Fey Creature

Malachandra's page

Organized Play Member. 260 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 260 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Fumarole wrote:

Am I the only DM who asks players to make saving throws when there is nothing to save against? Sure, they don't know the roll is mechanically meaningless, but do it often enough that they're not quite sure which rolls are real and which are fake and the metagaming decreases dramatically.

Player paranoia does increase for a bit, though, especially if you just ask for their modifier and make a secret roll. This helps greatly in games where the players being paranoid is more immersive, such as in horror games/situations.

That's interesting, I may have to try it sometime. How often do you ask for saving throws? I normally would tell the players what they are saving against (i.e. save against poison) so they can add any conditional modifiers. Do you have them roll randomly against poison, or mind-affects, or whatever? Do your players like this system (assuming they've played in games where the GM hasn't done this)?


Isaac Zephyr wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

“Hey Jim what’s your elf’s Perception modifier?”

“+3, why?”
Rolls dice behind a screen “No reason.”
“I have Assurance in Perception if that matters.”
“It doesn’t.”
“I’m just going to go check this wall for secret doors.”
“Why?”
“No reason.”
Anyway secret rolls either force the GM to keep a copy of player sheets behind the screen or there’s no point to secret rolls to prevent metagaming.

OK, so first, this situation is a moot point. I've never done perception checks in secret. They have to verbally attempt something before I make a secret check. Even if they have been afflicted with a poison they are unaware of, I don't make their save in secret. I do secret checks when they want to do something, but it doesn't make narrative sense for them to know how well they did at it. What you are thinking of is Passive Perception from 5e. Very different from what is being discussed here.
Additionally, Passive Perception from 5e also doesn't work that way. Passive Perception uses the same framework as the new Playtest skill DC system, it's 10 plus your modifier. This makes it something the GM generally needs to have written down to keep game flow, not a roll that gets done in secret.

Gotcha, I wasn't aware of that. That makes more sense.

Either way, Dudemeister's example is moot because Pathfinder doesn't do Perception checks in secret. At my table, if a player asks to look around a room, they get a Perception check. Otherwise, they miss the secret door.


DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

I spoke to my players about this aspect of the game, and the answer I got from them was:

"But I want to roll my dice..."

See, the thing is, it's also not about "but metagaming", it's also about what's fun. Rolling dice is fun.

I'd be fine with the players rolling their own dice, just as long as they don't know the result. Sometimes a character just shouldn't know how well they did at something. It should definitely be about what's fun, but for me breaking immersion and suspense is not fun.
Then the check is not secret.

If the part I bolded doesn't make it secret, I don't know what makes a check secret. We might be on very different pages here.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Also the people who are: "If I know that I rolled low on a stealth check then I'll just do something else."

I don't get that argument at all. You rolled the dice. You committed the action.

I know it's not a rule in the book, but the basic rules of make pretend are ancient and universal:

No Takesies Backsies.

Absolutely, but that still leaves the other half of the choice I don't want to force my players into. Now they have to move forward with a bad roll, knowing that they have already failed. And with Stealth or Disguise, it could require some role playing before they even get to the point where that failure is evident. That's not a fun situation to force my players into.
Making failure interesting is half the game. Let your players relish in failure, let them enjoy dramatic irony, give them the opportunity to describe their own failure. Giving players narrative control over their failures makes the game more fun for everyone at the table.

You're moving the goalposts here. I do make failure interesting. I just don't make it needlessly frustrating ;) I give them chances to describe their failures, I just don't put them in a situation where they know they have already failed, then force them to roleplay through multiple encounters/situations as though they haven't. I don't think that's fun. They don't think that's fun. Secret checks simply don't take away a player's narrative control over their failures.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

“Hey Jim what’s your elf’s Perception modifier?”

“+3, why?”
Rolls dice behind a screen “No reason.”
“I have Assurance in Perception if that matters.”
“It doesn’t.”
“I’m just going to go check this wall for secret doors.”
“Why?”
“No reason.”
Anyway secret rolls either force the GM to keep a copy of player sheets behind the screen or there’s no point to secret rolls to prevent metagaming.

OK, so first, this situation is a moot point. I've never done perception checks in secret. They have to verbally attempt something before I make a secret check. Even if they have been afflicted with a poison they are unaware of, I don't make their save in secret. I do secret checks when they want to do something, but it doesn't make narrative sense for them to know how well they did at it. What you are thinking of is Passive Perception from 5e. Very different from what is being discussed here.

For actual secret checks, I don't have to know any of my players' stats. If they want to try to sneak into a campsite, they tell me their Stealth bonus. I roll it. That's it. They track all of their modifiers, situational or otherwise (which I trust them to track truthfully) and just tell me a number to add to the d20. It doesn't happen often, but when it does it adds to the narrative.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

I follow a lot of posts from Paizo staff, and the number of times I've seen either James Jacobs or Vic Wertz reply something to the effect of "That's really great feedback. Here's why we did it this way, but we'll have to keep thinking about it." is very encouraging. Hopefully everyone else is taking some much needed vacation this week, but I'm sure their responses will come soon.


DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

I spoke to my players about this aspect of the game, and the answer I got from them was:

"But I want to roll my dice..."

See, the thing is, it's also not about "but metagaming", it's also about what's fun. Rolling dice is fun.

I'd be fine with the players rolling their own dice, just as long as they don't know the result. Sometimes a character just shouldn't know how well they did at something. It should definitely be about what's fun, but for me breaking immersion and suspense is not fun.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Also the people who are: "If I know that I rolled low on a stealth check then I'll just do something else."

I don't get that argument at all. You rolled the dice. You committed the action.

I know it's not a rule in the book, but the basic rules of make pretend are ancient and universal:

No Takesies Backsies.

Absolutely, but that still leaves the other half of the choice I don't want to force my players into. Now they have to move forward with a bad roll, knowing that they have already failed. And with Stealth or Disguise, it could require some role playing before they even get to the point where that failure is evident. That's not a fun situation to force my players into.

Arachnofiend wrote:
I don't particularly care either way as a player, but as a GM this rule would really annoy me. The GM already has plenty of stuff to keep track of without also needing to reference the skill modifiers of four or more characters. It's simply more convenient to have the players keep track of their own modifiers and tell me what they roll.

I don't keep track of any of my players modifiers. If they make a Stealth check that needs to be secret, I just ask them what their bonus is. Easy Peasy. That said, it's even easier to just ignore the rule, especially given that they call out that it's not for everyone.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
Matthew Downie had a good way of handling it, but even that restricts my ability to tell the story. What if they make their stealth check a ways away from the campsite?

Then they have to make another roll when they get close enough to the campsite to be heard, I guess? To me it's a non-issue, like "What if the player rolls to hit before meeting the enemy?"

Malachandra wrote:
Same with being disguised.

If, for some reason, I didn't want the PC to have a chance to fix a bad disguise, then I'd make them wait to roll Disguise until the first chance they could be recognised.

Similarly, if they're walking around a dungeon and they've declared they're searching for traps, I have them roll Perception when they say they're going to open the trapped door. Roll badly? It's too late. Roll well? You stop just in time.

Malachandra wrote:
If a player suspects an NPC is lying, then rolls a 1 on the sense motive check, then the check is meaningless. They still suspect the NPC, they just know that their character... doesn't.

I handle it like this:

NPC: "Please, free me from these chains! The guards are cannibals! Soon they will eat me!"
Player: "Sense Motive. 14."
Me: "You have no idea if you can trust her or not."

I don't think any of this kills suspense.

It might not kill suspense or immersion for you, and the good news is removing secret rolls is about as easy as it gets, but it does kill both for me to have a player make a roll for an action their character did ten minutes to an hour ago, especially when there may be events between then and now. It's not exactly the same as swinging a sword, as sneaking and being disguised is not something you do in the span of a single round...

And it's not that I don't want to give my players the chance to fix a bad disguise (I don't hate my players!), it's that their characters wouldn't know the disguise is bad. I guess you could just hand wave it and have them roll the first chance they might be recognized, but now you have the same problem with the second chance. If they roll poorly but aren't immediately called on it (for whatever reason), they now have to choose between metagaming by redoing the disguise when they wouldn't otherwise, or go ahead and move forward with the poor disguise. I don't want to force my players to make that choice. I don't think it makes sense for them to make that choice. So I roll in secret.

