I wish I had something to contribute other than saying thanks for creating this thorough thread, DMW. It is greatly appreciated. I am mostly a lurker haha - and am not savvy enough to truly dig through the material and make constructive comments like everyone else is doing - so it is a treat getting to read through all this. :) Cheers! - D.B.
In addition to my page 13 and page 23 examples, I would like to add that Grimcleaver brought up a good point in the thread I linked above. The Half-Elf and Half-Orc Ancestry Feats are scattered throughout the Human Ancestry Feats, which 1) makes it difficult to navigate and 2) really contributes to the feeling of these two races being diluted into an afterthought (for me). Again, it would be nice if - like in PF1e's Core Rulebook - Humans, Half-Elves and Half-Orcs each got their own dedicated page. - D.B.
Hey, staticPF, there is actually a conversation going on about this very topic in this thread here if you are interested. :) Your thread gets the cool factor, though, because you got Vic Wertz to post on yours haha. Yes, the blog post is definitely official. Jason Bulmahn is the Director of Game Design for Pathfinder. He's about as official as you get haha. I do agree with you, though, that I dearly wish my beloved Half-Elves and Half-Orcs received a more attentive treatment than simply taking a feat as a Human to be one. It seems punitive and ill-thought, but from reading the blog post, it seems like they are using this as a basis for creating a myriad of other half-races down the line with supplement books (Aasimars and Tieflings are obviously mentioned). It's... interesting I'll agree, but it just doesn't feel right, which is about the weakest argument one could make. Although I am upset about this treatment, I need to actually roll up a Half-Elf and Half-Orc and play around with them at the table. On paper, though, they look and feel ramrodded to me. I think - for myself - I would be able to swallow this new approach easier if each the Half-Elf and Half-Orc had their own dedicated pages in the Playtest Rulebook like all the other races do rather than being relegated to a footnote on both page 13 (Table 1-1) and 23 (the portraits). Cheers! - D.B.
@Grimcleaver: Thank you for reading my post! I deeply appreciate it. I know I name-checked you, so it is cool that you took the time to read what I wrote and respond. My fear - after having submitted - was that I may have sounded too combative. Hopefully this response can dispel that. I appreciate your opinion (specifically your comment stating that "[it] isn't a matter of [you] thinking half-elves and half-orcs shouldn't exist..."). I perhaps was a bit too zealous upon reading your initial comment haha. I appreciate your argument regarding the lore, though. I still take umbrage with the fact that Goblins get a seat at the "core" table while the Half-Elves and Half-Orcs are relegated to the kids' table. However, this is my personal belief and feelings toward the game and I know everyone will not share that - which is a good thing! :) @Sean R: Wow. Thank you for the initial post you made. It was very eloquent and it certainly captures a portion of my own feelings as well. Regarding your second post, I believe I am following along, but you hit the nail on the head with the concept of "the other." It is why I like playing the half-races as well. Not in order to play the trope of the "special snowflake" per se, but in order for me - as a player - to experience the catharsis that comes with being "the other" that has badass powers and agency and purpose in a high-powered world of swords and sorcery. I remember at PaizoCon in Seattle some years back there was a workshop with some of the Paizo brains and it centered around their push for inclusivity within the gaming community, namely LGBT gamers and persons of color gamers. It was really cool, engaging and as someone who feels "other" it was liberating to hear their sincerity. Now, I do not doubt their sincerity here, but I do agree with you wholeheartedly, Sean R., when you say: "To see them treated this way... makes me feel unhappy." Granted, for anyone else who reads this, I do not mean to come across like I am trying to push my agenda on the game while standing on my soapbox. Far from it. Attempting to legislate this kind of stuff in a game can be off-putting and I do not condone virtue signaling . I guess when something like playing a Half-Elf or Half-Orc feels so personal for close to twenty years of tabletop gaming for me now, it is "heartbreaking" to feel like your chosen shtick in a game is getting shirked. I will admit that once I actually get the chance to play this, perhaps I will discover that they are not getting bottom-shelved. However, the presentation thus far leads me to believe that they are an afterthought. Anyway, thank you, both, again for responding! It means a lot. :) Cheers! - D.B.
