| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That needs to be communicated to management then. They're the ones that set the release schedule.Arguably though this is one of the biggest things i hear people complain about , is your release speed. That your releasing too fast and loose.
My last PFS someone said EXACTLY that to me.
I've seen that written a few times on the boards, mostly by the number cruching sect who note where certain rules, feats, spells etc are potentially game breaking.
On the other hand, I have been buying role playing products for over 30 years and I think Paizo on the whole does very well in quality control, compared to the crap TSR was throwing out in the late 80's.
Ask any long time Greyhawk fan about Puppets or childs play, never mind the joke Castle Greyhawk, and watch the steam come out.
| 21 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think I've ever seen such a shining example of player entitlement before: hating Paizo because one very specific class option doesn't meet your expectations? You do realize this is a game right? Make a house rule and move on (or find another game, seriously).
You (Paizo) have ever considered developing some kind of rule to treat a large group of enemies as some kind of "mook army" entity?
In some form swarms cover that niche, but only for fine or smaller creatures.
I am speaking of something like a army unit of 30 kobolds, 1 level warriors and so on, with rules to adjudicate group movement, single cumulative attack, and so on, so that what visually is an army of enemies is managed as a single entity by the GM.
I frequently use the troop rules in the Adventure Module Rasputin Must Die! for situations like these. Or "minion" type creatures that have only 10 or so hit points so they'll go down in one hit but not to stone call or individual magic missiles.
Creative Director
|
Mr. Jacobs, if I might follow up on the underpowered fix you posited, just who is in charge of errata at Paizo? There are some things wherein many people on these boards think something is over- or underpowered and I'm curious to know where to ask about considerations for future printings.
There's not one person in charge of errata. It's something that different folks handle for different product lines. For the rulebooks, it's mostly a combination of Jason, Sean, and Stephen. For everything else, it's pretty much catch as catch can—especially since we rarely if ever actually issue errata for the non rulebook products, since we don't usually reprint the softcover books.
For PFS issues, it's Mike Brock who issues the rulings—these aren't errata as much as they are clarifications specifically for organized play.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
In Paizo's defense, I would like to say though that the barbarian archetype for Goblins though is endlessly Priceless, funny, and is actually fairly good mechanically. There is nothing like picturing this small goblin charging up to this Frost Giant, biting his knee cap, and GRAPPLING him... somehow... Its like a Chihuahua...
One of the big advantages of inflammatory posts is that they draw peoples' attention. I've not seen a post in a long time that has been given as much personal attention by Mr. Jacobs as this one (but I could be wrong).
I personally don't ascribe to this methodology, but it is true nonetheless... the squeaky wheel gets the oil.
Mr. Jacobs, if I might follow up on the underpowered fix you posited, just who is in charge of errata at Paizo? There are some things wherein many people on these boards think something is over- or underpowered and I'm curious to know where to ask about considerations for future printings.There's not one person in charge of errata. It's something that different folks handle for different product lines. For the rulebooks, it's mostly a combination of Jason, Sean, and Stephen. For everything else, it's pretty much catch as catch can—especially since we rarely if ever actually issue errata for the non rulebook products, since we don't usually reprint the softcover books.
For PFS issues, it's Mike Brock who issues the rulings—these aren't errata as much as they are clarifications specifically for organized play.
Just curious. Sticking around the board for long enough and you hear people complain about everything. I thought there was someone that might've double checked or retested products that seemed particularly problematic. Though I guess that would take a significantly large staff to pull off what with "problems" coming as loud and often as they do on these boards.
Ace- there's a difference. This was very very specific: Goblin alchemist rocket bomb. if you ask about such a specific thing you often get a response. Most of the other complaining is the usual crowd of "I think the rouge is teh suxxor as sean hatse the class and has hurted it badly."
These will go on for dozens of pages, but just because a few posters state something over and over- very loudly- doesn't make it true. Especially when as many posters disagree.
