|
The "field" we're talking about is the "field of Pathfinder," the universally binding rules of the game. If the universal monster rules are binding rules of how the game of Pathfinder is played, then they are absolutely part of the canon. In which case, not resources, ergo no beholders.
There is the flaw in your argument. They are not 'binding rules'.
Attractiveness is a very subjective thing, dependent on such trivial thiings as the taste of the viewer and what hair color I happen to assign to a given NPC (I once had a player reverse his opinion of whether his PC considered a certain NPC attractive on this basis).
Player characters are generally healthy and confident, which means that most of them should look reasonably attractive to members of their own race and sufficiently similar races unless they speficially describe themselves otherwise.
The "field" we're talking about is the "field of Pathfinder," the universally binding rules of the game. If the universal monster rules are binding rules of how the game of Pathfinder is played, then they are absolutely part of the canon. In which case, not resources, ergo no beholders.There is the flaw in your argument. They are not 'binding rules'.
They're just as binding as those in the Core Rulebook. If your suggestion is that the rules aren't binding because every table decides how they are going to use them, then nothing in any part of Pathfinder is really "binding." They are, though, the universally accepted rules by which the game is played. They don't have beholders. Beholders may be put into a game of Pathfinder, but no official Paizo published Pathfinder rulebook, or resource for that matter, has beholders in it. So Pathfinder doesn't have beholders. The game you play might have a monster called a beholder in it, converted to fit into your Pathfinder game, but that isn't part of the official set of Pathfinder rules. If you can find me a printed book or PDF that is published by Paizo, that has the Pathfinder RPG logo on it, and the OGL on it, that has a beholder in it, I'll apologize and say I'm wrong.
|
|
They're just as binding as those in the Core Rulebook.The "field" we're talking about is the "field of Pathfinder," the universally binding rules of the game. If the universal monster rules are binding rules of how the game of Pathfinder is played, then they are absolutely part of the canon. In which case, not resources, ergo no beholders.There is the flaw in your argument. They are not 'binding rules'.
Exactly, i.e. not at all.
I think attractiveness would need to be measured on a scale within each race/species. Yeah a hag could have a 20 Cha in its bestiary statblock, but since those are all assuming a "stat roll" of 10s and 11s, that hag is still average for a hag.
Let's take humans as our example. Stat range 3-18 with 1/6 having a +2 to any given stat. 10 or 11 average, 8-13 most common (npc array). So a given human with say a 15 in the appropriate stat (13 'rolled' and +2 racial), would be a very attractive person by comparison to other humans. The problem comes down to personal taste, though an argument can be made for a societal 'general consensus'. Each stat has potentially something to add to a character's overall appearance.
All of the following are my opinion
Str has a fairly low effect on your physical appearance. Someone could easily be very strong and still be carrying plenty of body fat. Although obviously you're not going to be the next Charles Atlas with a Str 8.
Dex would be things like grace and posture.
Con I would equate to overall physical fitness and the amount of extra body fat you're sporting. Like another post suggested, it could also be a good indicator of genetic things like feature symmetry and expression of sexual characteristics.
Int = what you know and how well you learn.
Wis = how well you make decisions
Cha = social abilities, even as simple as being polite and courteous.
Character Level/Wealth. Let's face it, rich and/or famous people are often considered desirable. These are both a pretty good measure of that.
tldr: attractiveness based on stats should be based on the stat roll, not the final number. Each rolled stat has different effects on appearance and opinions will vary on what's most important.
Exactly, i.e. not at all.They're just as binding as those in the Core Rulebook.The "field" we're talking about is the "field of Pathfinder," the universally binding rules of the game. If the universal monster rules are binding rules of how the game of Pathfinder is played, then they are absolutely part of the canon. In which case, not resources, ergo no beholders.There is the flaw in your argument. They are not 'binding rules'.
Okay, next time you play tell your GM you want your character to move three times their movement speed and then make a full-attack. When he/she says you can't do that, just say, "sure I can, none of these rules are binding."
|
Okay, next time you play tell your GM you want your character to move three times their movement speed and then make a full-attack. When he/she says you can't do that, just say, "sure I can, none of these rules are binding."
Well in that example, what if the GM says "Sure thing, everyone can now move at 3 times the speed listed on their sheets and make a full attack action in the same round".
I have to side with TriOmega here
This is the point in the thread where I start to feel relieved that got past caring about hot my character is. It's just not accounted for the character stats.
If you want to play a character with a Charisma bonus as physically attractive, you can; If you want to play a character with the exact same bonus as omigod-I-just-can't-look-away-car-crash-style-gross-but-enticing, that's cool too.
Cary Grant and Jack Black are both movie stars.
Okay, next time you play tell your GM you want your character to move three times their movement speed and then make a full-attack. When he/she says you can't do that, just say, "sure I can, none of these rules are binding."Well in that example, what if the GM says "Sure thing, everyone can now move at 3 times the speed listed on their sheets and make a full attack action in the same round".
I have to side with TriOmega here
If your GM says that they've houseruled it. I get that what's happening is a semantic argument. Pathfinder is the game and whatever you do with the game is still Pathfinder. There's a difference though (at least in my head--which, notably, could be wired differently from everyone else's) between official Pathfinder, and homebrewed Pathfinder games. Everyone can do whatever they like at their table, but your Pathfinder game, isn't the universally understood Pathfinder.
This has nothing to do with whether my Pathfinder has beholders or not.
Again, I get it, semantic argument, Forest Gump would say Pathfinder is as Pathfinder does. However, if you were going to talk to the messageboard community about beholders, you'd have to put it into the "Conversions" heading, because "official" (I guess that's one of the semantics) Pathfinder doesn't have beholders. Or if you didn't, I'm guessing the mods would move it there shortly. (Maybe that's a good experiment to try.)
Your game might have giant planet-eating supervillains named Galactus too, but that's not part of anything printed for Pathfinder. It's something you added to your game because you like it.
Long story short, do I agree that you are playing an RPG named Pathfinder, and you've converted beholders to play in that game? Sure, but that's a homebrewed version of the game, not RAW.
What does RAW have to do with my Pathfinder?
You're treating it similar to a sport, where the rules are hard. I'm treating it like a genre, where the conventions are guidelines.
You are correct sir.
And we're both right! Yay! :D
Correct again. :)
My personal favorite way of doing attractiveness is by the sum of three abilities modifiers
for males muscles so
Str+Con+Cha= your level of atractiveness
for females grace so
Dex+Con+Cha= your level of attractiveness