For the bluffing, I don't think that's how bluffing is supposed to work. At least in real life, it's not "I bluff to make people confused and unsure" it's "I bluff to make people believe me". If you make the roll in secret and they roll a 1, that NPC has successfully bluffed the character. If you do it openly, the NPC has bluffed the character, but when you say "You believe they are telling the truth", that's kind of meaningless to the player. They rolled poorly. They know that. The knowledge is useless. Now they have the "metagame or suck" scenario. I don't like forcing my players into that scenario.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
sherlock1701 wrote:
Malachandra wrote:

The problem is that if you roll a natural 1 on Stealth, the natural inclination is to change your mind about sneaking in the first place.

Player: I'm going to sneak into the campsite!
GM: OK, make a stealth check
Player: I rolled a 1... I guess I just won't go

But you've already decided to sneak, so to change now because you had a bad roll is metagaming, and in my opinion not fun. So to play it right you have to sneak knowing you have absolutely no chance of success, which is a bummer.

Player: I'm going to sneak into the campsite!
GM: OK, make a stealth check
Player: I rolled a 1... but you guys have to be ready to come save me when they see me in like 5 seconds.

Neither option is appealing to me. The GM rolling for Stealth in secret takes away the "metagame or suck" choice, while also keeping an element of risk in sneaking. If the player doesn't know what their Stealth check was, it's much more suspenseful.

"Hearing the twig snap under my foot, I back off and lay low for a while."

That's exactly the kind of shenanigans I want to avoid. Once a player makes up their mind to do something, they should do it, not wait to see how the dice turn out.

Mathew Downie had a good way of handling it, but even that restricts my ability to tell the story. What if they make their stealth check a ways away from the campsite? Do I have to tell my player their character suddenly yelled at the top of their lungs and the guards came running? When using stealth, delays between making the check and actually sneaking around happen frequently. Same with being disguised. And then there's bluffing. If a player suspects an NPC is lying, then rolls a 1 on the sense motive check, then the check is meaningless. They still suspect the NPC, they just know that their character... doesn't. Secret checks add suspense and immersion.

Now, I'm not saying secret checks should be used a lot. And I'm certainly not saying all rolls should be made behind a screen, since that's come up in this thread for some reason. But secret checks, when used sparingly, are a valuable resource.

Also, I do trust my players. I don't expect them to metagame. But I don't want them in the position where they either have to metagame or plow ahead knowing they will fail.

Again, not saying everyone should use them or you're doing it wrong; just that they need to be called out in the rulebook for those of us who like them.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem is that if you roll a natural 1 on Stealth, the natural inclination is to change your mind about sneaking in the first place.

Player: I'm going to sneak into the campsite!
GM: OK, make a stealth check
Player: I rolled a 1... I guess I just won't go

But you've already decided to sneak, so to change now because you had a bad roll is metagaming, and in my opinion not fun. So to play it right you have to sneak knowing you have absolutely no chance of success, which is a bummer.

Player: I'm going to sneak into the campsite!
GM: OK, make a stealth check
Player: I rolled a 1... but you guys have to be ready to come save me when they see me in like 5 seconds.

Neither option is appealing to me. The GM rolling for Stealth in secret takes away the "metagame or suck" choice, while also keeping an element of risk in sneaking. If the player doesn't know what their Stealth check was, it's much more suspenseful.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I am OK with them saving money (and time) by reusing art. This is a playtest document, and it is only valid for one year. The CRB will have all new art (which wasn't true in PF1), and it will benefit from the reusing of art in the playtest, since Paizo can focus their art department/resources on PF2 rather than the playtest.

On a side not, I do indeed prefer PF1 art to 5e art. Very much so.


"I have an idea! Let's give a deity stats. Then, if my players make characters that can beat it, I'll just arbitrarily raise all of its stats to a million. Can you survive a +1,000,000 Everyone-Bane Vorpal Iwin longsword (1,000,000d6 + 5,000,000/2-20/x500,000)? I didn't think so."

How is this different from not having stats again?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
Cantriped wrote:
Magus will never be a PF2 base class...
...But I see absolutely no reason why a magus can never be a base class...

At least read the words you're quoting. I don't appreciate being misrepresented. Sure they could import the Magus as a base class, but it would run contrary to the design conceit they've established with the playtest. So I don't think they will.

It's core identity is based on a niche that is inappropriate for a base-class in this edition. Classes should represent distinct professions or skillsets as much as possible. Mechanically inspired bastard-classes have no place in PF2's base-class list. Conversely PF1 needed a medium-BAB, second tier demi-Wizard because there was no satisfying and mechanically viable way to build one (a la carte multiclassing just didn't function as intended).
Besides, the Eldritch Knight was a core prestige class (and a beloved import from 3rd edition), as well as the Magi's direct proginitor. So if we're talking about keeping things purely for their legacy, we should be keeping Eldritch Knight (as a prestige archetype), not it's splat-book bastard.

I did read the words. I disagreed, and continue to do so. The magus can absolutely be a base class. Nothing you have said convinced me otherwise, to the contrary in fact. The magus is more than a bastard class. It's entirely it's own thing, and is an entirely appropriate fantasy trope to have its own base class.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:

Magus will never be a PF2 base class for a litany of reasons:

A) Magi don't work as primary spellcasters, and secondary casters only exist through Archetypes. Their niche was literally 'a less terrible Fighter/Wizard', and it has been obviated by kinder core mecanics.
B) Magi don't work as primary martial artists, because the mechanics that did define 'magi' are all meaningless without spells, and spell points will be too limited a pool.
C) Magi lack a defining, scaling feature to act as the spine of a character of a non-martial, non-caster. Such as Sneak Attack.

Conversely, every spellcaster would benefit from an archetype that allowed them to blend their tradition of spellcraft with their favored type of weaponry synergistically. Allowing one to easily create a divine-bow magi or an occult-dagger magi with just one supplement, and multiplying the number of potential, viable concepts.

Secondary casters don't exist so far. Designers have specifically left the door open for later. I don't see why a secondary caster or a spell point caster couldn't augment their martial abilities. For the lack of the defining feature, so? I'm sure the designers can make one.

I'd like to see something like a universal archetype that could make a magus character out of any spellcaster, like you said. But I see absolutely no reason why a magus can never be a base class. There is plenty of room, both in terms of flavor and mechanics.


AndIMustMask wrote:

with my previous edits being eaten (took too long catching up on the thread i suppose):

i for one don't think the playtest will change much before final product, since they're advertising hardcover copies of the playtest right this very second.

on the topic of engine vs fast and loose physical books: i don't have the luxury of my players being at a physical table for us to flip trough books together at (with them being in different states, and a few in different countries entirely), and personally would love a collected repository of all the rules and stats in one place--which between d20pfsrd and roll20 add-ons is already mostly a thing, let's be honest--since my players enjoy attempting obscure or unorthodox things, and playing fast and loose just doesn't cut it. having to look up how that would actually work between a bunch of pdfs pretty much instantly kills whatever pace we'd managed to pick up.
personally i dont understand the general vibe in thread that anything that isn't physical dice and books are somehow bad and a distraction, and that electronic game aids aren't helpful or needed when you can just like flip through the dozen books you have near-memorized to totally find it faster.

I'm certainly not against electronic aids such as PDF's and databases. I find them to be a distraction in game, but I just nudge my players towards keeping electronics off the table; it's not a hard rule. One of my players always has a laptop on the table, but since he doesn't let it distract him and is very engaged in the game I let him play how he wants.

The sticking point for me is that the engine idea would get rid of individual books (specifically physical copies) entirely, converting the entire system over to a database with no other way to access the material.


Ya, if you post here the designers will definitely take a look. You can do yourself a favor by being clear about what (if anything) you changed and giving lots of details about your game. The more they know about your game, the more useful your comments will be. That's why Doomsday Dawn will be the most useful adventure you can run (but as a non-professional play-tester, you are free to prioritize enjoyment over applicability!)


They won't get in trouble. It's not that big a deal, it's not like it caused Paizo financial trouble. And the store didn't actually gain anything by shipping early, so I see absolutely no reason for anyone to make a fuss over it. It was an accident, we can all move on...


