Erdrinneir Vonnarc

Obakararuir's page

Goblin Squad Member. 280 posts (1,552 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 8 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 280 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I can appreciate that... but why replicate a mistake?

Omit ethnicities from the core rules and surmise diversity in the human entry like everything else.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zardnaar wrote:

Its kinda confuzzling though reading the PDF and seeing ancestry instead of race.

Beyond that... grasping the concept of what Ancestry and Heritage actually are vs. What they are intended to be is even more frustrating. It reads like it is supposed to be a new thing, but feels like race but it's not race.

Hopefully they expand it and clean it up a bit.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Isabelle Lee wrote:
Obakararuir wrote:
In other words, where are all of the ethnicities for the other races ancestries besides human?

Here. ^_^

(I don't know what's in the Playtest, of course. But those ethnicities do exist in the campaign setting.)

I did not doubt their existence. =)

But Vic presented a problem that a core concept change was supposed to solve, but what is presented in the playtest still echoes the problem... that is humans are treated differently than other races in regards to Ethnicities in the Core book.


Haven't dived into the Playtest yet, but the way Lore reads is as a situational skill much like you might use Knowledge (Planes) when approaching a portal or coming across a temple of a long forgotten deity and using Knowledge (Religion) to gain insight.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
bwee wrote:
Give it a break man

Give what a break, exactly?

If "Race" is too restrictive a term and we need a new, more accessible term that allows the designers to address problems in design, I'm all for that.

Now we have a new term, "Ancestry".

They changed everywhere where they would use "Race" and used "Ancestry" instead.

What changed? Well, now Racial feats are called "Backgrounds" so they can have an "A, B, C" acronym.

What about all the design problems?

I'm still seeing the things that Vic pointed out. Those design flaws are still there when they don't have to be.

Now that we have a new term and cool new acronym (I'll admit its a little goofy, but its growing on me) can we actually get the flaws that were pointed out fixed?

In other words, where are all of the ethnicities for the other races ancestries besides human?

Why does the human Kellid ethnicity, humans that live in the Mountainous north, not have access to the Mountain Roots Ancestry feat if the point of using "Ancestry" instead of "Race" was to allow us to transcend racial lines and allow for multiple Ancestries from the same region type to have access to the same or similar Ancestry feats?

The reasoning behind the change is spot on. It's a new concept... they are presenting core aspects of character creation differently. I'll buy that AND spread it like gospel.

...but the execution of that vision is what is lacking. What is written in the playtest text is not as advertised. Let's throw "Race" by the wayside and actually make Ancestry something new and different.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I do not mind the "everything is a feat" approach... I really don't. I think it greatly simplifies things from a conceptual standpoint.

But there should be options tied to race, ethnicity, and culture. These core elements should be what we think of when we think of Ancestry.

What is vastly disappointing is that Vic identified a problem... lack of ethnicities in other races... but the Playtest does nothing to address this.

Vic Wertz wrote:

And let's think about that passage another second—only humanity is divided into many different, unique ethnicities? That's arbitrary and limiting too.

But we get no sun dwarf, no dark dwarf, no desert dwarf, no hill dwarf, no mountain dwarf...

Pathfinder Playtest 2e wrote:

ETHNICITIES:

A variety of human ethnic groups make up the populace
of the continents bordering Golarion’s Inner Sea.

But again, Humans are the only race to get this treatment.

I'm not seeing how replacing the word "Race" with "Ancestry" fixed anything if the same problem that Vic presented is STILL present in the playtest, and that is that only Humans, be it race or ancestry, have any varied Ethnicities.

I like the idea of "building" an ancestry. I am very much a fan of the level of detail that it allows for, but what are we building it from? Half-elves and half-orcs require human heritage, but where does that come from? The Human Ancestry, which gives you the human and humanoid traits. Ancestry is a synonym for heritage... so why not just say "prerequisite Human Ancestry"?

