Julkar

Adjule's page

Organized Play Member. 1,165 posts (1,276 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,165 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Congrats on Silver seller.


I was going to suggest Carrion Crown as well. I think it would fit in with the theme of it, but I am not sure if the storyline has a "timeline" where if you don't get such-and-such done in a certain time, then this would happen. Of course, you could just do away with that, but I could be completely wrong.

So yeah, I would suggest Carrion Crown.


"Size and Strength. Larger creatures can bear more weight, whereas Tiny creatures can carry less. For each size category above Medium, double the creature's carrying capacity and the amount it can push, drag, or lift. For a Tiny creature, halve these weights." --PHB pg 176

So yeah, in 5th edition Small and Medium creatures can carry the same amount of weight if they have the same Strength score. Different from what it was/is in 3rd and Pathfinder.

If it was me, I would either change that part in the PHB, or have the Small PCs be treated as Large (since they are basically treated as Medium for carry weight anyway) when it comes to carry capacity. As for creatures that have that as part of their race (bugbear, and I believe goliath and firbolg), I personally would have them treated as Huge for carrying capacity and such.


ryric wrote:
bookrat wrote:
ryric wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
ryric wrote:
Is it possible to play a druid with an AC yet in 5e?
You mean, besides multiclassing with Ranger?
Well, yeah, I know that a ranger can get one.
They took the druid in a more 2e design, where it's focused on wild shape and spells. Back in 2e, the druid didn't get an animal companion - that was the realm of the rangers.

Er, no. In 1e and 2e animal companions were the product of a 1st level spell, animal friendship, not a class feature. In both editions that spell was available to both rangers and druids, but rangers didn't get it until 8th level.

Familiars were also a product of a spell back in the day.

Some people played druids who didn't use animal friendship, but that was basically intentionally nerfing your own character.

I think he was referring to the ranger's followers, which was a class feature of the fighter overall class (fighter, paladin, ranger), but the ranger's followers included animals and fey creatures (centaurs, etc).


While the DMsGuild is nice, and I am glad they made it, most DMs don't allow non-1pp material (similar to Pathfinder). And the unfortunate thing with the DMsGuild, it is similar to the 3rd party crapfest of early 3rd edition, where a lot of what is available on there is terrible.

While I think releasing products multiple times a month like Pathfinder is excessive, releasing adventures twice a year, and a non-adventure book that is soaked in Forgotten Realms (SCAG has some mechanical options, but they drip with FR, while nearly 1/2 of Volo's is FR monster lore, though I am happy with this book as the races and all those monsters are useful).

A bit more on topic: What Pathfinder does better than 5e, in my opinion, is the options. Extra classes beyond those in the PHB (though some of them could be archetypes in 5e, you lose the essence of some of them when you do such), and the skill system (though I preferred 3rd edition's more). I kinda miss skill points, and the extreme consolidation of skills in 5e annoys me. If I knew how to make character sheets in roll20 (that's the only way I get to play D&D), I'd really work on some homebrew rules to add in things I like that isn't races or classes/archetypes.


To be fair, a lot of the 3pp stuff before Pathfinder was horribly bad, and this mindset has carried over into Pathfinder, despite quite a bit of 3pp for Pathfinder being quite good (DSP being the biggest example). So, 3pp seems to have been one instance where Pathfinder has definitely done better than 3rd edition.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
On topic, I think WotC's willingness to experiment with different class subsystems (power points, Tome of Battle) is a plus over Paizo's adherence to vancian spells. Even though some of those subsystems left much to be wanted in the execution. (Hello, truenaming!)

It was nice, but what I think Paizo did better than WotC in that regard, is Paizo will continue to support each class they come up with in all their books they publish after releasing the new class. WotC, however, liked to pretend all classes outside of the PHB didn't exist once the book was released. It's my fear for 5th edition when they do end up releasing a fully playtested Mystic and Artificer class, that any other book they release will act like those never existed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ultimatepunch wrote:
SheepishEidolon wrote:
ultimatepunch wrote:
I don't like at will cantrips. Especially with Detect Magic and Light.
I find it good that a low level caster can do at least something magical all day. Detect Magic and Light are situationally powerful, but then look at what other party members can do at level 1..

It has zero to do with game balance. I almost exclusively run hex crawls and dungeons. Infinite light spells mostly eliminates the need to cary torches. Infinite Detect magic takes away interesting decisions from the players. I always run games where resource management matters.

Is your grievance with at-will cantrips just those two spells, or all the cantrips? It is easy enough to reduce the reliance on Detect Magic and Light by making them 1st level spells instead. I do agree that making them at will makes the torch useless.