Slim Jim wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
I don't find it all difficult to flip through books, even during the game. In fact, I find it enjoyable. I like reading the books, especially the physical copies.
Everybody likes reading when they have time to kill; they don't like it when the cadence of play comes to a screeching halt when something needs to be looked up and no one can remember what book it's in or when and where and who-said-what-in-a-FAQ (then out come the horrible electric devices).

But like I said before, this has never before been an issue in my group. Maybe your group is different, but mine would slow down quite a bit if we didn't have rule books to reference; even when people do have laptops on the table, I am always faster to find a rule than they are. And I am not very experienced, so we have to look up rules a lot.

Slim Jim wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
Besides, I am OK with them not having every possible rule in the game in a single book.
That's a straw-man fallacy, as no one has argued for "having every possible rule in the game in a single book." --We certainly don't need the stats for pit fiends in the CRB. We should have the stats for mundane gear. Basically, anything listed in Goods and Services should have an entry just as if it were a weapon. Horses, dogs, and cart-pulling donkeys are very commonly-purchased goods by low-level PCs of all classes, and deserve a few inches of space.

It's not a straw-man for two reasons. First, I am disagreeing with the singular rule you brought up. I don't think there should be rules for a guard dog in the CRB. It's not necessary. We have stats for the things that matter. As NimbleW pointed out, a guard dog can easily be adjudicated on the fly, even for a newer GM. Then you can go find the rules later. No screeching halts necessary. For things like that, I don't think you even need its stats. For a CR 1-ish dog, you can guess it's Perception score to within a point or two very easily. And we all know what a guard dog is supposed to do. Do we need stats to say "It guards your campsite and barks if anything gets too close"?

Second, from what I understand, in the engine you've described, there would be no CRB. The engine is the CRB; everything is available right there. The lack of availability seems to be one of your primary beefs with printed books, so for me to say "I don't think everything needs to be more available then it already is", speaks directly to your argument. The crux of your position is that every rule the system presents needs to be more accessible, and that this could be done by switching to an engine. I disagree.

If everything is linked on a website, so that you can see "this spell summons a Pit Fiend" and that spell has a link to the Pit Fiend, then "having every possible rule in the game in a single book (or location, aka engine)" is exactly what you are arguing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Slim Jim wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
Slim Jim wrote:
MR. H wrote:
I'm sad not because Pathfinder is changing, but because it looks like Pathfinder won't win me back. Our group likes playing Pathfinder, but no one wants to run it.
That is the big bugaboo about all RPGs, and (harping again) why they need to evolve into engines.
That is your big bugaboo about all RPGs, but not necessarily what MR. H was referring to (I may be wrong, but I think it was about the system, not the way the system is presented). If PF2 were an "engine" as you describe it, I would not play it.

If nobody runs the game, you don't get to play it.

A database "engine" would greatly benefit everybody, but GMs most of all, because they are harried constantly by the players whenever the books they have are lacking in needed details. For example, a 1st-level sorcerer wants to buy a 20gp guard dog off a table in the CRB. --What are its stats? Well, those are inexplicably in another book that the average player is unlikely to have. That's one small example, but all the minor annoyances and frustrations inherent in rule-searching are a constant drag on time.

(Q. In the PF2 CRB, can a player with that book alone properly stat an animal for his 1st-level character, regardless of whether it's purchased through goods & services, or is an animal companion?)

I only GM. I actually would be OK with just playing it if it were an engine (because I wouldn't use the engine in-game), but I would never run it. My group would have to move on to something else.

I try to have my players keep electronics off at the table, because they are distracting. I don't find it all difficult to flip through books, even during the game. In fact, I find it enjoyable. I like reading the books, especially the physical copies. Besides, I am OK with them not having every possible rule in the game in a single book. Heck, I don't think there needs to be stats for a guard dog.

I've never actually encountered a rules question I couldn't flip to in less than 30 seconds. I'd probably be much slower if I had to do it online, and then I'd also be chained to electronics and WiFi.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Slim Jim wrote:
MR. H wrote:
I'm sad not because Pathfinder is changing, but because it looks like Pathfinder won't win me back. Our group likes playing Pathfinder, but no one wants to run it.
That is the big bugaboo about all RPGs, and (harping again) why they need to evolve into engines.

That is your big bugaboo about all RPGs, but not necessarily what MR. H was referring to (I may be wrong, but I think it was about the system, not the way the system is presented).

If PF2 were an "engine" as you describe it, I would not play it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd also like to see Orcs in the Core Rulebook. In that case I'd want some differentiation between half-orcs and orcs. They feel kind of the same to me for now.


I like the new concept for mixed ancestries. With this system in place, we will have access to so many more ancestries than before. I also agree it will take some fine tuning, but it's nice that the design team has agreed with that and assured us they will be paying close attention to what we say during the playtest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I get what Muzouka is saying. I haven't played PFS, but when I tried making a character it was daunting to figure out whether an option was PFS-legal or not, even using Archives of Nethys. It'd certainly be nice for those players to have a database with all of the legal options in one place. And a filter on the PRD should be possible, so that wouldn't disrupt people playing in other ways.


Derry L. Zimeye wrote:
Something one of my players is interested in doing in the playtest is playing a Human Paladin of Torag who was raised by Dwarves since he was a few months old. I was wondering- how would this work, mechanically? Are there going to be rules stating somewhere along the lines that Adopted Characters may take the Heritage race of their own race, but the ancestry feats of the race that raised them? Has anything been said before about this?

That's an interesting question. I haven't seen anything like that, but my guess is that the Playtest won't have specific rules for something like this, but then the Core Rulebook will add options later. Especially if people ask for it. But there are many people who know more about what is in the Playtest then I do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Haven't received mine yet, but tracking shows it cleared customs.

Thanks again Steve, my players and I are very excited for these!!


People throw this around all the time, but I'm not convinced 5e is outselling Pathfinder. It might be easier to get a game of 5e going, but at the rate they publish books they would have to sell 5-10 copies for every 1 Pathfinder sells. 5e can't compete with the monthly magazine business model that Pathfinder uses for its Adventure Paths to such success.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

But would removing the alignment restriction even do anything for your issue? If you hate the real world "paladins" so much, making them any good doesn't actually do anything to fix that...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
And as it stands now (in PF1), the any alignment "divine champion" character is very doable.

I think this is the big problem a lot of people are having. Yes it can be done already in PF1, with many of those options being a Paladin so your flavour is already diluted, but that shouldn't have any bearing in PF2E. How long do other players wait to get to play what they want in PF2E? 1 year, 2 years, maybe never because it hasn't been promised? How long do you think they should wait for something to come out that for all intents and purposes just removes LG from the Paladin page. This is why it hurts them.

Some good points here. I don't see alternate classes or archetypes as diluting the paladin's flavor. That's why I'm so big on the "4 corners" compromise. It opens the class up while still keeping the flavor. That said, I am also open to other compromises. I could make the Paladin a prestige class, or even wait a book for it. In either case, that would open up design space for a Warpriest class in Core.

That said, I don't think taking flavor away from a class fixes the problem of people having to wait. It just makes the problem worse, because now people like me will never get the class they want.

Malk_Content wrote:
And the flavour can still be 100% there. The LG Paladin can have the exact same restrictions and code as it does now while still letting others play with it.
Not gonna lie, seeing this come up over and over is a little frustrating. There seems to be this idea that making all classes universal and modular can only improve them. But it doesn't. Taking away flavor hurts the class for some players. Again, it doesn't matter if I can play the one, universal race and pretend it's a dwarf, there would no longer be a dwarf race. It's not the same
...

So unless you're drawing from the random guy named Arthur in the Middle Ages, what work of fiction are you referencing? Cause turns out, ignoring the actual mythology of the Round Table by drawing from dubious real life history the legends come from isn't going to convince me of anything :P

That said, I feel the need to repeat myself:

Malachandra wrote:
This is your own personal issues with alignment and the class talking, and is not based on what anyone in the LG-only crowd has said. It kind of feels like when you read our posts, you hear only what you expect to hear and not actually what we are saying.


Rob Godfrey wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
And as it stands now (in PF1), the any alignment "divine champion" character is very doable.

I think this is the big problem a lot of people are having. Yes it can be done already in PF1, with many of those options being a Paladin so your flavour is already diluted, but that shouldn't have any bearing in PF2E. How long do other players wait to get to play what they want in PF2E? 1 year, 2 years, maybe never because it hasn't been promised? How long do you think they should wait for something to come out that for all intents and purposes just removes LG from the Paladin page. This is why it hurts them.