If Ancestry is supposed to address the problems Vic listed, then the playtest needs to reflect that and currently it doesn't. Account for the species, ethnicity, and other non-biological, cultural aspects. Right now, I look at the playtest and aside from the half-elf and half-orc, it FEELS like the word Race was simply replaced with Ancestry because the problems that the change is supposed to address still remain painfully visible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, what of joint cultures?

If elves, dwarves, and humans all build a city in the fruitful jungle that is surrounded by the desert.

How are those cultural similarities between different races, or Ancestries, portrayed in stats? Would they all have a common background feat or something like that?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:

I quoted that as originally written, but the last paragraph should more accurately start:

...Ditching "Race" in favor of "Ancestry" and introducing Backgrounds...

And killing half races as actual races.

That further muddies the waters as what is the proper term for an elf/orc hybrid?

Don't get me wrong... I am a BIG fan of this particular aspect from a capability standpoint and LOVE that it is included in the core concept of the game...

But we have dwarf ancestry, elf ancestry, human ancestry... what are the proper titles for the hybrids?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:

I'm not sure which post you might be referring to—there have been many—but here's mine:

Look, folks, the terminology change has nothing whatsoever to do with politics. The problem is that the term is at best inaccurate, and at worst, limiting to design.

Let's look at the "Races" chapter from the Inner Sea World Guide:

Inner Sea World Guide wrote:
The most expansive and populous of Golarion’s races are known as the core races—humans, dwarves, elves, gnomes, and halflings. Half-elves and half-orcs, while technically not quite so common as many of the world’s other races, are also considered part of the core races because of their close ties with humanity.

Okay, so far, so good, I guess...

Inner Sea World Guide wrote:
On Golarion, humanity is further divided into many different, unique ethnicities. While each human ethnicity is identical so far as rules are concerned, they have wildly different appearances, histories, and customs.

Wait a minute—human ethnicities have wildly different appearances, histories, and customs, but their rules are identical? That limitation is imposed by the definition of the term "race," but mechanically speaking, it's pretty arbitrary, isn't it? In the Bestiary, dogs have different rules based solely on whether you can ride them or not.

And let's think about that passage another second—only humanity is divided into many different, unique ethnicities? That's arbitrary and limiting too.

The chapter—remember, it's entitled "Races"—then goes on to detail Azlanti, Chelaxians, Garundi, Keleshites, Kellids, Mwangi, Shoanti, Taldans, Tians, Ulfen, Varisians, Vudrani, Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, Halflings, and Half-Elves.

At this point, I want to sing "one of these things is not like the others," but really, from one point of view, 12 of these things are not like the others... and from another point of view, none of these...

While I do greatly appreciate the explanation...

You folks wrote the books... why did Paizo include ethnicities (sub-races) under the Races chapter? Why did you not inject that same diversity into any of the other races?

Some aspects of a creature's make up comes from species. Semi-elastic skin vs. scales. Hair vs. Quills. Bi-pedal vs. Quadrupedal. Four arms vs. two arms. These are determined by the actual species (race).

Some aspects of a creature's make up comes from their ethnicity, cultural background, the genetic make-up of their ancestors, and their physical location on the planet. Things like ethics, customs, hair texture, skin pigmentation, religion, appetite / palate.

I guess I'm more confused as one blog post says it's simply a term replacement. It seems, however, that the core concept of what would be called "race", now Ancestry, has changed to include race, ethnicity, culture all rolled into one... instead of simply including ethnicity as a core concept.

I'll pose you the same question I posed to other folks... how are the differences between a Dark-elf going to vary from a Wood-elf in how they are quantified and will there be varying sub-cultures of Dark-elves or are Dark-elves the subculture itself?


Gorbacz wrote:
Obakararuir wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I dislike "race" and prefer "ancestry". Ancestry is more precise and less problematic.
How is "race" problematic in the context of a fantasy roleplaying game?
This topic was done to death. Use the search function and you'll get a throughout explanation as to why the change was made, and why it won't be undone.

I've used the search function and cannot find the specific reasoning for the change. I remember reading it but would like to review it again.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DFAnton wrote:
Warped Savant wrote:

And with using "Ancestry" character creation is ABCs!

