So once again Paizo has not only reprinted a plethora of old material (for the third time in some cases), but have also continued to alter the game's rules so that such options are invariably weaker/less fun/more restrictive than before.
One of these changes was to remove the plant immunities from all plant-type PCs in their new book, Ultimate Wilderness.
Do you feel this was a necessary adjustment to the game? Why or why not? Will you be enforcing this upon your players's Plant characters, or allowing them to keep their immunities? Discuss.
For me, this has all the bad tastes of a GM making an impromptu house ruling in the middle of a game, which can be quite jarring to the group due to the previously defined expectations of the players.
I didn't know there were plant-type PCs in Pathfinder...
If Paizo didn't remove the immunities than the plant races couldn't be Shifters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't know there were plant-type PCs in Pathfinder...
The Ghorum from the Inner Sea Beastiary and the Bestiary V and the Gathlains from the Advanced Race Guide are reprinted races with the Plant type that have been cut down.
There are also two new races in the book, at least one of which also has this weaker Plant type.
If the designers didn't want you to have the plant type, they shouldn't have given it out in the first place, rather than saying "here you go" and "oh wait, no, you can't have that" years later. If for no other reason than proper etiquette.
If Paizo didn't remove the immunities than the plant races couldn't be Shifters.
A simple blurb of exclusionary text under the shifter class could have solved that problem without having to bring down all the non-shifters of the world.
Actively lowering the quality of previous game products in order to prop up newly released game products is not only bad game design, but it is arguably unethical as well. It has long been a disturbing trend with Paizo these last few years--ever since Sean K. Reynolds left, if I'm not mistaken.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some of the plant immunities only made sense when all plant enemies were expected to be mindless, at least in my opinion.
Some of the plant immunities only made sense when all plant enemies were expected to be mindless, at least in my opinion.
Well, that I can agree with.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have never been a fan of total immunities, as they lock out certain builds and / or trivialize certain content.
And then there's the fact that some of the immunities make zero sense, and only seem to exist because of backwards compatibility with 3rd edition. Immune to polymorph? Why? Immune to poison? Did no one on the 3rd edition design team know anything about gardening or farming or just basic botany? Did nobody know that trees hibernate during the winter and can indeed 'sleep?' Immune to mind-affecting effects only matters if the plant is mindless, which a plant PC wouldn't be, so that's not even relevant.
That said, there's no reason why plant races can't have saving throw bonuses dwarven bonuses vs. poison, spells and spell-like abilities.
Giving plant races a +2 to saves vs. effects that plant monsters (paralysis, poison, polymorph, sleep and stunning effects) would normally be immune to seems like a decent compromise, rather than just nothing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Immune to mind-affecting effects only matters if the plant is mindless, which a plant PC wouldn't be, so that's not even relevant.
People say this a lot, but it's not even close to true. There are plenty of things that are immune to mind-affecting but have minds. In addition to all plants, and all undead, you have many aberrations and a fair number of specific creatures that do indeed have minds. The common thread is that these are weird/nonstandard consciousnesses that aren't in synch with techniques of mental manipulation unless you bring in some metamagics to translate.
The weird outlier is that oozes have the mindless trait that goes away if they have appropriate mental traits, rather than a flat immunity to mind-affecting like plants and undead. Giving all aberrations immunity wouldn't have been that weird, either.
Poison and polymorph are strange plant immunities, but not mind-affecting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Removing plant race immunities is useful if you are playing with a GM who thinks that the previous version of the Ghoran race is overpowered and thus does not allow that race. If you really want to play that race, you can offer up the new weaker version that he might accept.
Removing plant race immunities is useful if you are playing with a GM who thinks that the previous version of the Ghoran race is overpowered and thus does not allow that race. If you really want to play that race, you can offer up the new weaker version that he might accept.
This is a good point.
Definitely necessary. Ghorans are still really good- they get +2 AC, which is more than any other PC race gets without a feat, grab all knowledges as class skills, and can use downtime to reassign their skill ranks (or combat feats instead). The drawbacks are easily/necessarily mitigated ones. Leshies are more balanced with other races, getting some skill bonuses, good vision, a strong magical disguise, and a circumstantial SLA.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think so. I haven't allowed plant characters in my games particularly because I thought those immunities (particularly the mind-affecting one, which is like an entire school of magic) were unreasonable. Plus, I mean, Plants being immune to poison doesn't make any sense, since herbicide exists.