As for me to be more on topic, I would have to say I kinda feel like the sizes in 3.0 were better (a horse being 5x10 instead of 10x10). I am sure I know why they changed it (they wanted to release minis, and it was just easier to plop a horse on a 10x10 base instead of making the base 5x10), but it just made more sense. Also, I kinda miss the massive amount of skills from 3.0 (playing 5e with 15 skills total...).


I didn't care much for Carrion Crown when I tried to run it. Of course, the players had a part in that. They had no interest in solving an investigation (which is pretty bad, as the first 4 books were investigation -> dungeon crawl -> move to another location). So whether that one gets a hardcover treatment or not, it matters none to me.


I am not a fan of the "special snowflake" term, as it is typically used in a derogatory way, and thrown at those who prefer not to play one of the core races. I am one of those who prefer to play something that isn't one of the core races (so tired of them, though I will play a dwarf or half-orc if I absolutely have to).

There is, unfortunately, a lot of people who choose a non-core race who want to be spotlight hogs and be disruptive. But most of the disruptive people I have come across (I know, anecdotal) aren't always non-core races (though they do like to choose drow and tieflings, because edgey or some such), but typically choose Chaotic Neutral and/or Rogue (plus any other "evil" class like a necromancer, warlock, etc.).

Race doesn't usually throw a red flag into my face, but seeing CN does (similar to the scene in Aladdin where Genie is trying to tell him his current course of calling Jasmine a trophy for a winner like him). Combine the 3, though, and I just facedesk (CN drow warlock, CN tiefling rogue, CN dhampir necromancer wizard, etc).

I am personally loathe to tell someone they can't play a certain character concept, as I have been on that end (which I didn't find all that fun just because I didn't want to make yet another core race character). But I typically regret it down the line.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thank you very much, Paul! I got mine, now I just need to figure out how to use it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why does a 2nd Edition of Pathfinder NEED to be radically different? Paizo doesn't need to change it up so much that it invalidates all the old material (like what WotC). It doesn't need to be a completely brand new game with a new edition.

If there would be a 2nd edition (I refuse to call it 2.0, as it isn't a computer program), they should go the TSR route. The differences between 1st and 2nd edition AD&D is rather minimal, especially compared to the differences between 2nd edition AD&D, 3rd edition D&D, 4th edition and 5th edition D&D. Make minimal changes to where the original Patfinder material isn't invalidated and you get the same things reprinted. Just update the CRB, maybe take out the GMing portion of the book and replace it with all the classes they have added (ACG, APG, UM, OA, etc).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Man I miss Mikaze, and hope he is doing well. His views on orcs were similar to my own.

And this is really awesome of you to do. I would also like to claim one, if you so chose to pick me.

Merry Mikazemas to you and everyone else out there!


I prefer not to kill the characters for no reason. I don't fudge the rolls (I use roll20, and use their built in dice roller, so they see the attack and damage rolls), but I typically won't outright kill the characters. Unless they are fighting something like an owlbear or wolf or something equally beast-like, I may have the creature kill the character if it brings them to that point, but if they are fighting more intelligent creatures like goblins or bandits, I will make them get taken prisoner if they happen to get brought down (5th edition lets you "pull your punch" and just knock your opponent out if you manage to bring them to 0 or below, which I make use of). I know how it is to be invested in a character and having it get killed. I lost interest a few times when that happened. Though I typically have many different character ideas floating in my head at any time.


Well, Paizo does sell 5th Edition D&D books in their store, so...

I am actually surprised that they did seperate it. I think it was last year (or even earlier this year) where this came up before. I forget which Paizo person said it, but they felt that seperating it wasn't needed, as the "(and Beyond)" portion encompassed 5th edition (as well as pre-3rd edition).

I am glad to see they did seperate it. Also, it is nice to have a place to talk about it, as not all those that play 5e frequent ENWorld or GitP or some other forum, since WotC decided to kill their own forum. So thank you Paizo for doing this, and for being awesome.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I play over roll20, so I google search images to use for tokens of monsters and npcs (and PCs whenever I get to play). Finding an orc (or half-orc) that isn't some giant axe wielding mouth open screaming spiked bodybuilder is impossible (I was trying to find a half-orc druid. After about 5 hours I finally came across one). Female dwarves, gnolls (these suffer from the same image homogeneity of orcs), goblins (I either find Pathfinder goblins or Warcraft goblins, which both are bleh), and many others. If I had any sort of artistic talent, I'd just draw what I would need and not bother with the frustration of trying to find an orc in full plate that isn't dark and full of spikes, or a goblin or hobgoblin (searching hobgoblin puts out too many Marvel Hobgoblin images).


