AlBeddow's page

GM Lamplighter wrote:

OK, the obvious question: can characters of Core Campaign and regular PFS sit at the same table to play?

EDIT: Ninja'd!

No, the reporting system cant handle a mix. It was the only downside of this initiative and one I can live with.

Additionally, one of the goals of Core Campaign is to make running games easier for new GMs. A mixed table defeats the purpose of that goal.

Thank you for the clarification, although it took me a while to find all this info on the new Core campaign. I was particularly interested in a ruling on mixing core/standard pfs chars at a table as our local VL and the coordinator at one store (the VL's spouse have been running mixed tables and saying it was ok.

I'd like to know why PCs never go to the bathroom.

Magic or not, don't people still have to poop in Pathfinder?
Why aren't there any stats for this?

Sure, getting less than 8 hours of sleep may cause fatigue, but what about holding your bowels INDEFINITELY? Seems unhealthy...

It's hard to imagine Seoni popping a squat behind some bushes, but I'm sure it happens.

At the time we had all these castles and such, people either used outhouses... or chamber pots (now there's a job I wouldn't want).

So now the question is, where were they all emptied?

Mmmokay, I understand your thinking, but where in the OGL or in the PHB does it say that?

I've already posted the answer to this in the thread "Racial Hits and Misses".

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/feedback/alpha1/racesClasses/racialHitsMissesThoughts

Al , upon further thought I think you are taking to much stock in the fact that humans are considered norm.

Most likely the mental and physical comparisons are made to humans because of the fact that we can actually visualize/relate to these comparisions.

Also, for every fantasy reference to humans being the norm, they're just as many that state humans are fast learners, innovative, hardy, etc. All of this is supported by mechanics that offer extra skills, feats, etc.

Also, since this is a game, you have to offer the human player something or else there would be no incentive beyond roleplaying (which, admittedly is fine for some) to play a human. I would argue that the racial mechanics are a large part of the draw for any given race.

Again, I agree with you on the fact that the humans should not have the ability adjustment, but for different reasons.

Thanks for bringing up your concerns here as well, I am interested in what others may have to say 'bout humans.

I appreciate your views and we are similar. I agree that with the way gamers typically want bonuses, to be better than the norm as much as possible, humans have to have something going for them.

So I offer these points into the discussion:

Humans are fast learners, hardy, etc. and yes players need a reason to choose them. Or, the other races are not as fast learners as Humans, or aren't as strong, etc.

As for my saying 'humans are the norm', look through out the D&D books. All through it things are explained as "better than humans". For a quick example look at low light vision. The description states it 'allows a character to see twice as far as a human in light'.

So, by in a few items the authors give humans a bonus, as opposed to making the other races have a negative, they make humans 'more attractive' because they have plusses.

That is why I suggested that instead of giving Humans "extra stuff", they get X and the other races get X-1 or X+1.

For example.
You can say characters get TWO feats at first level, and then "but Dwarves, Elfs, Halflings" only get one feat at first level.
AND
Rouges get 9+Int skill points at each level (times four at first level), but Dwarves, Elfs, Halflings get -1 skill point at each level (-4 at first level).

These say the exact same thing but treating races as being LESSER than the norm and such.

The way I see it is that something has to be what everything else is compared to. It can be elves or dwarves or whatever. THAT race gets no bonuses or adjustments and everyone else gets bonuses/negatives in relation to it.

In my examples above, the non-humans seem to have LOTS of negatives compared to humans which should make humans very attractive. It's all a matter of consistency in how it all is presented.

The problem is that, players who really favor a non-human race could easily choose to see this as "boy they are really screwing over the non-humans just to make people want to play humans" even though that is NOT what is being done.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT: If Humans are not the norm which all other races are measured against, what race is the norm? For what race is a 10-11 in all stats normal, the average, the baseline from which everything else is measured?

AlBeddow wrote:

Ok, what part of "Humans are the 'norm' all other races are measured against" don't people get.

I do not know where you got this from. Can you give me a page # in the PHB or DMG?

PHB:

CH 3 RACES.
pg 12, table 2-1 Racial Ability Adjustments. Humans and half-elves have no adjustments.

PG 14 DWARVES, Physical Description: ..."are so broad and compact that, on average, they are almost as heavy as humans" (stated as their average is just under the average for humans).

PG 16 ELVES, Racial traits: "+2 dex -2 con. Elves are graceful but frail." (frail compared to who? Humans have an average Con 10-11, elves have an average con of 8-9.

I could keep looking for more references, but (without digging out my collection of first ed books) Humans were described as the norm.

Also, consider just about every fantasy game out there. If there are 'racial templates/modifiers' with both humans and non-human races, it is Humans who have no modifiers. Another race might have no modifiers and usually are then described as "hearty as humans, intelligent as humans" etc.

I think that Humans should get something to compensate for nearly every other race recieving a bonus to Keen Senses, I was thinking a +2 bonus to two or three skills of the character/player's choice.

As I said in a related thread: what part of "Humans are the 'norm' all other races are measured against" don't people get.

Giving humans a modifier to any stat is basically stupid. I mean, how do you give a modifier to the norm? "Oh he's what we measure against, but he gets to increase his strength because compared to himself his stronger." See how that sounds?