I believe this to have already been settled, but to the OP (John Mucchiello) I believe dragonhunterq is spot on. Here's all the pertaining text : Ancestry feats that have the heritage trait are feats that your character can select only at 1st level ... Your character can never have more than one heritage feat. Whether instinctively, through study, or through a mystic sense, you feel a deeper connection to your ancestry than most of those who share that ancestry. You gain a level-1 ancestry feat. Given the language of Ancestral Paragon, I do not believe this feat to affect Heritage Feats whatsoever. The specific-overrides-general section (under the Game Conventions heading on page 299) does not apply to Ancestry Feats with the Heritage tag. Perhaps I've just been spoiled all these years, but it is disappointing that races (ancestries now) no longer receive a blanket of benefits. To use Dwarves as an example, you have to choose between things like Hardy, Stonecunning and Weapon Familiarity at 1st-Level as opposed to just receiving those benefits for simply being a dwarf. Perhaps, when in play, it is more rewarding to feel like you have customized your dwarf with these options or perhaps I have played 3.X and Pathfinder for so long now that anything less than all the options feels lackluster. Lastly, to echo Crayon, the Heritage tag on some of these feats do seem slightly arbitrary. Apologies if I'm going off-topic here. Cheers! - D.B.
Haldo, Everyone! I just downloaded the Playtest PDF and this is the first forum I sought out. I am deeply curious as to others' impressions because the treatment of Half-Elves and Half-Orcs caught me off guard. I feel they are getting the short end of the stick in this current iteration of the rules.
Here are my thoughts and concerns:
Thank you for reading, everyone. It is fun posting on here. :) Cheers! - D.B.
@KitsuneWarlock: To echo what everyone else has said, here is a link to the Quick Draw feat. It explicitly states in the text: "A character who has selected this feat may throw weapons at his full normal rate of attacks (much like a character with a bow)." As a DM, the way I rule it at my table, is that with this feat you can make as many thrown weapon attacks as your attack limit permits (i.e. BAB + Quick Draw + TWF + ITWF, etc. etc.). I know the hangup is on the free action bit (I think?), but because it's rather feat-intensive (as Ectar pointed out), it seems silly to nerf thrown weapon users. It has great flavor and is really underused IMO, so have it I say! :) Hopefully that is of some help :3 Cheers!
Hey, Arassuil: Not too long ago I posted in a thread similar to this. There was another player asking for Cleric advice concerning the Carrion Crown Adventure Path. I've DMed this campaign before for my table. Haunts are introduced in this AP and they can be a real pain. Channeling is a very effective way of handling them along with the plethora of undead enemies you fight throughout each book, so here is what I recommended: "I always thought it would be fun to play a cleric in Carrion Crown with the Glory Domain and the Sun Domain in conjunction with the Improved Channel feat and the Sacred Conduit trait. Glory grants you a +2 to your channel DC when channeling to harm undead and Sun doesn't allow undead to use their channel resistance against you (Sun also allows you to add your cleric level to your damage when you channel to harm undead!). Combine those two domains with the Improved Channel feat and the Sacred Conduit trait. You're now adding a +5 to your channel DC when channeling to harm undead, stripping them of their channel resistance, and you're adding your cleric level to damage. I admit it's a bit gimmicky, but it's just icing on the cleric cake as your progress through the campaign. It would just be one facet of a very utilitarian cleric." My PCs found channeling to be very useful. The fun with this is that it's just a single feature of an overall well-rounded support Cleric, so it's not like you're a one-trick channeling pony. And, since it's a 3-person party, channeling to heal will be a definite boon. Also, yes, there are many xenophobes in this campaign, so it would be beneficial to have a Cleric with a decent Charisma score. :) Hopefully this helps somewhat :3 Cheers, Mate!