This is not indicative of everyone who optimizes. Most that I have run into optimize to make "strong builds", so their play experience is easier, and get a bit hostile when the GM increases the difficulty of what they come across.

I tend not to play with those who are like that. The ones that visit CharOp boards and pour through guides on how to create characters based on theorycraft and such. So I can't really answer #2. And before anyone jumps on me for this, I am not saying they are bad people. It is not the playstyle I enjoy, and they are not having "badwrongfun" or "doing it wrong".


Yeah, pretty much. Though I wouldn't just throw spells onto them "willy nilly". I personally would feel it a bit absurd and too strange to have a white dragon with burning hands, fireball, scorching ray and flame sphere. I would go more for an overall theme.

Other than that, you basically understood what I said, as far as I understand the dragons getting spellcasting.


I think you may be getting the wrong impression by this part of the Innate Spellcasting:

Monster Manual pg 10 wrote:
A monster's innate spells can't be swapped out with other spells.

Of course, I could have a wrong impression about it, too, when it comes to the dragon. My understanding about this, is the whole can't be swapped, is in relation to those monsters where the spells are listed in the monster's stat block. Take the Dryad, as an example.

Dryad stat block wrote:

Innate Spellcasting. The dryad's innate spellcasting ability is Charisma (spell save DC 14). The dryad can innately cast the following spells, requiring no material components:

At will: druidcraft
3/day each: entangle, goodberry
1/day each: barkskin, pass without trace, shillelagh

Since they specifically spell out the innate spells of a dryad, you can't switch out goodberry for another level 1 druid spell. Since the dragons don't have any specifically stated, they can be any spell you want them to be, and can be completely different from one black dragon to another black dragon.

I, personally, would treat it as similar to sorcerers, bards, and warlocks for dragons. Meaning each time they "level up" (change age categories for dragons), they can switch out a previously known spell for a new one of a level they can cast (based on their CR), with the stipulation that they can only have a single spell of 6th level or higher.


EileenProphetofIstus wrote:
Adjule wrote:

Well for 2nd edition ad&d, you could check out that site I linked. There is also the d20pfsrd for pathfinder versions. I'll be able to check my book when I get home from work.

This interests me because I prefer dragons having spellcasting ability. Even makes sense for 5e because wotc is always about sorcerers getting theor magic ability from dragons. Not sure why they didn't include it in the default.

That's just it, I couldn't find more rules than I citied and overall the MM is thorough. Plus what you just said, "Even makes sense for 5e because wotc is always about sorcerers getting theor magic ability from dragons. Not sure why they didn't include it in the default." This made me wonder if I missed something important in the text somewhere.

Mostly referring to WotC always having sorcerers get their magic from dragons (that was the default assumption in 3rd edition). There's even the draconic sorcerer origin.

"A young or older dragon can innately cast a number of spells equal to its Charisma modifier. Each spell can be cast once per day, requiring no material components, and the spell's level can be no higher than one-third the dragon's challenge rating (rounded down)."

So yeah, the ancient black dragon can know any spell you want it to know, but that spell can be cast once per day. So they don't get any spell slots. And with a CR of 21, it can know up to level 7 spells. I don't see anywhere in that "Variant: Dragons as Innate Spellcasters" sidebox about if they have any restrictions on which type of spell they can cast (spell list, arcane or divine), or if they are restricted to only 1 spell of 6th level or higher. So if you really wanted to, you could give an ancient black dragon 4 level 7 spells.

As for me, like I mentioned upthread, I would look to older editions. Pre-5th edition dragons had various innate spells they were able to cast. Example: Pathfinder black dragon (at ancient) is able to cast darkness, plant growth, and insect plague (plus is an 11th level spellcaster and gets spells based on that, but we'll cross that out as not really relevant). 2e AD&D black dragon (as listed on the site I linked earlier):

2e AD&D wrote:
As they age, they gain the following additional powers: Juvenile: darkness three times a day in a 10’ radius per age category of the dragon. Adult: corrupt water once a day. For every age category a dragon attains, it can stagnate 10 cubic feet of water, making it become still, foul, inert, and unable to support animal life. When this ability is used against potions and elixirs, they become useless if they roll a 15 or better on 1d20. Old: plant growth once a day. Venerable: summon insects once a day. Great wyrm: charm reptiles three times a day. This operates as a charm mammals spell, but is applicable only to reptiles.

While you could give them any spell you wish, I personally would try to stick close to the older editions. But that's just me. If you wish to go with the Chromatic = arcane, Metallic = divine, I would see nothing wrong with that.