Some good points here. I don't see alternate classes or archetypes as diluting the paladin's flavor. That's why I'm so big on the "4 corners" compromise. It opens the class up while still keeping the flavor. That said, I am also open to other compromises. I could make the Paladin a prestige class, or even wait a book for it. In either case, that would open up design space for a Warpriest class in Core.

That said, I don't think taking flavor away from a class fixes the problem of people having to wait. It just makes the problem worse, because now people like me will never get the class they want.

Malk_Content wrote:
And the flavour can still be 100% there. The LG Paladin can have the exact same restrictions and code as it does now while still letting others play with it.
Not gonna lie, seeing this come up over and over is a little frustrating. There seems to be this idea that making all classes universal and modular can only improve them. But it doesn't. Taking away flavor hurts the class for some players. Again, it doesn't matter if I can play the one, universal race and pretend it's a dwarf, there would no longer be a dwarf race. It's not the same thing. And even if we can't understand why I feel that way, can
...

The only times I ever mention the origin of the Paladin idea I explicitly call out the Round Table so...


Shinigami02 wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
But hey, if you really care about adding options and opening up new character types, care to comment on the plethora of compromises the LG-only crowd has offered up?

You mean the ones that boil down to "Shut up and hope you get thrown a bone at some point in the next 10 years"? Or maybe the "Settle with a weakened piece of trash". Or of course there's the ever classic case of just "Shut up and play another class", such a great compromise.

Because, quite frankly, a vast majority of the "compromises" I've seen from the LG side have been "we get our option in core, and maybe other options come out down the line, that might, maybe, be worth playing."

EDIT: And yes, some people aren't that way. But that's the majority I've seen.

Well, you could just look up thread for a good compromise. Or you could go here (and next few posts). I mean, how much clearer can I get that I would like to see equally powerful but flavor-fully different sub-classes right from Core? Short of me saying "I guess I'll just ignore what I want and defer entirely to you, sacrificing my character so I can never play it again" what more do you want?

That said, I'm not seeing your "vast majority". What I am seeing is that the only ones who are offering up compromises right now are the LG-only crowd. With the exception of Malk_Content, the only ones who are even accepting the validity of the other sides' opinions right now are the LG-only crowd.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tectorman wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Tectorman wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Steelfiredragon wrote:
unfortunately Ryan , that is just you and is the problem. its the problem with everything... it is just someone( whether its you, me, or someone else)

No the problem is that there are people who are bent out of shape that alignment exists at all, so they continually create disingenuous threads attacking anything that uses it rather than simply playing games that don't use it, or being ok with the idea that it can be modified out, to the point that they'd rather have absolutely generic base classes representing divine champions rather than classes that fit the deity.

But that's just it. YOU can make that call for YOU in YOUR gaming group. And there should be no obstacles infringing on your ability to make that call how you see fit for the gaming group that IS your purview. And simple courtesy says we get that same call for what's in our purview AND the same lack of obstacles. And that is exactly and only what the exclusivity adds: it doesn't bolster how you play your Paladin (since you can already play your Paladin the way you see fit), it limits everyone else.
People who care about the exclusivity have said repeatedly why and it has never been just so that other people cannot have what they want
Intended or not, it's what comes across. Yeah, it's all about world-building or legacy or some such. It still comes with "Hey, Timmy, you're going to have to take a master class at negotiating to play the character you want to play because someone several states over would be bothered by that sort of character being freely available". I don't care that your goal isn't stymieing another player; I care that said stymieing is occurring, period. Especially when said stymieing would not be occurring in the reverse were Paladins any alignment (or do you want to tell me about how the "dismantling" of the "humans only" restriction has completely prevented you from playing a human Paladin?). And I just don't have it in me to consider any world-building or legacy in combination with that sort of stymieing as having any kind of net positive.

The bolded tells me you're not really listening. Taking away the restriction does in fact stymie my ability to make my character. I know you don't understand that, but it's pretty disingenuous to continually tell me that my motivations are in fact that I get sadistic glee out of taking away other people's options. You seem to be on the far end of the "in-rules flavor" spectrum, but at some point you should probably accept that not everyone agrees with you, and that other people are allowed to be at the other end of the spectrum. Letting people play any character they want is an important part of the game. But it isn't the only consideration.

But hey, if you really care about adding options and opening up new character types, care to comment on the plethora of compromises the LG-only crowd has offered up?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
And as it stands now (in PF1), the any alignment "divine champion" character is very doable.

I think this is the big problem a lot of people are having. Yes it can be done already in PF1, with many of those options being a Paladin so your flavour is already diluted, but that shouldn't have any bearing in PF2E. How long do other players wait to get to play what they want in PF2E? 1 year, 2 years, maybe never because it hasn't been promised? How long do you think they should wait for something to come out that for all intents and purposes just removes LG from the Paladin page. This is why it hurts them.

Some good points here. I don't see alternate classes or archetypes as diluting the paladin's flavor. That's why I'm so big on the "4 corners" compromise. It opens the class up while still keeping the flavor. That said, I am also open to other compromises. I could make the Paladin a prestige class, or even wait a book for it. In either case, that would open up design space for a Warpriest class in Core.

That said, I don't think taking flavor away from a class fixes the problem of people having to wait. It just makes the problem worse, because now people like me will never get the class they want.

Malk_Content wrote:
And the flavour can still be 100% there. The LG Paladin can have the exact same restrictions and code as it does now while still letting others play with it.
Not gonna lie, seeing this come up over and over is a little frustrating. There seems to be this idea that making all classes universal and modular can only improve them. But it doesn't. Taking away flavor hurts the class for some players. Again, it doesn't matter if I can play the one, universal race and pretend it's a dwarf, there would no longer be a dwarf race. It's not the same thing. And even if we can't understand why I feel that way, can we at least stop trying to explain to me how making a class
how do the genocidal serial rapists of Charlemagne have anything to do with LG?

What are you even talking about? Where did I mention Charlemagne? This post is a Red Herring, and has nothing to do with anything I said.

Rob Godfrey wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

I honestly think that it is a deep misunderstanding of the LG-only Paladin crowd to believe that they think LG is the best or truest Good

I think it misses their point completely and thus is not useful, but rather damaging, in trying to find common understanding and palatable compromises

then the defence of LG only should stop being LG is the only alignment capable/worthy of having paladins, because whether you realize it or not, that argument sounds exactly like LG best and smartest.

This is your own personal issues with alignment and the class talking, and is not based on what anyone in the LG-only crowd has said. It kind of feels like when you read our posts, you hear only what you expect to hear and not actually what we are saying.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steelfiredragon wrote:

Load of bull there cabbage

not what you want, not what I want. not even what the community wants.

I don't want a 4 corners

I want good only and don't care about what you or anyone else likes, just like anyone else wont care about what I or anyone else wants.

and what you said about if ng deities an have cg and lg followers...

is insulting and just as bad as insisting we play a warpriest.

have a nice day, and if you don't that is your own fault.

Resist and Bite

I mean, if you're not willing to compromise then why even discuss? Then the conversation just degrades into both sides digging in, not even admitting that the other camp's opinion has any value. That's the thing with a compromise, both sides are slightly unhappy.

I do in fact care what other people want. I'd prefer no compromises at all, but I feel the "any-good" camp has valid concerns and I'd like to see Paizo react to those concerns.

Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Xerres wrote:


I mean, I'd overall prefer four separate classes for the four corner alignments. But at best, that'd be Paladin first, and then the others... eventually.

First of all, Hi Xerres! Long time no see.