Ancestry
Background
Class

Personally, I'm convinced that this is quite literally the only reason they opted for the name change, and the rest of the reasons came after.

I'm quite convinced its the opposite, unfortunately.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:


Also, the "Race is problematic" discussion has been done to death, but the long and short of it is that IRL the concept of "Race" is biologically and sociologically meaningless, and has historically been used solely to discriminate against "those people who are not like us". Giving IRL pseudoscience in-game meaning is poor practice.

Historically, race has been misrepresented as paraded around in lieu of ethnicity.

Race is not pseudoscience.

Society used the term incorrectly.

There were, last I checked, three different homid races that have existed on Earth. Calling scientific fact pseudoscience because society is too stupid to correctly use terminology is poor practice.

How does this impact the game?

Well, we now have terms that are more confusing. Ancestry and Heritage mean the same thing, but now in game, they are different.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Obakararuir wrote:
So is dark-elf going to be an ancestry or something else?
"Drow" could be a heritage feat that Elves are eligible to select. I imagine "Aquatic elves" will be handled the same way.

So is that how they are quantifying sub-races now or does it happen in other ways as well?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So is dark-elf going to be an ancestry or something else?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Thaboe wrote:


That being said, Ancestry would be a better term now because races now come with a la carte customization that expresses their specific ancestry, rather then a full race pack. It's also better descriptive for The new structure for half-orcs and half-elves who can now we half ANYTHING (in the blog post, not the book atm), rather then simply being human.

This makes the most sense in regards to adopting a new term. But what do we call someone's culture now?

My ancestors are Cajun. My ancestry is Cajun. That's a distinct thing. My race is human.

If my ancestry is now human, what does this version of Pathfinder call the thing that used to be ancestry?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GameDesignerDM wrote:
New edition. New terms. For the better, at that.

That implies that something was wrong with using the word "race" in the contextually correct manner. I'm curious as to why the correct usage of a word is a bad thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Torg Smith wrote:
Obakararuir wrote:
Torg Smith wrote:
It is so you can have multiple ancestries for a given race.
Race is no longer a thing. It is now Ancestry. So you can have multiple ancestries within an ancestry?
No, you just have a list of ancestries.

So what is the in-game term for species?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
exoicho123 wrote:

This is the most nonsensical thing to care about

how does it change the way you play in any single factor now that the term in the book is ancestry?

just call it a race when you talk to your group. Who cares?

Because people new to the game will not know what the hell I am talking about when I say race.

I have to change because they fixed something that wasn't broken to begin with.

Fantasy games have always used race in a contextually correct manner, unlike society.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Torg Smith wrote:
It is so you can have multiple ancestries for a given race.

Race is no longer a thing. It is now Ancestry. So you can have multiple ancestries within an ancestry?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pelloth wrote:
Obakararuir wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I dislike "race" and prefer "ancestry". Ancestry is more precise and less problematic.
How is "race" problematic in the context of a fantasy roleplaying game?
Because race in fantasy games is supposed to be innate biology and race in real life is constructed?

In the context of a fantasy roleplaying game, there is no "real life".

So again, why is the use of race in its proper context, in game, a problem?


Pelloth wrote:
Obakararuir wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
AScreamingChocobo wrote:
If we are talking about precision, wouldn't Species then be the superior choice?

Well, "Species" has implications of "these two things cannot interbreed to create fertile offspring" which mean elves, orcs, and humans are all the same species.

Plus it has more of a sci-fi than fantasy feel. Ancestry is more precise since it's basically the question of "who were your parents/who raised you?"

If that were true, then humans would not have neanderthal DNA... which we do.

Interbreedability is possible between different species within the same genus.

The definition of species is too loose for this discussion to make any sense/ have clear answers. My understanding is that different groups of birds may or may not be in the same species depending on which biologist you ask.

No, it's not loose at all. Species is the subset of Genus. Genus = Type in Pathfinder... ie Humanoid. Species = Race and Ethnicity = Ancestry, Heritage, Culture, etc.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I dislike "race" and prefer "ancestry". Ancestry is more precise and less problematic.

