Mikaze |
Are there suggestions on how to deal with the goblin's hatred of books and the fact that alchemists must use them?
Or are they intended to be the exceptions?
Most likely it's not going to be touched on, since the reading taboo is a Golarion-specific thing.
Then again, so's the pyromania... Still a very nice thing for goblins though!
Golden-Esque |
Cheapy wrote:It modifies the normal proficiencies in the same way that the Bonus Feats archetype ability modifies discoveries without explicitly saying so.Bonus Feats: A fire bomber can select the Burn! Burn! Burn!, Fire Tamer, or Flame Heart feat in place of a discovery.
that is a new class feature. alchemists dont have "bonus feats" as a normal class feature, and says they CAN do something inplace of a discovery
Its not difficult to understand at all. Plenty of archetypes modify or add on to something without replacing anything. Goblin alchemists gain proficiency with torches as a simple weapon (if I'm not mistaken, they're usually an improvised weapon). It doesn't replace any of the alchemist's base proficiencies because it doesn't say it does. For a similar-yet-difference example, see the Monk (sensei) archetype, which adds Diplomacy, Linguistics, and all Knowledge skills as a class skill. It doesn't replace the default Monk skill list; it adds on to it. Another example is the geisha archetype, which adds Tea Ceremony without replacing any class features.
Golden-Esque |
Cheapy wrote:Are there suggestions on how to deal with the goblin's hatred of books and the fact that alchemists must use them?
Or are they intended to be the exceptions?
Most likely it's not going to be touched on, since the reading taboo is a Golarion-specific thing.
Then again, so's the pyromania... Still a very nice thing for goblins though!
Goblins of Golarion states that Goblin Alchemists and Wizards record their spells via pictorial instructions instead of words.
However, the Goblin love of fire and hatred of horses, dogs, and books is written in Bestiary 1, so it might be OGL. Maybe. Kind of hard to tell nowadays. :-P
J-Spee Lovecraft |
Yeah sorry. I'm in a bad mood today for some reason.
A touch of Non Specific Crossness.
Positivity... Right... oh yeah America. The Avengers Movie was awesome. Thanks for that.
Just making an observation about how the comment section on here contains several grumpy remarks. I don't really care if you want to be a wet bedroll and hate goblins. The rest of us continue to love them, Baron Von Sourpuss.
P.S. Pumped about The Avengers this Friday! WOO!
J-Spee Lovecraft |
Mikaze wrote:Cheapy wrote:Are there suggestions on how to deal with the goblin's hatred of books and the fact that alchemists must use them?
Or are they intended to be the exceptions?
Most likely it's not going to be touched on, since the reading taboo is a Golarion-specific thing.
Then again, so's the pyromania... Still a very nice thing for goblins though!
Goblins of Golarion states that Goblin Alchemists and Wizards record their spells via pictorial instructions instead of words.
However, the Goblin love of fire and hatred of horses, dogs, and books is written in Bestiary 1, so it might be OGL. Maybe. Kind of hard to tell nowadays. :-P
I could also see a goblin alchemist using his sense of smell or taste to remember what ingredients to mix together.
blahpers |
Dragon78 wrote:The core races got 10 pages and lot more from other books, it's about time the other races, particularly the strange ones, got some love.They are core races for a reason. I don't want each party I see to be a walking freakshow of cat people, tengu, goblins and wayang.
By all means have your fun. You are all entitled to that. I just see this as villain decay. IMO the evil nasty nature of Goblins has been lost with all this. Goblins are now loveable Jerry Lewis caricatures and that is a mistake.
Just my opinion. I'm still buying the book :).
Racist. ; D
Richard Leonhart |
the reason is that they were core races in 3.5. (nobody said that they are core for a good reason)
@J-Spee even if they smell, they don't know all recipees by heart, so they need a book that says "3 spoons of thing smelling like poo, 1 ounze of thing smelling like goblin-dog butter and you've got a potion that tastes like arsenic and make you go big."
They are not sponanious casters, thus need to prepare from something. Also alchemists not only mix things, they infuse it with their magic, and is thus not necessarily based of smell.
ryric RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32 |
Ok, I like the archetype, but I'm having some problems with the wording of the Fiery Cocktail ability. It just seems really convoluted: "he can split the damage dice evenly between the bomb's primary damage type and 1d6 points of fire damage." The example would make this clear, except I first spent time wondering where the extra die of damage came from, before looking up the concussive bomb discovery. I just think it's really tough to understand that the intent is to split damage dice evenly, and the fire part is always d6s.
At least I think that is the intent.