Now, I want to address this concern that I hear from the CG group time and again.
When I was at Paizocon, I had an enlightening conversation with Mark (and others) about Paladins. The topic came up because of two reasons: One, the Gauntlet Blog unexpectedly (for Mark anyways) was posted during Paizocon. And two, I love Paladins. Plain and simple. Anyhoo... Mark spoke about the design process behind the Paladin. He spoke about his "quest for the Holy Grail" from the Paladin blog, but he gave further info that was not revealed in the blog. Mostly everyone agreed that Paladins should be at LEAST LG, but he mentioned a close second to the LG-only stance. The Four Corner Alignment stance. There's serious backing to the 4 corner alignment classes at Paizo. And I can confidently say that Mark was onboard with that. (Mark if you're reading correct me if I'm wrong please) So to me it's not a question of if, it's a question of when... Yeah, they can't officially say that. They can't promise anything; but why would they straight jacket themselves with a promise?
Warning: Potential Future Predictions incoming...
Ok, so let's be honest here guys. (in a logistical way) The Paladin is not going anywhere. The class is too iconic, and has too much D&D/Pathfinder history. (even with Seelah) They are not taking the class out of Core, even if it's a "Prestige Archetype" in the Core book. You don't take classes away from the Core. That'd be too catastrophic. So what does that leave? Opening the class to other alignments, or keeping it closed. Picking one or the other is going to cause a lot of strife. (I'm including Paizo internally as well) So how do you prevent that and appease the two sides?

The Four Corner Alignment System.

Keep the Paladin in Core as is. (LG included) Make the class as...

I'm extremely happy to hear this. I kinda wish they had playtested the four corners option, but I really hope it comes in during Core, or very soon after. If they choose to add more options, I have a hard time believing it takes them longer than a year with the rate of books they publish.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Mbertorch wrote:
The biggest issue I have with this is it means I can play a (rules-supported) CG, LE, AND CE Paladin before I can play a NG one... Which to me just feels wrong

I don't want to have NG "Paladins" period, since one of the best things about the Paladin class is the built-in tension between Good and Law, where "doing the right thing" and "following the rules" come into conflict. Each of the four corner versions have similar tensions between unrelated extremes. For NG/LN/NE/CN there's no tension it's just "do whatever creates the most good/law/evil/chaos."

Plus if every NG deity allows LG or CG worshippers, you can be a divine champion of whatever good deity you want and a Paladin-of-sorts.

I fully agree with this. I could live with additional sub-classes for each alignment to make people happy, but I prefer the sub-classes to reflect the extremes of alignment (i.e. two alignment components)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
And as it stands now (in PF1), the any alignment "divine champion" character is very doable.

I think this is the big problem a lot of people are having. Yes it can be done already in PF1, with many of those options being a Paladin so your flavour is already diluted, but that shouldn't have any bearing in PF2E. How long do other players wait to get to play what they want in PF2E? 1 year, 2 years, maybe never because it hasn't been promised? How long do you think they should wait for something to come out that for all intents and purposes just removes LG from the Paladin page. This is why it hurts them.

Some good points here. I don't see alternate classes or archetypes as diluting the paladin's flavor. That's why I'm so big on the "4 corners" compromise. It opens the class up while still keeping the flavor. That said, I am also open to other compromises. I could make the Paladin a prestige class, or even wait a book for it. In either case, that would open up design space for a Warpriest class in Core.

That said, I don't think taking flavor away from a class fixes the problem of people having to wait. It just makes the problem worse, because now people like me will never get the class they want.

Malk_Content wrote:
And the flavour can still be 100% there. The LG Paladin can have the exact same restrictions and code as it does now while still letting others play with it.

Not gonna lie, seeing this come up over and over is a little frustrating. There seems to be this idea that making all classes universal and modular can only improve them. But it doesn't. Taking away flavor hurts the class for some players. Again, it doesn't matter if I can play the one, universal race and pretend it's a dwarf, there would no longer be a dwarf race. It's not the same thing. And even if we can't understand why I feel that way, can we at least stop trying to explain to me how making a class more bland doesn't take away my flavor? Can we just accept that I have this opinion, and that it's valid?

Now, I understand that the Paladin is a pretty specific flavor. But it's a very iconic flavor in English-speaking mythology. And I'm certainly not saying all classes have to be flavorful. The vanilla fighter is great, and leaves room for people to add their own flavor. But not all classes have to be that way.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
Malachandra wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:
And I've never seen it adequately explained how the existence of different options, if your option remains exactly the same, dilutes or ruins your option. That someone somewhere can put Tabasco on their fried eggs doesn't mean my pepper and salt eggs are ruined.

I can try to answer this question. Let's say Paizo was making some changes to races. They came out and said "Dwarves will now have more options! They now come in regular skin tones, as well as green and pink. They no longer prefer living underground as a race, although some still do so. Some are still short and stocky, but from now on many will not be". Obviously an over the top example, but it illustrates how I feel. Yes, I could still play the more classic interpretation of dwarves. But that's no longer what dwarves are. They are now some generic, one-size-fits-all race. Now, when I play a dwarf, I'm not really playing a dwarf. I'm playing something else that can look like a dwarf.

I'm not really interested in how other people play their paladins, and I don't want to restrict peoples' options at their own table. But I associate a pretty specific flavor with paladins, and taking away the LG-only alignment kills that. Yes, it's nice to have universal, one-size-fits-all classes. But it's also nice to have flavorful, more niche classes.

I guess I still don't get it. So long as my table can still go "dwarves are like how they always were" without having to jump through mechanical hoops to get there I wouldn't mind at all. They also have done that a little in PF2E (and in 1 with alternate racial traits) what any two dwarves share is far reduced in favour of more customizable Ancestry Feats.

Although it is quite a different kettle of fish, given that the mechanical benefits of being a dwarf aren't tied to any roleplaying or character restrictions afterall.

But even with alternate racial traits, a dwarf is still a dwarf.

I would be horrified if they did something like this to the dwarf. I like giving players more options, but I think that should be done by adding actual options, not just making everything universal. At that point it's all just a bland pile of meh. Which is what an any-good paladin would be for me.

Malk_Content wrote:

I don't think they are doing it out of spite or anything. But it is hurting other players and the fundamental nature of it is purely psychological.

At the end of the day if an LG Paladin works the same as it did, but others can play other things, all that matters to the game experience is what happens at the table. It doesn't matter what other things the book says can happen, only what does happen matters. So much of so many things is fundamental to me but I cannot fathom the idea of demanding roleplaying restrictions to impose those fundamental things on other players. It does not click.

I don't know about "hurting other players", but it does matter what's in the rulebook. Changing the rules changes my game experience. Taking away flavor changes my game experience. I'm not saying everything has to be tied to flavor, but some stuff should be. And as it stands now (in PF1), the any alignment "divine champion" character is very doable. So why take away flavor from something else? Especially something that is going to make about half your fan base upset?

There are games out there that are entirely modular, where there are no classess and everyone "purchases" abilities from a single pool. Pathfinder is not one of them, and I like it that way. Sometimes, flavor and mechanics should go together.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Iron_Matt17 wrote:
So are you saying they should give the CG a name, and the LE an Anti-<insert name here> to follow suit? Or a name that overarches all the 4 classes?

1 name that overarches the four Classes would be good (or going with Paladin for the Good ones and Antipaladin for the Evil ones...but a lot of people wouldn't like that). The issue is that if Paladin is 'demoted' to the name of one of the four versions (the LG one), I suspect people will be upset about that as well.

It's a tricky issue.

I'd be up for an "Exemplar" class with four (equally powerful but thematically different) subclasses. I'd certainly prefer that to a Paladin class with four subclasses, but that's just me. It's definitely a tricky issue, and I think no matter what Paizo does there will be a lot of unhappy people.

Malk_Content wrote:
And I've never seen it adequately explained how the existence of different options, if your option remains exactly the same, dilutes or ruins your option. That someone somewhere can put Tabasco on their fried eggs doesn't mean my pepper and salt eggs are ruined.

I can try to answer this question. Let's say Paizo was making some changes to races. They came out and said "Dwarves will now have more options! They now come in regular skin tones, as well as green and pink. They no longer prefer living underground as a race, although some still do so. Some are still short and stocky, but from now on many will not be". Obviously an over the top example, but it illustrates how I feel. Yes, I could still play the more classic interpretation of dwarves. But that's no longer what dwarves are. They are now some generic, one-size-fits-all race. Now, when I play a dwarf, I'm not really playing a dwarf. I'm playing something else that can look like a dwarf.