How is "race" problematic in the context of a fantasy roleplaying game?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pelloth wrote:
Wouldn't subspecies make more sense since interbreeding yields fertile offspring?

Neanderthals and Humans, two different species, yielded fertile offspring.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
AScreamingChocobo wrote:
If we are talking about precision, wouldn't Species then be the superior choice?

Well, "Species" has implications of "these two things cannot interbreed to create fertile offspring" which mean elves, orcs, and humans are all the same species.

Plus it has more of a sci-fi than fantasy feel. Ancestry is more precise since it's basically the question of "who were your parents/who raised you?"

Also, who says a dwarf can't raise an orc.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
AScreamingChocobo wrote:
If we are talking about precision, wouldn't Species then be the superior choice?

Well, "Species" has implications of "these two things cannot interbreed to create fertile offspring" which mean elves, orcs, and humans are all the same species.

Plus it has more of a sci-fi than fantasy feel. Ancestry is more precise since it's basically the question of "who were your parents/who raised you?"

If that were true, then humans would not have neanderthal DNA... which we do.

Interbreedability is possible between different species within the same genus.


13 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Sorry OP. Ancestry is a better term as far as I’m concerned and better fits the stated goal in the book that RPGs are for everyone.

It's contextually incorrect. Omitting the word "race" seems like a play to pander to a specific, notoriously intolerant "of those that do not agree with us" crowd.


13 people marked this as a favorite.

So what is Chelaxian?

A specific ethnicity to an ancestry, when ancestry literally means the exact same thing as ethnicity, culture, or heritage.

Use "species".

At least that is contextually correct, while Ancestry is not.


If Lore is unique from all other skills, segregate it. The character sheet just gives you two slots for Lore. It should get its own section because I'm going to have knowledge in more than two areas.

Do what Pathfinder 1e should have done and separate Knowledges from Skills.

Acrobatics, Athletics, Deception, Diplomacy, Intimidation, Performance, Stealth, Survival, and Thievery (9) are ability based skills, while Arcana, Crafting, Lore, Medicine, Nature, Occultism, Religion, and Society (8) are knowledge based skills.

Have "Key" Knowledges... those listed above that are essential to adventuring and have Lore covered other "General" Knowledge topics such as Military Training, Competition Archery rules, and the mating practices of the Chelaxian Bugbear Tribes.

Allow for a specific number of topics + INT modifier, at each level of TEML.


I can cast a wall spell at a 45-degree angle.

Change my mind. =P


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Preface: I've only read a bit and haven't done character creation or played yet.

The whole "race is now ancestry" feels contrived. If anything, "ancestry" should denote sub-race, not your actual species.

I get it, you are trying to avoid the use of the word "race" because your company is PC and "inclusive" (my assumption, of course).

Ethnicity, Ancestry, Heritage, Culture... all these words refer to SUB-set of the Human Race in the English Language. If it's not Human, it's another RACE... if its a different type of Human... those are varying Ancestries. Taldan, Chelaxian, THESE are ancestries.

Are we going to have different ethnicities of a given ancestry? That sounds extremely redundant.

If anything, use "Species"... that would be a lot closer to being contextually correct.

All of this to say, Paizo... do what brought you to the dance. Take something that folks love and make it better while keeping it familiar enough to remain accessible. That's why Pathfinder worked.

From what I have read, it seems more foreign than familiar.


I'm referring to pg 306.

"TRIGGERING MOVES

1. Valeros can approach position 1 with the Stride action without
triggering reactions.

2. If Valeros approaches this way to position 2, he triggers reactions
from both the hobgoblin and the troll. The troll has a reach of 10 feet, so Valeros triggers reactions from both enemies when he moves out of the second square and into the third.

3. If Seoni Strides to position 3, she triggers reactions from the
hobgoblin and the troll. Because of its 10-foot reach, the troll
could use its reaction when Seoni left either square. She could
Step twice to get there to avoid triggering reactions, but that
uses 2 actions instead of 1."

It says triggering reactions... not necessarily AOEs so I'm guessing I just inferred that part and the converse would thus be true for monsters moving into threatened areas of PCs, in that their movement would also trigger reactions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm looking to see why certain things changed from something that worked in PF1 to something else in PF2.

