing them. A goblin in the dark waving around a torch makes it pretty tough to memorize.

So, I going to stick with the idea that they'd have NO idea if some random goblins of one of the ones that attacked them earlier.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Now, absent a setting change, that's a perfectly reasonable attitude for most people to take in-universe but acting like it will cause your players to have sudden ethical debates about every Evil goblin they need to fight is absurd.

I'd agree if it wasn't for the goblin thread and all the people that think ALL goblins should get the benefit of the doubt absent proof. Secondly, if they are the villains one time and the helpful allies next, it's honestly going to be confusing. it's nice to have some monsters that are always the villains and you don't have to worry about killing. It's a LOT simpler when the only reason they are there i as a sword target and I'd expect the 'goblin bady' debate to extend now to 'all goblins'.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Unless something happens to convince most people that not all goblins are the equivalent of bandits.

Well we've been over this one: I think it's a nigh impossible task to take them from where they are thought of NOW and elevate their rep to 'likely enough to be not-evil/psycho that it's worth the chance to see if they are'.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
I miss red cream soda. Its not available locally... hmm I should just order some from the interwebs.

Barq's Red Creme Soda or Big Red [originally Sun Tang Red Cream Soda]? Barq's is rarer and costs about x2 the price. It MIGHT be possible to buy it online and pick it up locally to avoid shipping costs depending on your store options.


Doktor Weasel wrote:
Tallow wrote:

I wasn't vocal about it, but I hated new Coke. For the record, the current Coke isn't the same as the old Coke, as they modified the recipe for high fructose corn syrup over pure cane sugar. New Coke lasted less than 3 months in the spring to summer of 1985. At least current Coke tastes enough like old Coke, that I can drink it still.

The sugar change is why there are Coke enthusiasts that go out of their way get imported Mexican Coke because some bottlers in Mexico still make it with cane sugar. And there is a seasonal Passover Coke made with cane sugar (it has a yellow cap) because the corn syrup doesn't meet the more stringent Passover Kosher standards. I think it's mostly sold in areas with lot of orthodox Jews like New York City, Chicago and Israel. Of course there is some dispute as to how significant the difference is and some Mexican bottlers do use corn syrup. So mileage may vary.

[/tangent]

yep, HATED the new coke with a passion! As to kosher Coke, you can place orders at distributors if you aren't in an urban area. Also, canadian coke also uses cane sugar. Lastly, as a fun fact, some supermarkets sell the mexican coke by importing it in. Mine has it on the shelf next to the other options.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
I've seen 1st level adventures where the PCs went after bandits, and those caused no ethical issues. Why would going after Evil goblins be any different?

Going after them? No issue. It's what comes after: you've conditioned and reinforced that bandit/goblins are bad. The issue comes when a known bandit/goblin comes to town. Last week you went to wipe them off the face of the earth but you don't see many people going 'wait, that might be a nice bandit! don't kill it... We should see it it does anything funny first before we do anything...'. But going by the goblin threads, several people think goblins should get different treatment than that known bandit.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
I keep asking that question and have yet to have anyone actually answer it.

Well I did: I don't recall seeing it before and would have replied if I'd noticed it. Known bandits are something that 'normal good folk' kill/drive off/don't allow in town. Having goblins in the same light SHOULD see them treated the same.

1 to 50 of 7,811 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>