I'm not really interested in how other people play their paladins, and I don't want to restrict peoples' options at their own table. But I associate a pretty specific flavor with paladins, and taking away the LG-only alignment kills that. Yes, it's nice to have universal, one-size-fits-all classes. But it's also nice to have flavorful, more niche classes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
edduardco wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
edduardco wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
edduardco wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
I think the happy medium would be that full casters get their 10th level slots automatically for heightening purposes, but still have to spend a feat to get the actual 10th level spells.
That is still a feat tax, how can that be any good?
Because the 10th level spells are so drastically more powerful. It effectively makes it a capstone you choose. You can choose whether your capstone is casting spells for free once per minute, or literally getting to break reality by casting Wish, or whatever.
Have you seen any 10th level spells? How can you affirm that they're "drastically more powerful"? And that is still a feat tax BTW
It's only a feat tax in that you have to take it to get an ability you wouldn't otherwise get, which is true of all feats. In the commonly used parlance where a feat tax is "a feat you have to take to do the not-directly-related thing you actually want to do", it's not a feat tax. Not every caster is going to have 10th level spells; we know from the druid reveal at PaizoCon that 10th level spells are competing against other abilities that modify the caster's other class abilities or adjust their casting in some unique and equivalent way.
And that is precisely my issue with this, I think all casters should get 10th level spells automatically, instead of breaking 18th levels of progression and gated them behind a feat.

I don't think casters should get spells like Miracle or Wish at all. So seems to me like making a caster take a feat to get a game-breaking spell is a fair compromise. And yes, I know we haven't actually seen PF2 10th level spells, but we have a pretty good idea of what Wish will do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
willuwontu wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Cyouni wrote:

Why are you being challenged to tests of strength mid-dungeon that you can't accept?

If you're getting hit by a roleplaying thing, then presumably you also have the time to take your day of downtime (barring uh, world-ending apocalypse and sky falling). If not, then you realistically won't be getting hit by a roleplaying thing.

Oh look, I'm Superstitious and I accepted a spell to heal up when I was at 1 hp after a fight.

Worst case scenario there is that you lose your unique ability to shrug off spells. You still have your combat prowess, you're just no longer the spellbreaker. But now you can benefit from buffing and healing spells. Not bad enough of a trade to worry too much about in the short term.

I'd also like to point out that while the anathema part of taboo didn't exist previously in core... neither did the benefits of taboo. So, ya, you could lose your ability to wield gigantic weapons with ease. But you didn't have that before anyway. And if you prefer the old way of doing things, there is always the Fury taboo.

Yeah, sure it's not a horrible trade, but I'm losing the things I literally chose that totem for (and any of the feats that I chose based off of that totem which could be all of them up to that point, we won't know till we get the playtest), really losing my powers for something that while I had some control over, wally is forced upon me if I don't want to sit around the table and watch the next few fights occur while my barb hides during the fights. If this was a paladin losing their powers, people would be going crazy.

Yes, titan mauler was not core, it still existed and had no anathema (sorry core only people, you lose out on things), so that's a false point of getting benefits from having anathema added.

Also the gm could have planned to do something with your anathema for RP the evening prior to your characters departure out of downtime mode, and you don't feel like dealing with it,...

That's the thing though, totems are almost entirely flavor with a little bit of mechanics. With the exception of superstition, you lose barely anything when you trigger your totem. You still have your rage, your feats and skills, and any other choices you made. Unless you built a character entirely around wielding extra-big weapons (which is unlikely) you are basically unaffected. And it's not like you can only wield those weapons with the Giant totem. There are going to be other ways, probably with a small penalty like in PF1. So I don't see how the triggering the totem is this session-ruining event, even in the outlier case of superstition. Totem's are just not a big enough deal that if you lose the benefits you are left hiding during fights.

I don't see how we don't get benefits from adding totems, even with anathema. Take away the totem powers and you get... a PF1 barbarian. So we can only gain from this. They say "hey, you can have this, but only if you follow certain rules". OK, and if you don't like those rules then you're right back where you started. So we really can't say anything has been taken.

But again, if anyone really hates this system, they just take Fury. No big deal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
willuwontu wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
willuwontu wrote:
Quandary wrote:

I'm ignoring the comments which ignore the dev's own comments.

I love the new design, tying into alot of the flavor I enjoy about Barbarian, and I agree with fixed relationship of Anathema and Totems. This represents specific source of specific power, and that comes with specific behavioral dynamic. I think the calibration of power loss is perfect, only Totem powers and only 1 day keeps it real but not apocalyptic.

You probably shouldn't ignore the dev comments when making your post, you don't get the powers back after one day like a wizard regaining spells. Which is what it sounded like to me what you said.

Whenever you perform such acts, you lose the totem’s power and any totem feats until you spend 1 day of downtime recentering yourself, though you keep all other barbarian abilities.

It's 1 day of downtime. I hope you weren't in the middle of a dungeon delve when you lost your powers otherwise you don't have access to them for the whole expedition.

So while it's lighter and easier to clear up after than a paladins fall (as it should be), if you lose it in the middle of dungeoning it still screws you for something that previously didn't exist.

Why are you being challenged to tests of strength mid-dungeon that you can't accept?

If you're getting hit by a roleplaying thing, then presumably you also have the time to take your day of downtime (barring uh, world-ending apocalypse and sky falling). If not, then you realistically won't be getting hit by a roleplaying thing.

Oh look, I'm Superstitious and I accepted a spell to heal up when I was at 1 hp after a fight.

Worst case scenario there is that you lose your unique ability to shrug off spells. You still have your combat prowess, you're just no longer the spellbreaker. But now you can benefit from buffing and healing spells. Not bad enough of a trade to worry too much about in the short term.

I'd also like to point out that while the anathema part of taboo didn't exist previously in core... neither did the benefits of taboo. So, ya, you could lose your ability to wield gigantic weapons with ease. But you didn't have that before anyway. And if you prefer the old way of doing things, there is always the Fury taboo.


The Raven Black wrote:

Purity has quite negative connotations to me as a buzzword for cleanse the impure violently or even lethally. Where impure mostly means anyone that does not fit the norm of purity

I think we should steer well away from it

I also feel this way.

As for Superstition, I don't necessarily feel like all barbarians would reference their totem's in-world, but I could see how some would.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Generally when I see people frustrated about alignment it's because they are using it as a straightjacket, not a tool. It's just a short descriptor for personality. It should never be used to tell a player that they can't do something (unless they are a divine servant, but there are other things going on there). Any other way to give such a short description for a character's motivations would be either needlessly complicated or insubstantial. A dozen descriptors saying liar, hopeful, or whatever would just be clunky, and bring up even more questions. What do they lie about? Is it pathological, or do they lie when the occasion suits them? What are they protective of? Besides, any descriptors would have to do without the decades of support that is behind alignment. I might not know what honorable means for this character, but I have a pretty good idea of what LG means. Without alignment, we would need a whole bunch of extra character descriptions, and everything would just get jumbled together.

Not to mention how ingrained it is in the cosmology, which is something I would hate to lose. When we classify a group of things, we are better able to compare and contrast them. Without alignment, a lot of lines would become blurred and players would just be confused. Instead of "These guys are LN and those are CN. They hate each other" we would get long articles about why these two similar but different (but how are they different? We can't classify them?!) species have been warring for millennia.

Besides, alignment is already optional. It's really very easy to remove. There will even be a sidebar on it in PF2.


I actually could see Drax falling anywhere on the Law-Chaos axis. I definitely there are, and should be, lawful barbarians. It's not a very common character type, but it's out there and can make sense.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Wultram wrote:
Call them as I see them, might be subjective matter. So is music, but I will still call bubblegum pop garbage music. Neither do I need to jump out of an airplane without a parachute to know that it is a bad idea. And yes I use strong language because that gets the point across I am trying to communicate. If someone takes offense to my use of language that is their problem not mine.

No. It is your problem. This is a community, and if you want to be part of it, you are obligated to be respectful. In fact, others expressed similar opinions using actual reasoning, not just offensive nonsense. They were engaged in discussion by people who disagreed. Your post, on the other hand, was deservedly called down, the content ignored. The way you express your opinion matters, and as it stands now you were counter-productive to the ideas you were trying to communicate. Using offensive language only results in making people want to disagree with you. And being respectful really isn't that hard, and results in your ideas actually being considered.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:
Can we please not call them "anathema". How about "taboo" or some other similar word.

Taboo seems to make sense given the context. And since it's not quite the same flavor as a divine caster failing their god, it also makes sense to give it some distance from that idea. I'd be on board for this.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Wultram wrote:

Anethma....oh boy here we go again. Go write 100 times on the blackboard "Locking mechanics behind RP without a very good reason is bad game desing." Superstisous is an example of a good one, it is a mechanical benefit and mechanical restriction also it makes sense IC. The others mentioned are garbage writing and should be discarded as such. At least the paladin has the excuse of sacred cow in need of slaughter. This is adding in more of that assenine thinking into the game.