Stratagemini |
Stratagemini wrote:Were that true, I wonder what that means for Swift Alchemy and (for example) mutagen. I remember a lengthy discussion that ended with people concluding (well, at least me being convinced) that mutagens were affected by that, which would mean Burn! Burn! Burn! wouldn't work with bombs either.J-Spee Lovecraft wrote:Does Burn! Burn! Burn! work with bombs?It works on Mundane and Alchemical sources of fire. Bombs are Alchemical.
I don't see how that follows. If Mutagen and bombs are effected by swift alchemy, then they're alchemical, they would be affected by Burn! Burn! Burn!.
Cheapy |
Cheapy wrote:I don't see how that follows. If Mutagen and bombs are effected by swift alchemy, then they're alchemical, they would be affected by Burn! Burn! Burn!.Stratagemini wrote:Were that true, I wonder what that means for Swift Alchemy and (for example) mutagen. I remember a lengthy discussion that ended with people concluding (well, at least me being convinced) that mutagens were affected by that, which would mean Burn! Burn! Burn! wouldn't work with bombs either.J-Spee Lovecraft wrote:Does Burn! Burn! Burn! work with bombs?It works on Mundane and Alchemical sources of fire. Bombs are Alchemical.
It doesn't follow because I forgot the letters "n't" after "were" =/
FallofCamelot |
FallofCamelot wrote:Yeah sorry. I'm in a bad mood today for some reason.
A touch of Non Specific Crossness.
Positivity... Right... oh yeah America. The Avengers Movie was awesome. Thanks for that.
Just making an observation about how the comment section on here contains several grumpy remarks. I don't really care if you want to be a wet bedroll and hate goblins. The rest of us continue to love them, Baron Von Sourpuss.
P.S. Pumped about The Avengers this Friday! WOO!
I didn't say I didn't like them. I just don't like how they are being diluted. Frankly the menace is being removed.
StarMartyr365 |
In the face of some recent complaints:
Y'know, some of us like to have settings where goblins and other such "unusual" races are considered standard player races that aren't bound to a villain stereotype.
Really really hoping this book delivers in that area.
This.
I've played all the other "core" races to death over the last 20+ years. I'm always looking for something new to play or use as a villain. A sadist, psychopathic goblin pyro with a penchant for knives would make an excellent villain. As long as I _PROMISE_ not to cut, or burn, my fellow party members she might make a good character as well.
What really excites me about the ARG is that i can reskin any of these races and use them in the science-fantasy space opera I want to run. It will be a non-humanocentric campaign where humans are just another upstart young race that hasn't paid its dues but expects everything just handed to them because they want it. Some of the older races find the attitude to be amusing, others less so.
SM
Azten |
Arevashti wrote:Because they are the most populous and accepted races.FallofCamelot wrote:They are core races for a reason.And what reason would that be?
And in Katapesh, every member of any race is welcome as long as they don't cause trouble.
Goblin infestations are rather common and if they aren't taken care of, they can overrun a town with sheer numbers. That makes them 'populous' so they should obviously be a Core race.
Apostle of Gygax |
I didn't say I didn't like them. I just don't like how they are being diluted. Frankly the menace is being removed.
One thing as a counterpoint to this statement. This book is as much a resource to GMs as it is to players. I don't allow goblin PCs in my campaign but my first response was that I could not wait to use this in my campaign. Thus was born Kramas, a goblin fire bomber who is going to debut in my campaign as a minion of the BBEG of this campaign arc. If you don't want people in your game to use them as player options, that's great. But also take a moment and think about all the fun a GM can have with these buggers.
Stratagemini |
Stratagemini wrote:I don't see how that follows. If Mutagen and bombs are effected by swift alchemy, then they're alchemical, they would be affected by Burn! Burn! Burn!.It doesn't follow because I forgot the letters "n't" after "were" =/
Swift Alchemy wouldn't apply to bombs anyway, they're an instant ability. But from a design Perspective, it makes very little sense to give the Fire Bomber (which seems very fire and bomb focused) a specific feat that affects alchemical sources of fire damage, as an Alchemist, and then expect it not to apply to the bombs. It makes little to no sense. That said. Aside from the fact that bombs are not magical, and as a supernatural ability probably aren't mundane, there's nothing to really tell what type of item they are. Well, Except that they're part of a class called the Alchemist. I'm almost completely certain that they're Alchemical items and Burn! Burn! Burn! would apply. Also? Unless I hear a ruling from the devs as far as swift alchemy, I don't see why there might be a prohibition on that end. It wouldn't affect Extracts, those are spells in potion form, not alchemical items. But for Mutagens there seems to be nothing against it in the text.