Well for 2nd edition ad&d, you could check out that site I linked. There is also the d20pfsrd for pathfinder versions. I'll be able to check my book when I get home from work.

This interests me because I prefer dragons having spellcasting ability. Even makes sense for 5e because wotc is always about sorcerers getting theor magic ability from dragons. Not sure why they didn't include it in the default.


You could take inspiration from 2nd edition, or look at the entries for 3rd edition (or even pathfinder) as to what kind of spells they can cast. According to the entries on this website which has stat blocks for 2nd edition monsters, all dragons of Juvenile (and older) have access to wizard spells. An old bronze dragon starts getting access to priest (cleric) spells. A blue dragon starts getting priest spells at venerable age.

Then you have the entries for 3rd edition and Pathfinder to go off of. Or, you can just choose yourself. Maybe chromatic dragons can cast arcane spells from the sorcerer or even warlock list, while metallic dragons get cleric spells or such.

Also, you have differing comments. At the top, you said "It lists the number of spells as 1/3 its challenge rating (rounded down) plus its Cha modifier." then lower you said "If an Ancient Black Dragon casted spells it would have available four spells based on its Cha modifier."
So your ancient black dragon would have 7+4 (11) spells of levels 1-7. As for how many slots of each level? I would say no more than 1 for levels 6&7 (on par with PCs and just adding class levels to a monster), and the other 9 spread between 1-5.

I am not sure how wrong I am in what I stated above, as I don't have access to my book at the moment. But I would probably look to previous editions for inspiration when it comes to what type of spells and which spell list.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

We all like to talk about the different ways we play. Actually, that's one of the few recurring arguments on these forums I don't totally hate! Yet. The trouble is, we like those conversations so much, we tend to sidetrek other threads with them.

This thread is intended as a general "forum" for talking about playstyle. That primarily includes, but is not limited to:

  • Roleplaying-to-combat ratios
  • Rules vs. flavor
  • Powerful and flavorful builds
  • Evil parties vs. noble parties vs. slightly sketchy parties
  • "Sandbox" (open route, open destination) vs. "railroad" (set route, set destination) vs. "freeway" (open route, set destination)
  • Silly vs. serious
  • Genre choices

To copy Steve, I'll make a list in response to each

  • 50/50. Some of my favorite sessions had little to no combat, but I enjoy the combat side.
  • Not sure if I quite understand this. I like when the rules and flavor are mixed together, influencing each other, and not so much either/or.
  • Flavorful builds. If a choice fits the character concept, then that is what I will choose. Doesn't matter if people think I should have this because my class is this and makes it stronger. But I am not going into detail with that as I have been told I do it wrong too many times.
  • Noble parties is usually what I prefer to play in as well as DM for. Those are rather rare, and the "slightly sketchy" ones are usually what I end up with (mostly since many GMs say "no evil characters"). I don't do evil parties. Tried it once, had 0 fun.
  • I enjoy sandbox games the most, but I have no problem with railroads. Really, I have fun with any of the three, just depends on the people involved.
  • I tend to prefer a more serious toned game, but not DC movie universe serious. I like some silly sprinkled on my serious.
  • Genre choices is fantasy based. Generic "western fantasy"; generic fantasy with western and eastern; fantasy with slight steampunk. So long as there are dragons, elves, wizards, knights, and so on, there's a big chance I will enjoy it. There's even a slight interest in a modern setting with such things (think d20 modern), though I prefer "medieval knights in armor fighting dragons" fantasy more.


Have you checked out Kingmaker? It's the sandboxiest AP that they have, and is about as popular as Rise of the Runelords. While it is recommended that you do the things in a certain order (mostly due to level ranges), it isn't a "you must go here before you can go there" type of AP.


I would recommend it, though I have no use for a large portion of the first half of the book (beholders and illithids). I like most of the monsters in the last part, though some of the art has much to be desired (to me, at least). Nice to see some older monsters returning.


WotC made archetypes? Hmm...

I would say Druid. I believe they still only have 2 (land and moon). Bard might be next (2 phb, 2 in "kits of old").


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was going to write up a big long thing, but I'm not gonna bother. It's obvious that I am not enlightened and am doing things wrong. So back to basically lurking for me, again.


Kryzbyn wrote:
Adjule wrote:

Tank, in MMORPG terms, is someone who takes hits while holding all attention of the enemies while everyone else attacks it (or heals the PCs). The part of being a tank that doesn't really translate into TTRPG is the "holding aggro" where the enemy focuses solely on the guy in front of him with tunnel vision.

So making a "tank" is really difficult and requires GM cooperation. Of course, most creatures who are somewhat intelligent wouldn't focus solely on one person (unless they can take him out, in which case the player would probably get angry that his tank didn't perform like he thinks it should have).