So, even tho our OP here was quite rude, he was right in limiting his complaint to a very specific thing.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think James hit it pretty well here but here are my thoughts:
Designing rules under a deadline and with a fixed word count is not easy, and there is no way you are going to hit everything equally well. You don't have time to play test every detail, and even with play tests you are not going to please everyone (see gunslinger.) things that don't work are going to slip past you, and what looks good on paper doesn't always work in practice.
Pathfinder has some things that just do not work. Like at all. The harpoon, for example, has no chance of being used on a whale in the way harpoons are supposed to be used. I am not saying it isn't possible to grapple something with a harpoon, but you would have to be very, very lucky to grapple a whale with one. The whaling industry must suck in Golarian. Another example is the feat Siege Gunner, which makes itself obsolete with its own prerequisites.
Keep in mind that humans write these rules. Ever seen anything perfect come from a human? We come close, but mostly with simple things. Huge complex rules systems? Not at all.
But, these things that don't work are par for the course. The more complex the game, the more errors you will find. The faster the company does releases, the worse things get. Look at 3.5 for an example and the sheer broken nature of what you do when all of its books are available. 3.5 saw monthly hardcover releases, which increased the chance for errors on both complexity and frequency.
Right now, Paizo seems to have found a good balance of complexity and frequency. Their hardcover releases don't flood us with options and further complexity, and much of it is clearly optional. Their other lines come in frequently enough with small amounts of info to keep us happy until the big books hit.
But let's get back to these things that just don't work. Honestly, your issue with fire bomber isn't that bad in comparison, but let's consider it as one of those things. How do those get fixed? Your first option is to go to your GM and talk to them. A great GM is one who can look at the issue as a whole and find a compromise both of you can live with. You want it officially fixed? Post politely, keep the discussion alive with civil discussion, and encourage people to click the FAQ button on the original post. Ask for solutions, house rules, and fixes from forum goers, and rope as many people into it as you can. The more attention, the more likely you are to see official posts from devs.
Sometimes a problem is too small to do this. The harpoon will continue to be my example here. Why change an exotic weapon that is a niche weapon for aquatic environments? There is a long list of things the team needs to do before they address this, and the player base for this item is really small so you can't really get a discussion running on it. What then? Talk to your GM. Make their life easier by looking for alternatives. Maybe gut the net and tack those rules onto the harpoon.
Your problem is just with flavor? Your GM is your only real hope here.
But onto your real concerns. The rocket bomb ability not to your liking but the GM won't fix it for you? Sorry, can't help there. If he is willing though, try offering him some suggestions that will let you play now, and then civilly create support on the forums so the better option is available later.
I understand anger at the rules. But I also have one final way to fix my issues. I pitch ideas to 3PP and write my own stuff. Not because I think I can do better, but because I want another option.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, and to give an actual suggestion on how to change the fire bomber rocket:
My suggestion is to remove the reflex save for half. They are already taking minimum damage, so I think this balances out pretty well.
I understand the reason for those discoveries not working with it, but try suggesting that they should to your GM. Maybe they have different philosophies than I do when it comes to game design.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Quick reference for this post in defense of the GM. He has multiple times told Reika that he has no problem home ruling it, and she won't hear any of it. He then asks for what she WANTS to play, and all she does is state how it doesn't matter, it's not the GMs job to go and basically make a new class ( instead of just simply answering " I want to play...." )
My point is why use paizo material for our games if im having to have my gm rewrite it from the ground up anyway just to make sense.
But this has been answered sort of. Its npc intended and wasnt quality controlled to the extent of core PF.
...but they also have a bad tendency to release stuff without checking if it makes sense...
That statement doesn't stand in the face of the reality that with just about every release we the community are invited to playtest and give feedback. That is the tip of Paizo's "checking to see if a rule makes sense," which no doubt also includes a lot of in-house playtesting.
As has been mentioned, creating game rules is more complicated than you might think. A lot of careful thought must go into it. Remember the game has to do two things at one time:
1. It must simulate (not exactly replicate) combat in a reasonable manner.
2. It must balance all the variables and various types of combat so that none of them completely overwhelms any others of the same level.