Richard Leonhart |
okay, a second riddle then:
if the torch is a simple weapon for our goblin alchemist, he can make it a (masterwork) torch +5.
Then he hands this torch +5 to a monk or fighter, and that one got an improvised weapon with enchantment bonus, a thing that was till now not possible because improvised weapon couldn't become masterwork. (I believe there was one archetype that profited greatly if this was achieved, I forgot which one however)
Cheapy |
...
Alchemists can use alchemical fire too :)
But I wouldn't mind some clarification as well, although I'm far more interested in the mutagen.
Of course, perhaps they're updating the feat. They don't generally refer to non-core stuff in the Core line, and that feat is not from the core line. It's probably being reprinted and possibly updated.
Cheapy |
okay, a second riddle then:
if the torch is a simple weapon for our goblin alchemist, he can make it a (masterwork) torch +5.
Then he hands this torch +5 to a monk or fighter, and that one got an improvised weapon with enchantment bonus, a thing that was till now not possible because improvised weapon couldn't become masterwork. (I believe there was one archetype that profited greatly if this was achieved, I forgot which one however)
Why would that work? It's still not a weapon.
Stratagemini |
The monk of the empty hand would benefit. And I don't see why you can't make masterwork improvised weapons. We can masterwork Telescopes and Fiddles afterall. the question is Does that masterworking carry over to their use as an improvised weapon?
Dennis Baker Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16 |
Wolf Munroe |
However, the Goblin love of fire and hatred of horses, dogs, and books is written in Bestiary 1, so it might be OGL. Maybe. Kind of hard to tell nowadays. :-P
I haven't read an OGL in awhile but I don't think "flavor-text" is generally covered as Open Game Content. It would be stated in the Bestiary's OGL though, whichever way is the case.
The flavor-text for the goblins is reproduced in the Pathfinder Reference Document so it might be covered.
Alex Smith 908 |
But not accepted Azten. Goblins are seen by most people as vermin. Katapesh is unusual, everywhere else a Goblin gets strung up.
If this was a Golarion specific book I could see your point, but it isn't it is setting neutral. What if someone was using this to run and Iron Kingdoms or Eberron game, both of which have goblins as normal sapient creatures. Of course in the former halfling, half-orc, and gnome are unavailable as they do not exist.
Why is it that the core races are considered core? Well because they're the ones that were in 3.5 and no better reason. To be honest I find no real reason besides tradition for both gnomes and halflings to exist as core races. Chuck one into the bestiary, they're as superfluous as teh "aquatic version of this other thing" races.
Stratagemini |
Stratagemini wrote:...Alchemists can use alchemical fire too :)
But I wouldn't mind some clarification as well, although I'm far more interested in the mutagen.
Of course, perhaps they're updating the feat. They don't generally refer to non-core stuff in the Core line, and that feat is not from the core line. It's probably being reprinted and possibly updated.
So I asked James Jacobs Here's the answer:
Stratagemini wrote:The alchemist's Bomb feature? does it count as an Alchemical Item for feats like Burn! Burn! Burn! from goblins of Golarion?It does not count as an alchemical item.
Arevashti |
the reason is that they were core races in 3.5. (nobody said that they are core for a good reason)
Point, but that sounds suspiciously like "because they just are." Which is less a reason—good or otherwise—than an attempt to evade the issue altogether.
Because they are the most populous and accepted races.
Except Mikaze pretty much covered it when he said:
[...]this book is supposed to be setting-neutral.
Richard Leonhart |
@Arevashti
You are right, it's not a real reason. But then again you could ask why laserswords aren't core weapons, when it is supposed to be setting neutral.
Tech-level, main races and similar things are part of the systems assumptions and all (official) settings will build upon that.
As PF only has one setting I can't argue it there, but Eberron and Forgotten Realms assumed both the same stuff, and added a bit of setting dependant material.
The reason is either "Because Paizo (or 1E) said so", or "because the system is as such".
Humans (and the other core races)are just axiomaticly the most populous of intelligent species on the material plane.
You can change axioms in your settings, but you will have to rethink a lot. Like if you make demons the main race, then hold person becomes a weirdly balanced spell.
ryric RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32 |
Richard Leonhart wrote:the reason is that they were core races in 3.5. (nobody said that they are core for a good reason)Point, but that sounds suspiciously like "because they just are." Which is less a reason—good or otherwise—than an attempt to evade the issue altogether.
