For me, the new hobgoblins looks less /capable/, less "lawful", and less virile in general. I, personally, prefer an artistic portrayal of a robust, vigorous, athletic creature seeming more aligned with an organized, disciplined, militaristic culture.
The new hobgoblin, IMO, looks more feral, raw, chaotic, and liable to "go off" at any point. I think they could make fine creatures in their own right, just not what I picture being a hobgoblin.
Personally, I agree. For me, the P2E artistic portrayal of hobgoblins is probably my least favorite, going all the way back to AD&D and the 1st edition monster manual.
Am I alone in this feeling? I hope not.
You are certainly not alone, and some of us, after having evaluated 2E, are sticking with 1E. For me, I'm picking nuggets of goodness from 2E to include in my 1E play, without converting to 2E, which didn't quite get things right - despite a few improvements (yet many drawbacks) - from my perspective. Instead, if I find any scenarios or adventures I like in 2E, I'll be back-converting to 1E.
Not /yet/ but my fingers are crossed. They were showing off their digital globe and I suggested that they produce a real, physical globe and if so, I'd buy one. A number of others indicated they would as well. Seems like a fun, niche, product that hardcore fans would love to use and perhaps show off. All that said, it's 100% wishful thinking on my part at this point.
David knott 242 wrote:
Agree! As I mentioned in Twitch chat, I'd buy a physical Golarion globe if they produced and sold one or partnered with a company that did.
David knott 242 wrote:
Not for us. Think of the children...the children!
Richard Lowe wrote:
It all sounds fantastic, but cool as the rest of the info is I can't wait to see more fiction from Liane Merciel, can she just write PF horror novels and sourcebooks forever? (Or at least for as long as she's interested anyways!)
Hear hear! We need to quest to procure her a sun orchid elixir, or perhaps lovingly leave behind a pamphlet on her desk detailing the secrets to achieving lichdom. Failing that, we can just insist she take and pass the Test of the Starstone.
Exciting preview! Looking forward to adventuring in the turbulent, mystery-infested High Seas. As usual, the art in mostly excellent. I especially like the artwork of the Kraken preparing for dinner, and the superb citadel of the Red Mantis. Have to say, not particularly a fan of the Tessa art myself, and to me, doesn't really fit with the style of the others.
Steve Geddes wrote:
*radiates Aura of Wholehearted Agreement*
Nice overview of the Broken Lands and excellent illustrations (which I vastly prefer to the anime style). The top few especially reflect the "feel" of this region, while the topmost illustrates that beauty can yet exist amidst the scarred terrain of these lands.
Look forward to further Lost Omens blogs.
More stereotyping? For example, I know a number of individuals others would consider wealthy who have the ability to focus on higher-order activities in life, such as fighting against blatant stereotyping of historically disadvantaged minorities in the US.
Your comment may be amusing, but isn't accurate.
Women can become liches too, Staffan.
I'm not sure he's implying that they can't, and thus, you likely shouldn't infer such.
Would a female lich's breasts long since have decomposed, obviating the need for such a breastplate? Likely so, but perhaps not.
In-game, you could say that the female lich maintained an emotional attachment to her armor worn while living or that this particular breastplate is imbued with such potent magicks that the lich retains it even though the form it takes is not necessary.
Dividing it into two fields adds more granularity and increases the possible variables, thereby giving more player options. Superior outcome IMO.
Another thing to add is that with the heritage update Ancestry choice isn't just about "Dwarf" or "Elf" but you also define as part of that option whether you are dwarf whose family hails from the desert, or from an important noble line. Ancestry combines both race and more specifically "who your parents/grand parents/great grand parents" were.
What would be far cooler, IMO, would be to have /both/ race and ancestry. You choose your race then choose an ancestry (ethnic and geographical background) within that race.
"Ancestry" is a "real world term" as well, so by your logic, that is equally as inaccurate.
The term "race" has been used without issue in fantasy gaming for decades and is highly recognizable. The term "race" is also used FAR more inaccurately in RL every day (tune in to CNN, MSNBC, etc.) to witness the term misused to refer to human ethnicities.
Ancestry is indeed a cool-sounding term and would be far more accurately used to refer to ancestries within distinct races or species.
Changing "race" to "ancestry" in the PF2 playtest was a solution in search of a problem.
Agreed. Through playtest, I and my various groups (30+ players) referred to "ancestry" as "race". The most common reaction to PF changing the term during the playtest was eye-rolling and head-shaking.
We all would do well to remember the differences between fantasy and reality.
Merryweather Stokes is head of the Kitharodian Academy. It is THE place to study and learn all things Bard in the Inner Seas. It is also how you gain access to Master Performer and Grandmaster Performer feats.
Thanks, Voodist. I can obviously just create personas on my own, such as "Lizander, Lutemaster of Caliphas", but I was wondering if anyone had already done such a thing.
Good to know about the Kitharodian Academy and Merryweather Stokes though!
