Lord of Admonition's page

True on that note whats the heaviest book you guys sell? That might work better.

Still the CRB, but you need to spend a feat to use it effectively the way you're inplying.

Must have been retconned. I referred to the original module.

Lord of Admonition wrote:

Wild Card wrote:

Sylvanite wrote:

I also prefer to play Garet Jax over Frodo Baggins, so I am with you on that front! Good luck with your game!

Ahh, The Weapons Master, my third all time favorite character, with Raistlin Majere being tied with Tasslehoff Burrfoot for first. now Raistlin is an excellent example of min maxxing.

WC

For the record, Raistlin Majere's Constitution was 10, average. The sickliness was pure roleplaying.

really? coughing up blood after spell casting was "Role Playing" ?

WC

Nothing in the rules required or even suggested. That's just what the play tester decided he wanted the character to be like.

Sylvanite wrote:

I also prefer to play Garet Jax over Frodo Baggins, so I am with you on that front! Good luck with your game!

Ahh, The Weapons Master, my third all time favorite character, with Raistlin Majere being tied with Tasslehoff Burrfoot for first. now Raistlin is an excellent example of min maxxing.

WC

For the record, Raistlin Majere's Constitution was 10, average. The sickliness was pure roleplaying.

mdt wrote:

If you don't want anything other than the Core rule book & APG at your table, then only allow those two books at your table!

I'd advise using at least Bestiary 1 as well. :P

But only for the DM!

several people wrote:

Core book... Core setting...

All of these arguments about including new races in Core rules and Core settings are completely irrelevant.

Pathfinder is not 4e. There is only one Core book and there is no Core setting. No new book that gets published in any product line counts as Core rules. If a player wants to pick character options out of any book other than the one called Core Rules, he is no longer playing a Core rules game.

Technically, you're right, but the idea that everything published by Core publisher = Core was strong in 3.5, even if it was never expressly stated, like it was in 4E. It's not official policy, but it is linked in the mind of much of the gaming public. Paizo's official stance, IIRC is that the Adventure Paths are the Flagship product, and the Pathfinder RPG exists to support that line. Therefore, PFRPG products are only created for use with the Pathfinder Campaign Setting (Golarion and related planets and planes of existence). I wonder if that's changing, considering sales volume of the RPG products.

Lord of Admonition wrote:

mdt wrote:

Then let me turn the question around. Why does it matter then, if the GM is still the final say, whether it's Paizo making a race for PF Core (not Golarion, that is a completely seperate product line, Core supports Golarion, but Golarion is different from Core) or it's a 3PP? Not that I dislike 3PP, but, in general, Paizo's standards are much higher, their artwork is better, and they are intimately familiar with both the core system as it is, and where they are heading...

I would say it's up to the 3PPs to step up their own quality, then. Dreamscarred Press seems to have done a good job with Psionics. Let's see someone take that challenge with races. Or Epic rules.

My illustration demonstrates why it matters whether Paizo does it or not.

I'm afraid I just don't agree your illustration demonstrates that Paizo shouldn't do it. It only demonstrates it if your base assumption is that only Golarion is important, and anything that doesn't exactly fit in that one world book should be verbotten.

In other words, in my opinion, your base assumption is at fault and therefore the entire argument falls apart.

Because I didn't say they shouldn't do it. From a business standpoint, they should. There's obviously a market for it. I said I don't want them to do it. Because GMs feel more pressure to allow "official" things. It's purely emotional, not logical on either the part the hypothetical GM, or myself.

Then let me turn the question around. Why does it matter then, if the GM is still the final say, whether it's Paizo making a race for PF Core (not Golarion, that is a completely seperate product line, Core supports Golarion, but Golarion is different from Core) or it's a 3PP? Not that I dislike 3PP, but, in general, Paizo's standards are much higher, their artwork is better, and they are intimately familiar with both the core system as it is, and where they are heading...

I would say it's up to the 3PPs to step up their own quality, then. Dreamscarred Press seems to have done a good job with Psionics. Let's see someone take that challenge with races. Or Epic rules.

My illustration demonstrates why it matters whether Paizo does it or not.

All in all, this just works better as a third party book. That way it remains up to me as a GM to allow Robot Cat People or not and it means Paizo doesn't have to worry about customer pressure on them to shoehorn or retcon Robot Cat People into Golarion. And of course, if it turns out Robot Cat People actually DO fit Golarion really well, nothing stops Paizo from adding high quality OGL races to their products/working out a licencing deal with the 3PP.
All of this goes out the window, of course, if Paizo decides to put a new campaign setting with its own new races together, but I rather doubt they are planning to abandon Golarion any time soon

Exactly. I would welcome a new setting with a new set of races. I don't want them to be introduced to Golarion, though.

This is, and always has been, a GM call. Saying you don't want additional races because players might feel 'entitled' to use them is basically saying that your game and desires are more important than other GM's desires to have options.

It is the responsibility of a GM to decide what races are or are not in his world, and which of those that are in the world are available as PC races. Any argument saying 'I don't want those options because someone might want to use them' is like saying 'I don't want cars to come in any color but blue because someone might buy an orange one and I hate orange'.

Expressing my preference and opinion does not mean my desires are more important. Only that my opinion counts too. Regarding blue Vs orange cars? I didn't say I hate anything Don't put words in my mouth.

But to illustrate what I'm getting at, let's consider a pair of races that have both been labels with the word hate. If I express a desire to play a kender, I'm a lot more likely to be shot down that if I want to play a gnome. Both cause fits in some circles, but I'm more likely to get turned down for the kender than the gnome. That's the pressure a GM, who I understand perfectly gets "final call", faces.

That's why I prefer to see alternate races be handled by 3PPs. A GM is equally within his rights to accept or decline these races as he see fit, and if one seems to be especially appropriate for Golarion, Paizo might even adopt them via the Open Gaming License.

Well, there are 60 +2/+2/-2 combos of stats, so there might be a place for more races. A lot of people like playing unusual races.

And there are a lot of race ideas out there that don't fit the standard Tolkienesque 7. A lot of people like catfolk, or other animal-headed folk. Some like dragon-kin. Some like planar halfbreeds (aasimar, tiefling, various elemental-kin, etc. etc.), rogue modrons, and the various gith-folk. Some people like cactus-folk, frog-folk, and beetle-faced-folk. Some like half-giants, thri-kreen, and half-dwarves. Some like shifters, changelings, and living constructs. Some like goliaths, raptorans, and illumians.

The trouble is, there are just as many players who don't want them, or at least not all of them. I lose the ability to suspend disbelief when humans disappear among the all the oddball races. I think it would be interesting to see alternate campaigns with a different set of racial options. Monte Cook did something like this with his Arcana Evolved Diamond Throne setting, and I think it was well done. I thought a campaign like Eberron that had just the Eberron races, instead of adding them to the classic mix, would have been more interesting. An Egyptian themed campaign with anthro races worshipping gods like Anubis and Bast would be cool. I wouldn't mind seeing a game with all planetouched.

I fear that with a product like this in the core line, too many players feel entitled to, and too many DMs feel obligated to allow every race in every campaign, and the flavor of a setting in this way gets diluted.

So you are saying this would have been better in the advice forum? or homebrew?

Greg

I have said what I have said. These are your words, not mine. Do not try to assign to me what are your own thoughts.

There is no Level Adjustment in Pathfinder. The creatures in the Bestiaries are meant as opponents, not player options.

Did you ask your DM? Unless you're in Organized play, that's your first and last stop.