As others have pointed out, the reason that role is called "Tank" in an MMO, is becasue plate fighters were called Tanks in TTRPGS before MMOs existed.

The aggro mechanics of the MMO is irrelevant when using the term to describe a role you want your character to portray in a TTRPG.
Everyone understands what it means, unless you spend time splitting hairs.

I know this. But typically when I hear people say "I'm going to make a tank", they expect the enemies to focus on them (holding aggro) so they can keep the "squishies" from being hurt.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Tank, in MMORPG terms, is someone who takes hits while holding all attention of the enemies while everyone else attacks it (or heals the PCs). The part of being a tank that doesn't really translate into TTRPG is the "holding aggro" where the enemy focuses solely on the guy in front of him with tunnel vision.

So making a "tank" is really difficult and requires GM cooperation. Of course, most creatures who are somewhat intelligent wouldn't focus solely on one person (unless they can take him out, in which case the player would probably get angry that his tank didn't perform like he thinks it should have).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ClingClong wrote:
What's default fluff as opposed to fluff?

My guess is what he means by "default fluff" is what is printed in the CRB/PHB.


I am glad to see some of those brought back. I had made a list of monsters I would like to convert, and quite a few appear on this one. So, that's less work for me.

I had a good chuckle at them bringing back the Stench Kow.


Unfortunately, an AP like that would probably garner a lot of hate thrown at the AP and possibly at Paizo for daring to restrict a player's options and going over the DM's head about restricting.

As for an AP I would really like to see next... First World AP (I can see the whole "first world problems" thing tossed around, though), or one that has elementals of all sorts (I am a sucker for elementals). A dragon AP would be pretty awesome, too.


And you would be wrong with that assumption, bandw2. I want you to give me something more than "Because I can use Cha for AC and Reflex saves".

Why did you choose a level of lore oracle over another level of paladin? Because my character, when on watch, had been talking to themselves, trying to figure things out, when they came to a realization, and something just clicked in their head. Cool, why the legalistic curse? My character has always been more on the lawful side than good, and feels like his word is his everything.

It could be practically anything that doesn't say "Because I can use Cha for AC and Reflex saves, and the curse because I can make some stupid 'promise' to get +4 to any roll while trying to make that promise. 'I vow to live through the day!' gives me +4 to everything."

I don't care if you take a level of lore oracle as a paladin (or other Cha-based class) because it gives you a mechanical boost. What I do care about is the in-character reason. Hell, even a "Because I feel it makes my paladin closer to the image I have of him as a character" would be great! JonathanWilder and Sideromancer give good reasons. Even bandw2 seems to actually give a reason that I feel is a good reason to take a level of oracle.


Taking a level one oracle, I have no problem with. What I do have a problem with is there being no character reasoning and only getting "because it lets me use Cha for AC and Reflex saves". Yes, I get that, but what's the in-character reason? "Because it lets me..."

That's all I ask for is in-character reasons that make sense with said character. But most people like this only care for the numbers on the sheet. To me, that's "rollplaying". Not optimizing, or powergaming, or any other word that people use to describe increasing effectiveness of a character (which I will admit I don't always do, as the thing that would increase effectiveness makes no sense character-wise).

To me, "rollplaying" is doing things for power with absolutely 0 character reasoning, citing "because it lets me use my Cha for AC and Reflex saves" as the absolute reason the option is chosen. You want to take 1 level of oracle with the lore mystery on your paladin with the Sidestep Secret revelation? Sounds good. But why does the character suddenly have a level of oracle with the lore mystery and Sidestep Revelation?

I am sure a number of people can come up with it. So if you can, congrats! You aren't "rollplaying".


What is or isn't included in the GSL for 4e doesn't mean squat. What does is what is included in the 4th Edition PHB (1, 2, and 3). Even looking at just the PHB 1 for both 4e and 5e, 5e shows more similarity to pre-4e than 4e does. Oh wow, 4e has Fortitude, Reflex, and Will while 5e has the 6 ability scores for saves.

Looking at the classes, I see more in common with 3rd edition than 4th edition when it comes to 5th edition.

4th edition Essentials still had powers, but they were "class features and powers". WotC failed badly with 4th edition. Even the Essentials failed to get people interested.

As for that ad? I don't know what to say to that, other than I had never seen it before just now. Hell, I even said 5th edition was going to be complete crap when I looked at the playtest, and didn't give it a shot until they released the Basic Rules just before the Starter Set Adventure was released (there is concrete evidence of this in my post history around 2013-14. I can't remember if there was in 2013 or not). So I never "bought into the advertising".