Yes, sometimes that means something is not as realistic as we like, or that we cannot start out right away with exactly whatever titanic power we want. We might have to work for it, or tweak something, or look around for a way we haven't yet thought-of, to get to where we want to be.
Making wild statements like the one above just seems childish.
|
|
Firstly, I think it is insanely awesome that Mr. Jacobs took the time to come here personally and give some answers. Find me another company as big as Paizo where someone of his caliber would step up and do so. You just don't find that kind of personalized care and attention everywhere.
Now that I'm done being my own sort of weird 40yo fat guy fan-girl, let me add this, and I don't do it to be overly antagonistic or mean spirited: Rule One.
I can't begin to explain how many times I, or one of my players, or one of my GMs has found something we found to be....less than appealing.
So, we house rule it and fix it and move on.
I haven't gathered if you are a player or a GM in this scenario with your goblin rocketeer, but obviously you are severely underwhelmed by this ability. Fix it.
Come up with an alternate. Unless your GM is positively draconian (although to be sure, someone allowing an unusual race and an unusual class seems pretty lenient to me) I can't imagine he/she will turn down some tweaks made to what I have to agree seems pretty lackluster.
I can get annoyed at Pathfinder rules. I have GM'd quite a few PFS scenarios, I am running Curse of the Crimson Throne, playing in Wrath of the Righteous and Rise of the Runelords and Carrion Crown. I play a LOT...and I mean a LOT of Paizo material. And just like every company, they have their mindblowing experiences and then they have their "someone farted in the elevator" experiences.
When confronted with the latter, just like the elevator in question the easiest way to get rid of the stink is to open the door to a new vista and move on.
Fan-girl moment #2: Thank you again Mr. Jacobs for stopping by and giving your personal attention to the boards. Thank your entire staff whom I have seen at one point or another. Thank you for caring, and thank you for not just being money hungry jerks.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Making wild statements like the one above just seems childish.
The tone of this thread is unnecessarily petulant, whiney, and childish. If someone disagrees with the game's design that they have to malign everyone involved, they really ought to find another game (or hobby).
-Skeld
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My point is why use paizo material for our games if im having to have my gm rewrite it from the ground up anyway just to make sense.
But this has been answered sort of. Its npc intended and wasnt quality controlled to the extent of core PF.
Everyone take Note, the orignal OP has (by the tone i read it in at least) Made some concessions to the point that many of us have held. No more need to state her venting tone was un-needed. Now who has some idea how to house-rule her situation to a better light? (I frankly dont, I spent to long with the Army, and more specifically the Rangers dealing with all manner of things that go boom to really want to get that involved in it. I like my RP sword and sorcery, even low technology tends to make me go meh.)
Paizo's default assumption is that goblins are an NPC race, so I would guess that this was written more for use of an enemy PC than something a player would take.Correct.
You CAN use them as a PC, but as with any rules that aren't intended to be fully for PCs, they start to get weird. Further... the more you start mixing and matching different rules in different ways, the better your chances are that you'll end up with a combination that we never anticipated... and thus the better your chances are that you'll end up with something that doesn't make sense or seems broken or doesn't work.
When that happens... we have a secret weapon that can fix ALL of your problems (in theory): Your Game Master.
The only reason a game like this works is the Game Master is there to make rulings when someone has questions. In a computer game, the computer itself is the Game Master, but it's a lot more limited in its creativity and ability to handle really strange and unusual situations. In a tabletop RPG, we have a LOT more freedom to tell all sorts of open-ended stories and present open-ended options, because the Game Master is there to adjust things as needed for his/her game.
There IS a way to minimize the type of problem the OP has encountered—limit yourself to the core rules only for player characters. The core rules have a HUGE amount of options available, and if that were the only rulebook we ever published, you could play the game for a lifetime and never play the same character twice.
It's an option if using too many books is causing too many problems.
Even your core rules are rail roaded though, thats the problem. You see archetypes as some grand change to the class when really it adds only a tad bit of flavor.