I'm not even all that crazy about the "humans learn faster than the other races so they get +1 skill point at each level (+4 at 1st level)." Saying "humans learn faster" means "all non-humans learn slower than the norm". So the non-human races should have a -1 skill point at each level (-4 at 1st level), which is keeping with the concept of humans being the norm, the baseline, what all other races are measured against.

Human: Incredibly varied in personality.

Ability Mods: +2 to any 1 ability score.

Ok, what part of "Humans are the 'norm' all other races are measured against" don't people get.

Giving humans a modifier to any stat is basically stupid. I mean, how do you give a modifier to the norm? "Oh he's what we measure against, but he gets to increase his strength because compared to himself his stronger." See how that sounds?

I'm not even all that crazy about the "humans learn faster than the other races so they get +1 skill point at each level (+4 at 1st level)." Saying "humans learn faster" means "all non-humans learn slower than the norm". So the non-human races should have a -1 skill point at each level (-4 at 1st level), which is keeping with the concept of humans being the norm, the baseline, what all other races are measured against.

I agree with this. The Lawful Good and Lawful Good-only paladin has been a staple of D&D since the very first supplement to OD&D in 1975 (yes, yes, it was just Lawful back then, but the point stands). Indeed, the alignment restriction is one of the most iconic elements of the class. To change it is to turn one's back on tradition and I thought part of the point of Pathfinder was to stay true to the 30+ years of accumulated story.

Here's some thoughts:

Overall, while yes I want D&D to stay D&D, holding on to something that (at least to me) was so horribly wrong to begin with just because "it's iconic/always been that way" is just as bad as "change for the sake of change"

That being said, if I may add my thoughts on the "Paladin":
1) Make it so the Paladin is NOT required to be LG. I mean why can't non-LG deities have holy warriors.

2) Consider making this a PrC/Expert Class for all alignments, particularly making it where their diety has to call them to this 'class'. This is what I did in my campaign patterning it after the main character Bazel in the David Webber books "Oath of Swords", "War Gods Own", and "Wind Rider's Oath". In this series the gods choose their champions (paladins) and they don't have to come from the "Knights" of that diety, but can be (in 4th ed terms) "unaligned"

If you haven't read these books then get them, at least the first one, and see how well this concept can work. It was great in my campaign.

How many people honestly take wizard at level 1 when they decide play a 10/10 rogue/wizard? I bet almost none! The 8x4 skill points as a first level rogue and 6 hit points over 4 are far to huge a bonus to ignore.

In my 3.x campaign, the only way anyone can take levels in Barbarian or Wizard is to take that class at char creation.

Why?
Well, for one you learn to be civilized, not learn to e barbaric.
Another thing is the training that goes into becoming a wizard. Controlled situation, years and years of study, etc. You don't just get OJT while adventuring and come out a wizard (especially if there ain't one in the party to train you while adventuring).

So, thanks to that the only 10 Rouge/10 Wizards I've had started out as a Wizard...

While I'm going to be buying up 4th ed, I am glad to be one of the folks excited about Paizo's efforts towards an improved 3.x

Thanks for the Alpha playtest.

I'm tired of hearing about "not wanting to loose my investment in 3rd ed".

WTF did people do when they ran like lemmings on crack to 3rd ed when it was released? every thing they had (except for the fluff parts) went out the door in the change to 3rd ed.

Enough! Ok we get it, you've spent a ton of money buying every damm thing WotC put out for 3rd ed and now don't want to have to learn another mechanic.

GET

OVER

IT!

Simply put...

Kill the focus on "power combos" with mechanics that force roleplaying...

The only thinking the average player does on "character concept" DURING creation is "gee, what path do I want to take to making this character an overpowered breaking of the rules".

Hackmaster did one hell of a job of of putting needing a concept into character generation. Yes the system can be min-maxed,etc. but you ha to think more about what you wanted the character to be when deciding to re-doo a roll and such.

Here's some thoughts:

1) Make it so the Paladin is NOT required to be LG. I mean why can't non-LG deities have holy warriors.

2) Consider making this a PrC/Expert Class for all alignments, particularly making it where their diety has to call them to this 'class'. This is what I did in my campaign patterning it after the main character Bazel in the David Webber books "Oath of Swords", "War Gods Own", and "Wind Rider's Oath". In this series the gods choose their champions (paladins) and they don't have to come from the "Knights" of that diety, but can be (in 4th ed terms) "unaligned"

If you haven't read these books then get them, at least the first one, and see how well this concept can work. It was great in my campaign.

I think this is a great idea. One thing the 3x DMGs left out is how magic items affected CR...

Personally, I've already sold off most of my 3.x books. I've kept my leather bound core, plus Spell Compendium, Frostburn, Sandstorm, Cityscape and Dungeonscape and that's it.

While I liked the options in the class/race books, I've never ever cared for the Eberron Races, Goliaths, Illuminarians, at what not. Stupid Stupid Stupid is all I have to say about all of them.

BUT, I am excited about the possibilities offered by 3.75/3P. Fix what's broken, I can handle some conversion. I mean I've been doing it with 1st ed adventures since 3rd first came out (and on with 3.5)

Every time a new 3.x book came out all I saw was an increase in PC power levels through both stronger races and uber classes. Let Paizo take 3rd ed back to it's roots while fixing the problems that existed even after the 3.5 core books came out.