I'll probably start allowing them now.
In a word: Yes.
For the reassignment of skill ranks -- has anyone worked out the break-even points between using the Seed ability (which has fixed costs that should be considered to include a Restoration spell) and simply retraining skill ranks directly (for which the time/money costs vary with your level and intelligence)?
So it seems this change might actually increase options for many tables, and other tables dissatisfied with the change will likely continue to keep the immunities if they wish.
Seems like it will only be a problem if the GMs and their players happen to disagree on the matter.
Definitely necessary. Ghorans are still really good- they get +2 AC, which is more than any other PC race gets without a feat, grab all knowledges as class skills, and can use downtime to reassign their skill ranks (or combat feats instead). The drawbacks are easily/necessarily mitigated ones. Leshies are more balanced with other races, getting some skill bonuses, good vision, a strong magical disguise, and a circumstantial SLA.
How much do you like the ocean?
Natural Armor: Adaros have a +2 natural armor bonus.
Natural Armor: Cecaelias have a +2 natural armor bonus.
Natural Armor: Grindylows have tough, rubbery skin that grants a +2 natural armor bonus.
Natural Armor: Locathahs have thick scales that provide a +2 natural armor bonus.
Armor: Merfolk have a +2 natural armor bonus.
Natural Armor: Sahuagin have a +3 natural armor bonus
Natural Armor: Tritons have a +2 natural armor bonus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So it seems this change might actually increase options for many tables, and other tables dissatisfied with the change will likely continue to keep the immunities if they wish.
Seems like it will only be a problem if the GMs and their players happen to disagree on the matter.
I disagree with that.
I disagree with that.So it seems this change might actually increase options for many tables, and other tables dissatisfied with the change will likely continue to keep the immunities if they wish.
Seems like it will only be a problem if the GMs and their players happen to disagree on the matter.
Was that a joke? If not, would you care to elaborate?
|
Definitely necessary. Ghorans are still really good- they get +2 AC, which is more than any other PC race gets without a feat, grab all knowledges as class skills, and can use downtime to reassign their skill ranks (or combat feats instead). The drawbacks are easily/necessarily mitigated ones. Leshies are more balanced with other races, getting some skill bonuses, good vision, a strong magical disguise, and a circumstantial SLA.How much do you like the ocean?
Natural Armor: Adaros have a +2 natural armor bonus.Natural Armor: Cecaelias have a +2 natural armor bonus.Natural Armor: Grindylows have tough, rubbery skin that grants a +2 natural armor bonus.Natural Armor: Locathahs have thick scales that provide a +2 natural armor bonus.Armor: Merfolk have a +2 natural armor bonus.Natural Armor: Sahuagin have a +3 natural armor bonusNatural Armor: Tritons have a +2 natural armor bonus.
Uhhh, did you look at the races you quoted? Those are all super strong and the book even calls out getting GM permission before playing one since they’re only slightly tweaked from their Bestiary entry.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't even need to look beyond the Core Rulebook or Bestiary. A halfling with it's small size bonus and +2 dexterity bonus matches the AC of a ghoran (and is probably better since it applies against touch attacks as well). A goblin actually exceeds the ghoran with a +4 bonus to dexterity alongside its size bonus.
Getting a +2 AC from race is hardly special or unique.
It's also somewhat off-topic.
Forgot about merfolk, but they’re one I’ve seen consistently banned. Small size is at the direct expense of weapon damage, and a Dex bonus is just accounting in point buy. Moving the goalposts some, I admit- my point is more that +2 natural armor is a very strong feature. I’d consider it better than a bonus feat, in that if there were a feat that gave +2 natural armor, I’d almost always be grabbing that.
Was that a joke? If not, would you care to elaborate?I disagree with that.So it seems this change might actually increase options for many tables, and other tables dissatisfied with the change will likely continue to keep the immunities if they wish.
Seems like it will only be a problem if the GMs and their players happen to disagree on the matter.
I thought the use of an alias made it fairly obvious.