If my last Pathfinder group wasn't such a s@$#show, I probably never would have touched 5th edition. But they soured me on Pathfinder, so I sucked up my dislike of the playtest and gave 5e a shot. The only 4e-isms I see are bounded accuracy (I assume, as I never saw any write-up for any sort of attack bonus, so I will give you that one for free), no skill ranks, "healing surges" in the form of hit dice healing (which I think is stretching it), and the class archetypes (though that's a bit of a stretch as well, as those were chosen 1/2 way through your level progression). Oh, and races not having negative stat mods.

I play 5e instead of Pathfinder because there aren't so many +2s that I need to keep track of and remember if they stack, not because of some nebulous "return to old school feel!" that you say the advertising spewed (which I never bought into because I never saw it, and thought 5e was going to be complete crap). Your hatred of 5e encases everything you say about it (and a lot of things you reply to people who say they like it). We get it, you absolutely hate it. But there is no need to put words in other people's mouths (or thread replies, as it is) about why they like it.

I know my reasons for liking it, and it had nothing to do with advertising, and everything to do with previous experiences with 4th edition and Pathfinder. 4e's crapping on 3e didn't influence my dislike of 4e, but the design of everything about it. There were some things I liked (no negative mods to races... mostly the races as a whole, really), but as a whole, 4e was crap.


I have read each post since this first started up, and have kept from posting in it until now.

The way that I have seen "rollplaying" described, is the act of choosing spells, feats, classes, class features, traits, etc for their numerical aspects only, with no character justification whatsoever. "I'll dip one level of oracle for my paladin so I can use my Cha bonus for AC and Reflex instead of Dex (oracle of lore with sidestep secret revelation)". What's the in-character reason? Because it lets him use his Cha bonus for AC and Reflex instead of Dex.

If you come up with an in-character reason your paladin takes 1 level of Oracle of Lore at level 2, then congrats! You aren't "rollplaying". But if you can't? Then congrats! You are "rollplaying".

That's the only definition I have ever seen given to "rollplaying" everywhere else except for this board. and now will probably regret saying anything in this thread


They look like humans with digitigrade feet, pointy ears, and spots (with the male having wolverine-like sideburns from the X-Men).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tectorman wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
I'd like to note that just because lot of people who are vocal about their preference in catfolk art seem to like Eade's art, that doesn't really mean its most popular since most forum posters haven't really expressed opinion about that and even then we aren't all of people who play pathfinder.
True, so the fairest thing to do would be to give more representation to both versions. And since we currently have plenty of the so-called non-Eade version, what we need is more of the Eade version (which may or may not actually be Eade).

I would have no problem with both. Heck, Paizo could even make the Eade version and the non-Eade version be regional variants of Catfolk, similar to how Ulfen humans look different than Varisian humans who look different from Vudran humans etc. and so on, but still have the same racial abilities.

I am sure we can all agree that they still look better than the Catfolk from the Miniature's Handbook, right?


I prefer stat arrays. Sometimes I will roll a few up for my players and they can choose one (multiple players can choose the same array). Or you can go the 5th edition route and restrict the highest stat one can have before racial modifiers (5th edition caps it at 15 with point buy, and 20 overall). With my game of newbies, I went with the stat array of 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9. I think with the next game, I might roll up some stat arrays myself and let them choose.

But like I said earlier in the thread, I have no problem with "weaker" characters that have a 15 PB. I prefer the "average joe rises up to be a hero" or "joe schmoe gets caught up in conflict and rises to the occasion" type characters. That's the feeling 15 pb gives me. But for me, I personally prefer stat arrays. Everyone starts with the exact same stats, with the only deviation being racial bonuses.

Of course, I don't care about "I must have a +5 in my main stat or my character is a steaming pile of horse poo", and am completely fine with my main stat being 16 (or even 15, and going with a "non-optimized" race/class combo). I know it isn't everyone's cup of tea, which is more than fine. What isn't fine is calling someone else's character a POS waste of time because they didn't inflate 1-2 numbers to absurd levels.

I may still be bitter about my last run-in with a Pathfinder game, so I apologize


It was around 1997 or 98. I can't remember if that single lunch-break session of 1st edition came first, or reading the Dragonlance books (Dragons of Autumn Twilight) and then getting the old gold box SSI Champions of Krynn game. Either way, my first ever "game session" was a 1st edition AD&D game, and then I purchased my own set of core 2nd edition AD&D books in 1998. I graduated at almost 18 in Spring 1999.

I can get a little hazy when it comes to years. I can be a bit surprised when I think about if I had a kid right after graduating high school, they would be graduating high school in the spring.