Some of us like that "garbage writing". Some of us like fusing flavor with mechanics. Maybe you should go write 100 times on the blackboard "Not everyone shares my opinion, and that's OK" or maybe "It's not OK to call other people's opinions asinine"


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
no it does not, its a 'nerf the barbarian button' for intelligent enemies to press, when no such button makes any sense

I've never understood this line of thought. I don't try to minimize my players' abilities or penalize them for roleplaying choices. I don't engineer situations for my paladins to fall, or look for ways to get my players to break their characters' personal codes. I let stuff like that happen organically. When people start talking about how to make their players fall because of an anathema or code or whatever, I pretty much just skip it. Because it won't come up in my game.

The "huge flaw for an enemy to exploit" is really only a huge flaw if the GM makes it so by forcing the story into a contrived scenario for their players to fall. If the players are into that story, then cool. Otherwise, meh.

On a side note, people in-world don't actually know the mechanics that control the game (their world). Beyond, "paladins lose their divine favor if they do really evil stuff", no one actually knows how to trigger an anathema. Turns out, there isn't a big book of game mechanics available to the BBEG. They might be able to watch their enemies to see strengths/weaknesses, but they won't know anathemas unless it comes up while they are watching.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pandora's wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
Ya, you had me half on board up till there. We shouldn't divorce the game from flavor.

I have repeatedly advocated for optional flavor to be included alongside mechanics for inspiration or to represent what is common on Golarion. As I've said time and time again, the only difference between optional flavor and mandatory flavor is the ability to push it on someone who doesn't like that flavor.

Malachandra wrote:
Thing is, no we shouldn't force flavor on people. But that's why we have a plethora of options.
What makes more sense, to create the same ability over and over with different flavor each time or to make the flavor in the rulebook optional and allow the gaming group to be in charge of setting the flavor rather instead of the rulebook? In addition to the duplication, the former will always result in cases where an ability only exists once and it is inaccessibly without a single forced flavor.

Cool article. I don't have time to read it all now, but it was definitely interesting enough that I'll get back to it in the next few days.

I guess my problem is that optional flavor just doesn't do it for me. Kinda like light beer vs. craft beer. In my opinion, light beer is mostly just watered down beer (I'm a pretty opinionated beer drinker ;) ). I'd rather either just have water or have something darker. With optional flavor, I'd rather just have stripped down mechanics and make my own flavor entirely. Which is a system that should (and does) exist, but I want more flavor out of Pathfinder. I don't want it to be watered down.

The amount of flavor in a game is definitely a spectrum, and we will all fall on different places on that spectrum. But I like where PF1 was on that spectrum, and so far I like where PF2 is heading. I think the plethora of options does a good job of fixing the divide though. It's not that each option is the same ability over and over with different flavor. They are all different in flavor, even if some are mechanically similar. But with so many options, most players can find a flavor that really excites them.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pandora's wrote:
No, when I'm picking a totem, I'm picking a mechanical feature that matches my character concept and being saddled with a roleplaying restriction that may or may not match the concept.

Ya, you had me half on board up till there. We shouldn't divorce the game from flavor. There are systems that do that, where every ability is bought with points and there are no classes, and I don't want Pathfinder to edge in that direction.

Thing is, no we shouldn't force flavor on people. But that's why we have a plethora of options. No idea how many totems there will be at the start, but soon there will be dozens; enough that everyone should be able to find something they are happy with. And the fury totem also has the flavor-less option covered. It's not like the totem will make or break your character: the ability to wield too-large weapons really isn't that important.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Corrik wrote:

Uncommon races:
While one can expect to encounter members of the common races presented in this book’s first chapter in almost any settlement or nation in the Inner Sea region, the same cannot be said of the region’s uncommon races. More widespread than the rare races detailed in this book’s third chapter, members of these seven uncommon races may well have entire nations of their own, yet one should not expect to bump into an aasimar, kobold, or orc in just any city. Most common folk live their entire lives without meeting a member of some of the races detailed in this chapter.

This is not to say that they are few in number, though. Orcs, for example, control an entire region in the heart of Avistan—the orcs hordes have ruled the Hold of Belkzen for millennia, and there is no sign that their crushing grip will relent anytime soon. Goblin tribes exist throughout the Inner Sea region, primarily along its coastlines, and as soon as one clan of these violent little maniacs is put down, it seems that two more spring up in its place. The drow rule an empire in the Darklands realm of Sekamina whose scope and reach, were it a surface nation, would stretch to the ends of Avistan itself.
Yet despite their fecundity, the strength of their armies, or the power their individual members wield, these races remain uncommon among most settlements in the Inner Sea region. What holds them back from asserting a more dominant role? Why have they not achieved the same inf luence and spread as the common races? The answers are complex, and different for each of the seven races discussed here.

I know reading is hard so I pointed out the relevant parts for you.

Maybe you should read it again, there's nothing in there about "unfit for core" ;). The designation of "common" is arbitrary. It doesn't come from lore, it comes from the core races. Common = core, and nothing else. So to say goblins are unfit for core is circular reasoning. Just because something isn't currently core doesn't mean it is unfit.

Corrik wrote:
No I haven't. But please feel free to quote exactly where I said "7 plus a bunch". Because "why only goblins" in no way means "The 7 plus a bunch". Did you really think you had yourself a zinger there?

You tried to wiggle out of it! And failed :( You've been very clear that one option you feel is appropriate is to include the 7 plus a bunch of others. Explain how "7+" and "Why only goblins" are not synonymous. And if you need an example of you saying this, just look at the post you quoted. But here again, you backtrack on what you said. You are inconsistent and contradict yourself here. If you're going to hold this position, at least give some reasoning. Why does it have to be more than one race? What qualifies a race to be core? A discussion requires more than you attacking my points ;)

1. Sure, it's not that important. I'm just pointing out that one of your points is actually in favor of goblins ;)
2. I guess if widespread infamy and entire cultures with "kill-on-sight" opinions of goblins isn't important enough to validate being in core, nothing is. Maybe you're right, in which case only humans should be in core. No one else is important anyway.
3. Paizo has done stories where monsters appeal to players. If a player meets a goblin and says "they're evil, but they are endearing fun", that's part of storytelling. Do I really need to provide examples of this? Maybe you could provide an example of another race that accomplishes this as well as goblins?
4. Cute but evil is not currently a niche in Core. That doesn't mean it can't be. Who said they were less evil as a culture? Maybe a few adventurers are, but that's consistent with the lore. If you're going
5. OK... so you can't name any other races than? And again there can be more to this than the setting. Care to comment on that? Because when I say "this isn't important in setting" and then you say "but that doesn't matter in setting!"... Yes. I know. That's what I just said ;)
6. If you read the blog post again, you'll notice it makes no mention of goblin culture as a whole changing. Just that there are some adventurers out there who are slightly different. Isn't that the case of every other culture? I mean, cultures don't have to be uniform in Pathfinder all of a sudden, do they? Nothing is changing for the majority of goblins. The change will be something that makes people question their perceptions of goblins. That's it. Time travelling Godzilla not required ;)
7. Sure. Your link doesn't work, so I'll have to guess on which races to comment on. Orcs are redundant with half-orcs already in core (a huge, huge, huge strike against). Drow, kobolds, and planar races don't have as big a finger-print on Golarion, and are unrecognizable to those outside the industry. However, if you were to bring up counterexamples rather than just calling me confused, we might be able to talk about this more in depth ;) That's generally how Ad Hominems go.
8. Jason has said it was not a marketing decision (I'm taking your word on this even though you haven't cited it). That doesn't mean the point holds no water. Business matters. Branding matters. Care to explain why it doesn't rather than attacking me again?

Corrik wrote:
Wow, it's almost like I've made that point as an example for why the core race lineup should be updated instead of simply hot gluing goblins to it. Have you read my posts?

I have read your posts. They are inconsistent, as you have stated. Yet here again you give an example about how you think it should be 7+. You've also said you think it should be cut down, but you keep bringing up this "hot-glue" metaphor.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Corrik wrote:

Then let's stick with the campaign setting definition that Paizo gave, which specifically calls out Goblins as unfit to be considered a core race.