No, it isn't a trend, unless you are defining a trend as something spanning millenia. The fact that some people are doing it now doesn't make it a trend, given that authors and individuals have been doing it for thousands of years. It's something that started long, long ago, and simply has continued, because it plays on deep, visceral fears of mankind spanning back to prehistoric days. That's not a trend.
I can actually think of a number of authors who have portrayed dark as leaning towards good and light towards evil in recent memory, Steven Erikson among them.
Sounds like an awesome module! Can't wait.
However, equating darkness with evil is not new, is not a trend, and derives from mankind's fear of the unknown and what it cannot see. When something is shrouded in darkness or shadows, you aren't sure what could be there, and the imagination begins to race, often leading to fear.
Completely disagree. In order for success to be meaningful in an RPG, the possibility of negative outcomes needs to be possible. Finding a viable solution to a negative outcome can lead to a fun role-playing opportunity. I've seen it time and again in my games. Character is left without anything to do? Have a spare character on hand to play, or take over an NPC/retainer. Or take your lumps, cheer on your mates, and help strategize.
Threats have to truly be threats to be meaningful, and to make overcoming them rewarding.
Mark Moreland wrote:
Mark, I'm looking over the pledge options. Question for you - what will be portrayed on the "rare exclusive Pathfinder t-shirt..."?
Good rule Mark.
I'm not interested in debating the definition of a slang term that is defined differently depending on which random webpage you happen to be on. The very fact that "stripperific" contains the word "stripper" within it means that the object it refers to is related to a stripper in some form or fashion. So by the very nature of the word, stripperific accuses the object of looking like a stripper.
And no, just because some random webpage contains a definition of the term does not make it codified. I can create a webpage with a definition too. :)
By the way, multiple random webpage sources contain different definitions of the word. For instance, both Urban Dictionary and Definithing contain this definition, which is very similar to mine: "something that is equal to the feeling of watching a stripper."
I rest my case.
It's 2018 and women should be able to wear revealing clothing without being accused of looking like strippers or prostitutes. That's insulting to our collective intelligences. The fact that some here seem to want women to "cover up" smacks of prudishness and religious judgmentalism.
Seoni's outfit is nothing like that of any stripper I've ever seen, and yes, to many, it may be sexy, and is certainly revealing.
However, it is certainly not impractical as, again, a character with access to magic both high and mundane need not "cover up" or conform to the desires or stereotypes of others. As well, Seoni's outfit in the statuette is not indicative of the clothing she would wear in any circumstance, at any time. It's an extremely practical outfit, allowing Seoni comfort, breath-ability, and freedom of movement for effective somatic casting.
Seoni looks great, just the way she is, and doesn't need to change a thing.
Again, there is no codified meaning for "stripperific" as it's a slang term and somewhat subjective.
The term was used in a derogative sense here, as if something is wrong with the way the character is portrayed and implying that female fantasy characters should "cover up".
I've never seen a stripper wear clothing like Seoni's and it doesn't make me think of stripping in the least. Saying something is "stripperific" is clearly a reference to strippers, meaning that the clothing is something a stripper would wear or reminds the user of stripping.
It's 2018 and women are free to wear what they will, feeling comfortable and secure in their bodies, without being accused of looking like strippers.
And no, Seoni's clothing is not impractical in the least. For someone with access to both mundane and powerful magic, dressing in revealing clothing is not impractical at all. So even using your definition, it's not "stripperific", it's simply revealing.
Glenn Elliott wrote:
We went through several iterations to arrive at the final dress, and modified it to be a little more modest in the process. This is 1st edition Seoni, though, not 2nd edition, so we tried to strike a balance.
Thanks Glenn, it looks great. Hopefully, there is room at Paizo to depict individuals in Golarion who are both modest and immodest, of all genders.
"Stripperific" is a slang term, and does not have a codified meaning. It's subjective, and certainly reasonable to assume that it could mean "like a stripper would wear".
Revealing, sexy clothing is not necessarily impractical AT ALL for a female with the weight of high magic behind her. Quite the contrary. Seoni is not a martial character, in case you forgot.
Nothing about her outfit makes me think of a stripper. Sure, it's sexy and revealing, but plenty of people who have nothing to do with stripping wear sexy and revealing clothing. Nothing wrong with that at all.
A fictional character, really??? Who knew! Thanks for the help. :)
It's not a "stripperific outfit" because we have no evidence of strippers in Golarion wearing outfits like Seoni's.
Nice, but I would've preferred the new not-stripperific outfit
Not a stripperific outfit. It's the outfit of someone who is comfortable with herself and her body, seeing no need to conform to the prudish instincts of some in society, and who knows she can magically defend herself against any who would seek to take advantage.
I'm still REALLY hoping Resonance gets dropped completely. Too many pools, too much bookkeeping, and too many headaches for it to be worth my time. When I sit down at the table, I want to play a game, not do algebra.
Completely agree - resonance is a monkey on the system's back, dragging it down. It detracts from every PF2 playtest game I've participated in, and the system would be cleaner, simpler, more fun, and simply better without it in my opinion as a long time player/GM of PF1.