Pathfinders problem in my eyes is that everything is decided for the player. Cant trust the players to make their own character through feats and abilities they select? It feels like in pathfinder its "sure we have TONS OF...
It is what they're doing. Pathfinder/D&D has been this way from inception. I can't believe you need someone to confirm this for you.
|
My point is why use paizo material for our games if im having to have my gm rewrite it from the ground up anyway just to make sense.(...)
Well, I can't remember to EVER have had a set of rules in my 30 years+ RPG-career, which I didn't had (well, wanted) to change in some way.
That actually, for me, isn't something I shun, or which would make me not to buy a set of rules.I, personally, never had a situation, where I couldn't play what I had imagined, even if that needed some help from the GM.
Take these rules (which are hard to comply by sometimes, but awesome nonetheless) and change what you don't like to make your game FUN, or leave them be.
Paizo always stated, that the most important rule is to have fun!
And, honestly, that goblin/alchemist/bomb problem you have isn't reason enough to "rewrite the PFRPG from the ground up".
Explosive Missile.
A buddy of mine used this on his alchemist and it worked out really well for our party.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Goblins are crazy, whacky little things that will do insane things to little or no effect. When I look at features for goblins, I tend to expect that those features will do the same*.
"Dude, this ability sucks, but I'll take it anyway because I'm a mother****ing goblin, and the flavour is awesome" is a mindset I could see myself get into occasionally if I were to really play a goblin. (Sadly, I've never done so outside of We be Goblins where we just used the pregens).
On the flipside of this level of expectations for goblins, when you do find something that works (which is more often than not), it just seems all the more awesome.
*I know this is usually not the case, but it is always a possibility when we're talking about goblins.
I hope this hasnt already been mentioned, but I have class in 15 minutes and didnt have time to finish reading the last page of comments.
A 6th lvl goblin alchemist with this discovery and 16 int is still hitting everything in a 20 foot radius for 11 minimum with reflex save. Or can, easily.
Flame Heart (feat) allows you to count as 1 lvl higher for bomb for damage. Thus 6th level counts as 7th.
4d6 is bomb damage
Splash Weapon Mastery allows you to essentially add an additional square to your radius. so allows some additional precision. (Also gives you some leeway when you miss)
Class ability for goblin alchemist archtype also allows you to add 1 damage per die of fire damage.
So 7th level.
4 (from 4d6) +
4 (from 4d6) +
3 (int)
11 damage.
One last point. Richochet Splash Weapon is another thing that may be fun. If you miss with rocket bomb and the roll has it landing in another occupied square this feat appears to allow you to make an attack roll against that occupant, and if you hit you deal direct damage. Now, I understand the rocket bomb ability says you cant do direct damage, but GM call may come in here.
Just because it typically cant make a direct hit when you are trying to doesnt mean you cant get lucky when you'd otherwise miss (at least in my game id rule it). Just picture the parking cones in Halo that randomly kill you directly.
Hope this helps some. (also extra bomb....)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just a thought.
This ability is perfectly powered for Goblins, whether PC or NPC.
Why?
Because goblins are supposed to favour the showy and spectacular over the practical.
The goblins in RotRL hijack their own combat performance because... they're goblins! They blow raspberries, call insults and make fun of each other when they should be fighting.
So, a flashy but not especially effective attack is perfect for the brilliant fflavour of Pathfinder goblins.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You CAN use [goblins] as a PC, but as with any rules that aren't intended to be fully for PCs, they start to get weird.The goblin alchemist archetype in question is from the Advanced Race Guide. Here's what that book says in the introduction to the Featured Races chapter (the chapter in which goblins and that archetype appeared):
While the seven core races are the primary focus of the Pathfinder Roleplaying game, they're not the only ones suitable to be played as characters. Other, even stranger races help populate the world, and---with the GM's permission---also work well as player character races, creating fun and exciting new roleplaying opportunities.
To summarize that in ten words: "the races in this chapter are intended as PC options."
It was never our intent to "bait traps" and be "rude" to fans of goblins, frankly. I'm sorry if that's the way some folks have interpreted our design philosophies, but it's not the intent at all.