Hey, Third Mind:
Concerning your friend's starting skeleton, the stat block you have listed is rather absurd to say the least. For ease of reference I listed some of the necessary information below (the bold is mine for emphasis):
Undead Lord Archetype - Ultimate Magic Skeleton Stat Block - Bestiary 1 Zombie State Block - Bestiary 1 Your buddy gets either the listed skeleton or the listed zombie from the Bestiary. This means his corpse companion does not benefit from your PCs' 25 point-buy. So, whatever those stat blocks say (which are listed just above) is what his corpse companion receives. In addition, his companion only has its one starting feat - Improved Initiative (Skeleton) or Toughness (Zombie) - and cannot add feats such as Point-Blank Shot and Precise Shot to the list (his corpse companion is not a PC with levels in a class; it simply has HD). Plus, the bloody quality cannot be applied to his corpse companion at first level because that would increase his corpse companion's HD past half his cleric level. Also, reference what Pizza Lord had to say about some of those wonky numbers concerning the CMD and the tower shield. (A tower shield requires a proficiency feat that a skeleton or zombie does not have access to.) Questions: How did he add extra feats to his skeleton? How did he add the bloody quality to his skeleton? How did his skeleton achieve better stats than PCs? How did his skeleton achieve such customized starting gear? What is a "Blood Orc"? What is a "Herald Skeleton"? Ask these questions and have him cite his sources. Are you allowing 3rd party material during their character creation? This could explain some of my confusion as to what all he has listed here (as I'm not familiar with most 3rd party publishers)... Also, remember there is an 8-hour ritual he must perform in order to summon his corpse companion. In summation, read what everyone else has contributed as well; there is a lot of good information for you and your friend to gestate in order to get this corpse companion on track! I hope the dungeon is a blast :) Cheers!
Sorry, I just needed to test out this Smurf business... EDIT: This is great.
As a DM I learned that saying "yes, and..." to all of my players' choices created a much better gaming experience at the table. This is in opposition to saying "yes, but..." or flat-out "no" to the players.
Something I learned early on as a DM (and as a PC far less often...*sniffle*) is that just because a combat encounter isn't "difficult" does not mean that the players are not having fun, or are not immersed, or are not feeling the tension in the story. I recognize that my friends are all power-gamers. That's how they enjoy the game. So, when I prep for them I know they'll find creative and dominant ways to handle the combats. But, they like that domination, which in turn means I like that domination because they're enjoying the game I'm writing. () I say let your player stack his archetypes and let him min-mix the hell outta dat character (as long as it adheres to the RAW). He's only one PC in a group. Especially with multiple enemies, difficult terrains, and extenuating circumstances and dangers, even min-maxers need the group dynamic to succeed. "Dealing with him" might be the wrong mindset to approach it with as that is an antagonistic point of view. "How to approach him" or "How to communicate with him" will prove a better path. P.S. However, if he's "fighting" you over rules consistently that's not good, but a lot of times that derives from the fact that someone feels they're not getting a fair shake.
Hey, Yizzik Uhari: Here are my favorite odd-ball races: 1. I love me some Androids (Blade Runner!). I got the opportunity to play Roy Batty essentially in the Iron Gods AP. I role-played that Empathy feat so hard! () 2. I'm also particularly fond of Dhampirs as I'm a real sucker () for vampires and horror. Not the ones who sparkle in the sunlight, though... 3. Lastly, a shout-out to the Drow. Descending into the Underdark in Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn and Drizzt Do'Urden really sealed the deal for me. I have yet to play one in a campaign, though - they're just too good :3
I'm not sure if it's customary (or common courtesy on the boards here) to specifically reply to (or thank) posters who respond to you, but... Thank you MeanMutton, Purple Dragon Knight, and CBDunkerson for your helpful replies and suggestions! I greatly appreciate it :3 I'll have a dialogue with my friends about testing out some of these ideas and see if they work for us. @thorin001: Because! There is such great pleasure in just playin' with yourself sometimes... |