FallofCamelot wrote:Because they are the most populous and accepted races.Except Mikaze pretty much covered it when he said:
Mikaze wrote:[...]this book is supposed to be setting-neutral.
The real reason is that despite claims/appearances to the contrary, D&D and its derivatives (such as PF) are not really setting neutral. There are a whole host of setting assumptions built into the core system, such as Vancian magic, the existence of certain iconic magic items, the core races, the core classes, alignments, etc. World-building is influenced by these assumptions, to the point where a GM has to specifically call out exceptions and omissions (see 2e Dark Sun for example).
In my local group this was the reason for a lot of the anti-4e backlash, because so many of the fundamental assumptions were changed/tweaked that it felt like we couldn't run games on the same worlds without drastically altering the worlds.
So it's kind of a circle started by tradition that the core races are core: 1e had those races, so people built worlds that had those races more prominently featured, so new editions have to have those races so that people could keep using their worlds. Honestly, this book will be a step towards a more setting-neutral system as it will increase options for GMs wanting to branch away from the traditional set.
Alex Smith 908 |
The real reason is that despite claims/appearances to the contrary, D&D and its derivatives (such as PF) are not really setting neutral. There are a whole host of setting assumptions built into the core system, such as Vancian magic, the existence of certain iconic magic items, the core races, the core classes, alignments, etc. World-building is influenced by these assumptions, to the point where a GM has to specifically call out exceptions and omissions (see 2e Dark Sun for example).
In my local group this was the reason for a lot of the anti-4e backlash, because so many of the fundamental assumptions were changed/tweaked that it felt like we couldn't run games on the same worlds without drastically altering the worlds.
So it's kind of a circle started by tradition that the core races are core: 1e had those races, so people built worlds that had those races more prominently featured, so new editions have to have those races so that people could keep using their worlds. Honestly, this book will be a step towards a more setting-neutral system as it will increase options for GMs wanting to branch away from the traditional set.
Except that's not true. Neither gnomes nor half-orcs were core races in 1E. Both were from non-core materials that proved popular enough that they were added to the core roster later; gnomes in AD&D revised and half-orcs in 3rd edition. The idea that goblins, so far the single most popular non-core race in Pathfinder, could be added to the core races in a say Pathfinder 2nd edition is not too far-fetched. Hell them and kitsune seem to be more popular than gnomes and halflings if board participation is anything to go by.
ryric RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32 |
Except that's not true. Neither gnomes nor half-orcs were core races in 1E. Both were from non-core materials that proved popular enough that they were added to the core roster later; gnomes in AD&D revised and half-orcs in 3rd edition. The idea that goblins, so far the single most popular non-core race in Pathfinder, could be added to the core races in a say Pathfinder 2nd edition is not too far-fetched. Hell them and kitsune seem to be more popular than gnomes and halflings if board participation is anything to go by.
My 1e PHB disagrees with you. It contains both gnomes and half-orcs.
Pre-AD&D they were not present, however.Alex Smith 908 |
My 1e PHB disagrees with you. It contains both gnomes and half-orcs.
Pre-AD&D they were not present, however.
Sorry AD&D first and second edition blend together for me so I assume by 1st edition most people mean OD&D. That still doesn't address the point that they weren't originally playable, but were later introduced. Tradition for the sake of tradition is pointless. Just about every official campaign setting out their changes up the races and makes certain existing races either pointless, or nearly unrecognizable.
I also fail utterly to see how in any setting half-orcs could be more common than orcs unless some calamity came about that wiped out and specifically targeted full blooded orcs.
Deadmanwalking |
I also fail utterly to see how in any setting half-orcs could be more common than orcs unless some calamity came about that wiped out and specifically targeted full blooded orcs.
The Core Races aren't necessarily the most common ones, they're the 'civilized races'. The ones with organized kingdoms (or who live in the organized kingdoms of others as full citizens). Orcs tend more towards warring barbaric tribes too fractious to form full nations, and are generally not accepted readily in such nations.
That's really the criteria, and yes it does have a specific Tolkien-esque set of world assumptions. The kind where you can have never layed D&D but read a lot of fantasy books and not be surprised by most of the PC race choices.
MMCJawa |
Many of the prior settings played around with what is or isn't a core race. Dragonlance doesn't have half-orcs, but Kender and Minotaurs (I think?) were major players. Eberron I think had most of the core, but they also had shifters, warforged, and changelings as important races.
The core races were built based on what were the major races in popular fantasy at the time (namely Tolkien and his clones). A lot of fantasy settings however are moving away from those classical races, either ditching them completely or radically rebooting them into something else. A DM might very well not want to run a setting with standard races.