An easy way to avoid the appearance of setting traps for goblin fans is to not present goblins as a PC option but then give them underpowered abilities because they are supposed to be NPCs. There is a dissonance here.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
My point is why use paizo material for our games if im having to have my gm rewrite it from the ground up anyway just to make sense.
But this has been answered sort of. Its npc intended and wasnt quality controlled to the extent of core PF.
Lets just further answer the question then, because sort of isn't exactly.
Why use Paizo Material?
Well, if you are playing Pathfinder you have to. Even if you are just using the Core Rulebook you need use material created and printed by Paizo. Outside of the Core Rulebook, you can always use 3PP material. I personally like to poke around 3PP stuff just to see what is there, so I can tell you that there are great options available in that area.
If you are playing another game, you probably shouldn't use Paizo's material. It is not easy to mix rule systems, and I do not recommend doing it with an expectation that things will work out perfectly.
As for the quality control comment, I agree and disagree. First, I don't think the phrase, "quality control" fits here. The concept of quality is very subjective when it comes to rules in a complex game. Second, one could argue that because it came from a hardcover it is part of what is often referred to as the Core Rules (Which is the Core Rulebook, Advanced Player's Guide, Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Combat, and Advanced Races Guide.) But I think I understand what you meant. You meant it wasn't play tested like the Core Rulebook. None of the books after that one were. Nearly everything in the Core Rulebook was play tested, while only the race builder system was play tested in the ARG.
So yeah, Paizo, a company filled with human being writing complex rules, missed a few marks. I can agree with you on that. I just don't agree with you on how to handle that disappointment.
While the seven core races are the primary focus of the Pathfinder Roleplaying game, they're not the only ones suitable to be played as characters. Other, even stranger races help populate the world, and---with the GM's permission---also work well as player character races, creating fun and exciting new roleplaying opportunities.To summarize that in ten words: "the races in this chapter are intended as PC options."
You skipped one very important phrase that was intentionally made prominent in that description: with the GM's permission. So, no, they aren't intended as PC options unless the GM permits it.
Also, just because a race can be used as a PC that doesn't mean every option for that race is meant for PCs. There are plenty of feats that are probably not going to be used my PCs but are just fine for NPCs. The same goes for spells, archetypes, equipment, skills, and every other option in the game.
This particular "problem" looks like it's meant to make for some interesting goblin enemies that don't take out the party quickly. Remember that the game is designed so that the PCs win. They may have to work a bit for that win but it's not meant to be a fair fight.
There are tons of options in the CRB, the APG, the ultimate books, etc. that are not optimal for a PC but can make a flavorful choice for an NPC or a PC who isn't concerned about being optimal. The ARG is no different in this regard.
While the seven core races are the primary focus of the Pathfinder Roleplaying game, they're not the only ones suitable to be played as characters. Other, even stranger races help populate the world, and---with the GM's permission---also work well as player character races, creating fun and exciting new roleplaying opportunities.To summarize that in ten words: "the races in this chapter are intended as PC options."
You skipped one very important phrase that was intentionally made prominent in that description: with the GM's permission. So, no, they aren't intended as PC options unless the GM permits it.
Also, just because a race can be used as a PC that doesn't mean every option for that race is meant for PCs. There are plenty of feats that are probably not going to be used my PCs but are just fine for NPCs. The same goes for spells, archetypes, equipment, skills, and every other option in the game.
This particular "problem" looks like it's meant to make for some interesting goblin enemies that don't take out the party quickly. Remember that the game is designed so that the PCs win. They may have to work a bit for that win but it's not meant to be a fair fight.
Everything is with the GM's permission. This isn't a copout - what if the setting has no elves? What if dwarves are racially enslaved by a dark god who tricked his way into owning their souls? What if the DM bans Fighter, or Quicken Spell? There's no part of Pathfinder that says it can be used regardless of DM permission.