What terms annoy me? Fluff as stated in the first couple posts (and basically the reasons why).

Shorthanding class names. Pally (or pallies, which is 1 letter short from paladins), barb, sorc, shammy (shaman, shammy is 1 letter short from shaman), etc.

deusvult gave me a new one that instantly annoyed me: using Greyhawk as a verb. (nothing against deusvult).

@Marc Radle: I usually say "15 points of damage". "15 damage" sounds weird to me.

And "murderhobo" is the term used for characters who slaughter everything in sight when it serves to purpose to them. They murder with no second thought and then move on to the next place to murder everyone in sight (hence the hobo part because they typically don't have a home and wander the country slaughtering everything in their path).


Rysky wrote:
Adjule wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Adjule wrote:

Personally, I prefer a more beastial look to my beast races. While I agree the Eade artwork is well drawn, it is not my cup of tea. It looks too anime catgirl to me, which is a look I really really do not like. Just glad they didn't go that route for any of the kitsune artwork I have seen in many of the books that featured kitsune artwork. Though, the kitsune on the cover art has a muzzle that is a little too short.

But unfortunately, it seem more people like the anime catgirl look of Eade's bestiary 3 entry. I prefer the ARG version, myself.

TFW you realize people throw around the term "anime catgirl" as a detraction for remotely anything with any combination of human and animal characteristics -_-
"Anime catgirl" is a human female with cat ears and a tail. Most don't have fur, but some do (Fam from the OAV series "Ruin Explorers" is a catgirl with fur on her body). Eade's catfolk from Bestiary 3 is an anime catgirl. I have seen the same with many anime when doing "anthropomorphized" human/animals (like kitsune that just have fox ears and a tail but are otherwise completely human), unless they are werewolves (like the Jon Talbain from Darkstalkers, but Felicia from there I would consider an "anime catgirl") typically.
The needless tacking on of "anime" of the beginning of that term though is what makes it needlessly derogatory and what I was getting at.

I tack on the "anime" at the beginning because that's the only medium I ever see that form appear in. I am not using it in a derogative manner (I personally enjoy anime, though admittedly more of the older stuff).


Rysky wrote:
Adjule wrote:

Personally, I prefer a more beastial look to my beast races. While I agree the Eade artwork is well drawn, it is not my cup of tea. It looks too anime catgirl to me, which is a look I really really do not like. Just glad they didn't go that route for any of the kitsune artwork I have seen in many of the books that featured kitsune artwork. Though, the kitsune on the cover art has a muzzle that is a little too short.

But unfortunately, it seem more people like the anime catgirl look of Eade's bestiary 3 entry. I prefer the ARG version, myself.

TFW you realize people throw around the term "anime catgirl" as a detraction for remotely anything with any combination of human and animal characteristics -_-

"Anime catgirl" is a human female with cat ears and a tail. Most don't have fur, but some do (Fam from the OAV series "Ruin Explorers" is a catgirl with fur on her body). Eade's catfolk from Bestiary 3 is an anime catgirl. I have seen the same with many anime when doing "anthropomorphized" human/animals (like kitsune that just have fox ears and a tail but are otherwise completely human), unless they are werewolves (like the Jon Talbain from Darkstalkers, but Felicia from there I would consider an "anime catgirl") typically.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I prefer a more beastial look to my beast races. While I agree the Eade artwork is well drawn, it is not my cup of tea. It looks too anime catgirl to me, which is a look I really really do not like. Just glad they didn't go that route for any of the kitsune artwork I have seen in many of the books that featured kitsune artwork. Though, the kitsune on the cover art has a muzzle that is a little too short.

But unfortunately, it seem more people like the anime catgirl look of Eade's bestiary 3 entry. I prefer the ARG version, myself.


Steve Geddes wrote:

I'm just reading the Drizz't stuff for the first time. I think it's quite an interesting take on it personally. I really struggle to see how it can cause such antipathy.

Similarly with the realms. I get that people don't like it (I much prefer Golarion and my WotC setting-of-choice would be Dark Sun) but it seems pretty clear that WotC have learned the same lesson Paizo did vis a vis supporting multiple campaign settings.

I can understand disappointment, but anger is really puzzling to me.

Like Henshin said, it's not so much Drizzt himself, but the rabid fans who make their character a clone, who won't play anything but a drow because it makes them seem edgey and "cool", that has ignited my hatred. Too many instances of this can really sour one to something.