Then you can go back and read my posts to see that I haven't said anything close to "The 7 core races and a bunch of others". The examples I've given have cut the core race list in half, but whatever, actually reading my points isn't important is it?

1: Paizo's official campaign definition for core/common and uncommon specifically states that population is not the main determining factor. So this point doesn't go far.
2: How so? Specific, in setting reasons please.
3: How so? Specific, in setting reasons please.
4: What niche? And how could other races not fill it? Also, how does a mechanical niche play in to a setting explanation?
5: So are a lot of races, but meta is not an setting explanation.
6: This is true, but they did a few backflips explaining how the "Core Race" goblins are not the same murder monkeys people think of. So this point doesn't go far.
7: Again, so are several races. According to this poll they aren't even close to the most popular race. So that sounds like a justification for another race to be promoted to core, not Goblin.
8: Meta reasons don't matter for the setting explanation.

Really failing to see how "the lore demands goblins become a core race". Please provide actual examples rather than making outrageous claims.

Again you are avoiding actually giving reasons for your opinion. It gives you license to say you care about the lore, then ignore the lore entirely. You keep giving reasons for what makes something core, then when it's pointed out that goblins fit that you can wiggle away from what you said.

So far the "Paizo calls out Goblins as unfit for core" claim is entirely unfounded. Let's try and give citations when we speak for Paizo.

Again with the reading comprehension bit! Maybe you've given examples of cutting down the core races earlier, but that certainly hasn't been what you are talking about here, with all of this "hot-glue" stuff. Because "the 7 core races, or the 7 plus a bunch" is exactly what you've been saying.

Corrik wrote:
So don't think of my stance as "Why Goblins?", but as "Why only Goblins?"

Can't get away from that one.

1. I never said it was the main factor. But it is a factor, and one you bring up for the other core races.
2. Well, it's been made clear (partly by you) that they are known all over the Inner Sea. Is widespread infamy not enough for you?
3. They fill the role of cute but evil monsters better than anything else. That's why they show up as NPC's all the time. That's why they have an entire line of adventures just for them.
4. Again, cute but evil. They are the "renegade monster", like the half-orc but with a different vibe.
5. Name one race, other than orc, that fits this point as well as goblins. And this point is very important. Probably the most important on this list.
6. Not sure of your point here? The majority of goblins are still murder-monkeys, it's just they're murder-monkeys that are unique to Paizo. Again very important. Turns out, some goblins can be evil murder-monkeys, while others are neutral mayhem-monkeys! Races don't have to be uniform.
7. Agreed that there are several races that are popular. But goblins are up there with any of the others, and there are very good reasons why those others don't belong in core. Your link doesn't work, so I can't address that. But popularity isn't everything. In fact, in this example it's one of 8 ;)
8. See below

Goblins are one of the most well-known races in the Inner Sea. They've shaped human culture by following them around for millenia, and have taken part in important wars. If they don't belong in Core, then neither does anyone but humans. Orcs, Elves, and Dwarves are the only races that match the importance of goblins in-setting. Halflings and Gnomes certainly don't make that cut. Half-Elves and Half-Orcs aren't even close.

But setting isn't everything. My points were not limited to setting, nor should they have been. Paizo has to make business decisions too. They have to make a game that will bring new players in, a game that is easily recognizable to people outside the industry. Goblins help with that in a big way. You might be able to armchair quarterback Paizo's decisions, but they have to actually be profitable. They have to consider the big picture. The core rulebook should fit in with Golarion (and it will, once goblins are in), but you can play Pathfinder somewhere other than Golarion! *Gasp, I know it's true though! It has to be made for those people too.

That said, I don't think you actually care about the setting. You won't tell me what you care about except that you're unhappy. That's why I think you really just don't like goblins. Which is ironic, because I actually think that's a valid reason to not want them in core ;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Corrik wrote:
Malachandra wrote:

I never asked for an official definition (if that's what you mean by strict). I asked for your definition, because it seems to continually change. I just can't figure out what you think makes a race "core-worthy", and I think that is something we should be clear on.

The label of "common race" is an entirely arbitrary definition. A definition that isn't even consistent across Paizo products. Inner Sea Races does indeed have goblins as "uncommon". But the Advanced Race Guide has them as "featured". ARG has no "common", but it does have an uncommon. But those definitions are not mechanical. They mean nothing in-setting. There is nothing dividing the core races from everyone else in-setting. You keep saying that goblins are hot-glued on as though they don't belong, or as though if they belong then others do too. But they do belong, and no one else does. You keep calling out Kobolds, but they really make no sense for core. Orcs maybe, but they are not as important and iconic to Paizo and Golarion as goblins, and there is no need to fill the niche that half-orcs already have. To put it another way, if they were to add a bunch of races to core it'd end up being the 8 races that belong and everyone else.

I don't have an exact definition. It's pieced together from Paizo material and the common aspects of the core races. Paizo doesn't have an exact definition but I'm supposed to? The ARG is system neutral, so that serves you no good as an example. The campaign setting race book specifically calls out Goblins as not being fit for core. But perhaps you could tell me exactly how Goblins "belong, and no one else does." Because that's a pretty far fetched claim to make.

Kobolds make as much sense for core as anything else, and they have more in common with the core races than Goblins do. Orcs are certainly far more important to Golarion than Goblins, who currently have no importance at all. The mechanical "niche" of the half-orcs is irrelevant to the setting.

I'm afraid I'm not seeing much of a point to your post.

I mean, if you're going to have a discussion on whether or not a race should be core, it seems reasonable to define, y' know, what makes a race core material. It's just very difficult to discuss this with you when you don't seem to know why you don't like core goblins other than "it should either be the 7, or the 7 plus a bunch of others". Seems to me like you really don't care at all about the lore. Because the lore demands goblins become a core race.

Yes, the ARG is system neutral. So was the PF1 Core Rulebook. The PF2 CRB is somewhere in between system neutral and a Campaign Setting book. It's an important example because you are leaning on definitions that are arbitrary and inconsistent. "Uncommon" in no way means not being fit for core. It means not core. That's it. Saying goblins can't be core because they were "uncommon" in Inner Sea Races is the same as saying they can't be core because they weren't in PF1. In that case, you are saying "**** the lore, this is the way it's always been!".

OK, I will talk again about how goblins belong in core.

1. They are extremely populous. They are everywhere in Golarion, specifically the Inner Sea.
2. They are important to Golarion's history. Not in a good way, but that is irrelevant. Not that important maybe, but who other than humans is?
3. They are important to the stories Paizo likes to tell.
4. They fill a niche that is currently open in core.
5. They are an extremely recognizable race, both in-industry and out.
6. They are also a race that Paizo has put it's fingerprints on. These are not Tolkien's goblins.
7. They are popular. Many players asked for them in PFS, and they have an entire line of adventures that have introduced people to the hobby.
8. They are marketable. I know Jason didn't care about this, but it matters. Brand recognition is important, and Pathfinder could use some of that.

I understand that some of those are opinion/interpretation based. My opinion is that kobolds fail in all of those but 4. Orcs fail in 4, 6, and 8, and even if they are better in some areas (2), they would be redundant in core. That's a major strike against them. No other race comes close to matching up to goblins, not when you have to actually list the reasoning.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I never asked for an official definition (if that's what you mean by strict). I asked for your definition, because it seems to continually change. I just can't figure out what you think makes a race "core-worthy", and I think that is something we should be clear on.

The label of "common race" is an entirely arbitrary definition. A definition that isn't even consistent across Paizo products. Inner Sea Races does indeed have goblins as "uncommon". But the Advanced Race Guide has them as "featured". ARG has no "common", but it does have an uncommon. But those definitions are not mechanical. They mean nothing in-setting. There is nothing dividing the core races from everyone else in-setting. You keep saying that goblins are hot-glued on as though they don't belong, or as though if they belong then others do too. But they do belong, and no one else does. You keep calling out Kobolds, but they really make no sense for core. Orcs maybe, but they are not as important and iconic to Paizo and Golarion as goblins, and there is no need to fill the niche that half-orcs already have. To put it another way, if they were to add a bunch of races to core it'd end up being the 8 races that belong and everyone else.

1 to 50 of 260 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>