If Paizo wants to make NPC content, I'm not too worried about that. What I would like is for such content to be clearly labeled. Saying that something is 'for players' and then expecting a vague phrase like 'with GM permission' to indicate that the content is less useful, less powerful, or harder to use is...not good. Especially since most groups will see such a tag and assume that it means the content is more powerful and thus requires GM oversight to prevent abuse.
There are tons of options in the CRB, the APG, the ultimate books, etc. that are not optimal for a PC but can make a flavorful choice for an NPC or a PC who isn't concerned about being optimal. The ARG is no different in this regard.
So... yeah... goblin bombers aren't great at damage output with certain racial archetypes or feats. Neither are Halfling slingers, and that's their RACIAL WEAPON.
Wait, I should clarify... compared to other ranged weapon builds.
My point is, I've gone down this road for the halflings. I fought long and hard but even I had to acknowledge; some builds are just worse at damage output than others. However a halfling slinger, built right, will hit EVERY time, barring a nat 1.
It's all about tradeoffs. Goblin bomber hits from afar and has more bombs than an Evoker has fireballs. Great. The tradeoff is damage and utility for range and accuracy as well as AoE.
If you want great damage AND great range AND great AoE, play an Evoker. You could even make him a goblin. Then reflavor your spells (with the GM's approval) to make them LOOK LIKE bomb hurling. You get all the stuff you want, your GM doesn't have to "rewrite from scratch".
There're TONS of options in this game. Some are good, some are bad. This is by design as admitted by the honorable J-squared upthread. There's nothing nefarious or malicious in this design style, it's just how the game is built. If you want the goblin bomber to do other stuff, just ask your GM, or play a different build, or maybe a different game. If however you want a cannon re-design of the archetype, that ship may have sailed.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Paizo wants to make NPC content, I'm not too worried about that. What I would like is for such content to be clearly labeled. Saying that something is 'for players' and then expecting a vague phrase like 'with GM permission' to indicate that the content is less useful, less powerful, or harder to use is...not good. Especially since most groups will see such a tag and assume that it means the content is more powerful and thus requires GM oversight to prevent abuse.
Sounds to me like you don't want to spend time planning out a character concept and would rather Paizo go through and label everything WARNING: THIS IS A SUB-OPTIMAL CHOICE FOR PCs. Choosing this option will seriously make your game experience unfun and is only intended to be used by the GM as a gimmick.
I'm guessing that five minutes looking over the options and a bit of prep work would have been enough to get this information. But it's much easier to have someone else spoon-feed the information, reading is hard.
You skipped one very important phrase that was intentionally made prominent in that description: with the GM's permission. So, no, they aren't intended as PC options unless the GM permits it.
Also, just because a race can be used as a PC that doesn't mean every option for that race is meant for PCs. There are plenty of feats that are probably not going to be used my PCs but are just fine for NPCs. The same goes for spells, archetypes, equipment, skills, and every other option in the game.
Prince of Knives already responded nicely to this. I'll just add that indeed, nowhere in the ARG does it state that this archetype is not intended for PCs.
This particular "problem" looks like it's meant to make for some interesting goblin enemies that don't take out the party quickly. Remember that the game is designed so that the PCs win. They may have to work a bit for that win but it's not meant to be a fair fight.
This messes with the CR system. A goblin with this archetype and alchemist discovery has the same CR as a goblin who picked up an option for PCs---i.e. an option that is not horribly nerfed. If abilities for NPCs are going to be intentionally weak so that the PCs can win, the CR system should reflect this. Already, NPC classes are treated this way by the CR system. A level 4 adept has a lower CR than a level 4 cleric. The same should be applied to intentionally subpar options for NPCs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If Paizo wants to make NPC content, I'm not too worried about that. What I would like is for such content to be clearly labeled. Saying that something is 'for players' and then expecting a vague phrase like 'with GM permission' to indicate that the content is less useful, less powerful, or harder to use is...not good. Especially since most groups will see such a tag and assume that it means the content is more powerful and thus requires GM oversight to prevent abuse.Sounds to me like you don't want to spend time planning out a character concept and would rather Paizo go through and label everything WARNING: THIS IS A SUB-OPTIMAL CHOICE FOR PCs. Choosing this option will seriously make your game experience unfun and is only intended to be used by the GM as a gimmick.