Yes, it's a joke. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uhhh, did you look at the races you quoted? Those are all super strong and the book even calls out getting GM permission before playing one since they’re only slightly tweaked from their Bestiary entry.
I mean, Cecaelias are called out as especially powerful and only with GM permission, and are estimated to be 23 RPs 4 more than the Ghoran initial entry, but the big stuff that Cecaelias get (immunity to tripping, 2 natural attacks with reach, and good underwater) is less of a hassle for the GM to work around than "Immune to mind-affecting, paralysis, poison, stunning, and doesn't need to sleep."
The reason I've always been skeptical of plant races to begin with is the same reason I'm skeptical of people who want to play undead characters (who think the dhampir isn't good enough)- I suspect they're just fishing for a pile of immunities and other mechanical advantages.
I think you can blame comic books (poison Ivy), and movies (interview with a vampire) more for that then a bunch of statistical bonuses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My group didn't like it. I think some modifications could have helped, but some of the immunities posed no problem to play any class, and some really made sense (why should a human poison work on a plant?).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, I worked hard on my stats for the first +2 NA race I played! Had to do a truly bizarre dip.
Outracing the dwarf without legs was funny, okay?
I mean, when I made a plant race, one of the first things I did was strip out the immunities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, a thought just occurred: the "immune to mind-affecting" (which included being immune to intimidation) would have made the plant races every optimizer's first choice for psychic casters. No emotion = you never have to worry about losing your powers, and you get all the benefits of psychic casting (no verbal or somatic components! no cheap material components!) with no drawback except the modest one about concentration.
That's a very OP synergy. The options then become, either say plant races can't be psychic casters, or remove the immunity. Paizo has always been allergic to 1e style "dwarves can't be wizards" racial limitations, so.
Doug M.
We still have androids, who retain their immunity (and probably will if they wish to keep parity with Starfinder), and get a +2 to Intelligence to boot, allowing them to be very powerful Psychics.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was under the impression that Androids couldn't be psychics without that one alternate racial trait, because they can't supply emotion components.
I was under the impression that Androids couldn't be psychics without that one alternate racial trait, because they can't supply emotion components.
That trait is third-party, and there is, as of the moment, no strict rule restriction preventing androids from being psychic spellcasters. I mean, a GM wouldn't be in the wrong to prevent an android from being one, but there are no rules preventing it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mark Seifter appears to be under the impression that Androids can't supply emotion components, for what it's worth.
|
|
I don't think it was "necessary" per say, but it was a good "ease of play" change.
There are a lot of class features that plant races straight up couldn't use because of the immunities. A non-exhaustive list of classes with features that plants can't jive with: Druid, Bard, Barbarian, Bloodrager, Cavaliers, and Skald.
Sure, in most cases there is an archetype to let you trade away those class features, but not in all cases.
Plus, there are a ton of spells that give morale bonuses.
Now, it's about as limiting as being a native outsider. Except outsiders get darkvision instead of low light.
I was under the impression that Androids couldn't be psychics without that one alternate racial trait, because they can't supply emotion components.That trait is third-party, and there is, as of the moment, no strict rule restriction preventing androids from being psychic spellcasters. I mean, a GM wouldn't be in the wrong to prevent an android from being one, but there are no rules preventing it.
Nothing prevents them from being psychic spellcasters, but they are prevented from contributing Emotion Components. So they will have a fairly limited selection of spells unless they pick up Logical Spell.
I just had a player completely annihilate my campaign with his delicious immunities.
It also doesn't make sense for a plant based race to have a mind and not have anything interact with it.
I like the streamlined changes.
I also like the reprints, since my group exclusively uses hardcovers at the table and having them compiled is nice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just had a player completely annihilate my campaign with his delicious immunities.
It also doesn't make sense for a plant based race to have a mind and not have anything interact with it.
Does it make sense for an undead with a mind not to have anything interact with it? A serpentfolk? Intellect devourers?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am fine with loosing immunity to mind-affecting effects and polymorph. But the loss of immunity to sleep, paralysis, and stunning is another story. I also like the immunity to poison but I can understand that one being taken away though a +2 to +4 save bonuses would have made sense as well.