I also prefer to homebrew a setting when I DM. I have no problems taking things from other settings, mostly just races, classes, monsters, and spells. But if the majority of the book is setting material that is rather difficult to "file off the serial numbers" like history, location, etc., then I pass on a book. I did purchase Princes of the Apocalypse, because it was about a subject I enjoyed (elementals), and it included new elemental monsters and items. Since elementals are a big part of my setting, I could probably easily change a few things in the adventure to place it in my setting.

I can understand WotC's desire to focus on a single setting, and have no problem with that. My problem is when every single book they put out (other than the core 3) is filled to the brim with Forgotten Realms, and citing lore reasons as an excuse not to include something (such as a racial write-up for gnolls). Not every setting has gnolls as demonically twisted hyenas who are made of pure evil as much as a regular demon that disqualifies them as a player race.

I will absolutely get this book, though. Despite my opinions stated above, I will always welcome a new monster book. I even have a huge collection of monster books from 2nd edition that were setting specific. I can easily port the majority of monsters to other settings. It can be tough or impossible to do so with other things (such as lore).


Glad to see some love shown to the beast races. All the info that Skeld provided was great, and I look forward to being able to read it all for myself. Now, I just need to get the money for it.


That towards me? If it is, there's a reason. I have always disliked the Forgotten Realms, mostly due to the setting's fans (and the foaming-at-the-mouth fans of one particular drow character of that setting). Now, before I just disliked it, but now I absolutely hate it. EVERYTHING is Forgotten Realms. Everything 5th edition is under a thick coat of Forgotten Realms (minus the core books, which I like). All the adventures, the non-adventure book, and now this.

WotC has such a hardon for Forgotten Realms, that every other world may as well not exist. That goes for a DM's homebrew world. It's worse than Paizo's focus on Golarion, but at least with Golarion, there are places you could use if you like a certain style of game.

Everything WotC makes, it is Forgotten Realms. Video games, books, RPG books, the upcoming movie. And not only is it just Forgotten Realms, but it is even more narrow in the Sword Coast region. Everything they have made has taken place in that little strip of land along the western coast. It's like if all of Paizo's APs were set in Varisia.

And I just don't like mind flayers. I don't share the feelings other people do for tentacled things and how it is supposed to somehow shatter my mind (like Cthulhu and all this Lovecraft junk).

And their reasons behind the hyper focus on Forgotten Realms (and the Sword Coast) is because it's their most popular. Well, when that's everyone's only exposure is Forgotten Realms, of course it will be the most popular.

I like that they will be adding in lore-type stuff for the monsters. Reminds me of my 2nd edition Monstrous Manual. But all this Forgotten Realms crap is getting on my last nerve.


Well, this is how they will do monster books now, apparently. Where FR lore is shoved down our throats in EVERYTHING. Book of classes? Have a metric ton of Forgotten Realms lore slathered all over it because only the Forgotten Realms exists and nothing else does.

Looking at the alternate cover, it wouldn't be worth the 30 mile drive into the city to pay the extra $20 at a "local" store when I can get it on Amazon for about $30-ish. Now, if they let you choose which alternate cover you wanted (the banner on the In Volo's Wake website has a yuan-ti, gnoll, bugbear, and beholder along with the mind-flayer), then I would take the 30 mile drive into the city to pay $20 more if I could choose the gnoll cover. But mind flayer? Fah. Bad enough they will spend a stupid amount of page numbers on that monster (and beholders).

I will get this book (I love me some monster books), but I will "suffer" with that stupid looking giant's head shoved into Volo's space on the regular cover.


Something like this has an appeal to me. Though having such short adventures in each edition less so. Making each edition last 6 months is probably what I would do. Gives everyone long enough to get a feel for the editions, and get attached to the characters. Then, have a short gap for everyone to create the offspring of their first characters (or, depending on the races, grandchildren), advance the timeline a couple decades or so, and get everyone into the next edition.

That's how I would do it, personally. But that's me. If everyone is on board with such a campaign, I don't see why not do something like this.


I am more sad that Tabaxi and Triton are in there. Nice to see Aasimar being in there, but hopefully it isn't some lame reprint of the one in the DMG. Wish they would have included gnolls, but (according to a thread over at enworld) they said they won't be making a race write-up of gnolls because they went full "mentally challenged" with the demon-spawn aspect of gnolls and they are demonically mutated hyenas. Yet they decided to go with "medium humanoid (gnoll)" for their type, instead of "medium fiend" which makes more sense for the lore decision they went with.

Other than those 3 instances, I have no real problem with the races they chose to go with. Maybe if they didn't spend the 15-18 pages just on the flippin beholder (and who knows how many on those damned mind-flayers, which is probably somewhere around 20-25 would be my guess), they could have included more playable monster races.

Oh well.

1 to 50 of 1,165 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>