I'm guessing that five minutes looking over the options and a bit of prep work would have been enough to get this information. But it's much easier to have someone else spoon-feed the information, reading is hard.
I'm not worried about labeling sub-optimal content. I want "NPC" content labeled. The difference is profound and I'll thank you to not be snide at me, please.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We've seen that the cloud options and grease bomb discoveries are very useful with this ability, why are we still arguing that it's not good? Do you just want more range? More damage? Should it have been named "Spread Bomb" instead?
Also, yes, some builds are going to be suboptimal. Many, really. That doesn't make it ineffective.
I'm not worried about labeling sub-optimal content. I want "NPC" content labeled. The difference is profound and I'll thank you to not be snide at me, please.
No, actually it's not. PC's can take almost everything designed for NPC's, and sometimes they want to. For example, my Bard deliberately took a level of Aristocrat, due to the fact she was becoming one.
The difference is not only NOT "profound" it's often more like 'trivial".
No, actually it's not. PC's can take almost everything designed for NPC's, and sometimes they want to. For example, my Bard deliberately took a level of Aristocrat, due to the fact she was becoming one.I'm not worried about labeling sub-optimal content. I want "NPC" content labeled. The difference is profound and I'll thank you to not be snide at me, please.
...Why? What is it about the Aristocrat class that you needed to fulfill that concept? Leadership skills? Bard has all the relevant socials. Knowledge of high society? It's on the class skill list (plus bardic knowledge, of course). Frankly keeping straight-classed bard woulda given more tools with which to move through high society, navigate etiquette, and handle political and social rivals than the level of Aristocrat ever could. Was it the name? Is there something in Bard's fluff that makes it mystically incapable of being ennobled?
The difference is not only NOT "profound" it's often more like 'trivial".
No, 'profound' is the right term. Playing a Stone Golem, for example, isn't really PC-appropriate - that's why they have an LA entry that indicates that you cannot. NPCs occupy a different narrative role to PCs and the idea that there are options intended for, or even exclusive to, them is not necessarily an unreasonable one. But those options should be made clear so that inexperienced GMs and/or players can be apprised of what they're getting into.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Was it the name? Is there something in Bard's fluff that makes it mystically incapable of being ennobled?
This is the biggest, IMFAO, problem of the class system ... the idea some people get in their heads that being an X (concept) requires being a X (class), when it simply isn't so.
The purpose of NPC classes is to have a simple, scaling role for GMs to apply to monsters. The heroic classes are more complicated and therefore make it more difficult to just scale up as needed. NPC classes have barely anything to them besides mechanical progression of basic abilities, and this is to facilitate GMs scaling them up and not having to learn the depths of each class for every NPC.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You CAN use [goblins] as a PC, but as with any rules that aren't intended to be fully for PCs, they start to get weird.The goblin alchemist archetype in question is from the Advanced Race Guide. Here's what that book says in the introduction to the Featured Races chapter (the chapter in which goblins and that archetype appeared):While the seven core races are the primary focus of the Pathfinder Roleplaying game, they're not the only ones suitable to be played as characters. Other, even stranger races help populate the world, and---with the GM's permission---also work well as player character races, creating fun and exciting new roleplaying opportunities.To summarize that in ten words: "the races in this chapter are intended as PC options."
It was never our intent to "bait traps" and be "rude" to fans of goblins, frankly. I'm sorry if that's the way some folks have interpreted our design philosophies, but it's not the intent at all.An easy way to avoid the appearance of setting traps for goblin fans is to not present goblins as a PC option but then give them underpowered abilities because they are supposed to be NPCs. There is a dissonance here.
That's my mistake then... I let my personal opinion and preferences for Golarion get tangled with a World-Neutral rulebook.
It does mean that there's a better chance for an errata to adjust the power of the ability... but that's out of my hands, really, and into the hands of the design team.
Anyway, this thread seems to have served its original purpose, so I'm stepping out for now.