The reason I'm asking is this feels more like 3.5e to 4e rather than what I was expecting, which was 3.5e to PF.

So far my analysis of the rules has PF2 feeling more foreign than familiar... which is why I'm looking to ground that in the reasoning of the changes.

I'm not looking to hate on PF2 or anything like that. I want to like it.


So right off the bad, what appears to be all monsters getting AOEs if you so much as sneeze in a threatened square vs. just fighters on the PC side seems a bit lopsided in the reading of the movement rules.

Is this just a case of the example that was used or is this actually what occurs regardless of monster?

What am I missing / not seeing that I should be seeing?


Kryzbyn wrote:
I really like the Avowed. Looking forward to more pacts and info!

Glad to see you are still around. How's Blaeringer =D

Goblin Squad Member

Dark elves and assassination will determine the route I go. *wicked grin*

Goblin Squad Member

Too bad you guys weren't around earlier... Aeternum might be short a Thane Blade if that were the case ;)

Goblin Squad Member

Dark Elves.... YES!!!

Goblin Squad Member

Blaeringr wrote:
Qallz wrote:
But, I think what Obakar meant was like "solo" freelance.

Obviously.

So ceterus paribus, you have two assassins: one loyal with a long history of solid performance doing tasks for you, and one with a long history of solid performance for the highest bidder.

Obviously both deserve respect, but is there any question that you will hold the one who is clearly loyal to you in higher esteem?

There's no question here.

Indeed =)

Goblin Squad Member

Blaeringr wrote:
Obakararuir wrote:
An interesting proposition Lord Regent. I would hope you do not discriminate against those that are "freelance".
What reasonable person would hold a freelance agent in equal esteem to one who has proven their loyalty to said person? The question really answers itself.

You would be surprised.

Goblin Squad Member

An interesting proposition Lord Regent. I would hope you do not discriminate against those that are "freelance".

Goblin Squad Member

I think I'll roll an assassin named "Obaky" and pretend I'm in the upper echelons of a mega guild and infiltrate another lesser guild and try and talk them into abandoning ship a year and a half before launch...

Oh and I'll do this while someone who used to use the pseudonym "Obakararuir" is at NTC and DOESN'T HAVE INTERNET ACCESS. Yeah, that will be real smooth and probably work like a charm.

/sarcasm


Interesting fact about Trolls: Fire!

Goblin Squad Member

... Blaeringr, you really shouldn't take credit for things that you played minor roles in.

Goblin Squad Member

Here is where the Catch 22 comes in.

They are already going to make positive contributions. Productive members of a volunteer society climb the hierarchy ladder faster than those who aren't productive.

If you reward those that are hard workers and deserving of promotion, you may promote those with hidden agendas.

It doesn't always necessitate extraordinary measures to safe guard extremely sensitive information. A lot of time, it's just dependent on the systems a particular game has in place. Decentralized guild banks. Measures that require 3 or more members of leadership to access.

To me, things like that aren't necessarily extraordinary. They're good protocol. Extraordinary measures would be encrypting plans that could only be accessed an hour before "go time" and over-nighting them to your key players on a thumb-drive.

The real kicker is the assessment of items classified as passive intelligence. Things that can be pieced together for value, but by themselves aren't really considered important.

Goblin Squad Member

Every prominent community. They'd knowingly be doing a half ass job if they didn't cover all bases.

Goblin Squad Member

I appreciate the clarifications. I would not expect any CC to simply tow the line in an alliance. My concern is with the two phrases that spell out your expectations in regards to voting power, as they seem to be contradictory.

"Prevailing" is not the same as "equal". Whereas "Equal" voting power seems acceptable, "Prevailing" seems less reasonable unless there was significant justification to merit it. Just so you understand where I was coming from.

Your clarification is again appreciated, I apologize if I came off as trying to trouble-shoot you.

-Obakararuir

Goblin Squad Member

Dak Thunderkeg wrote:

A CC would in effect be under the leadership of the kingdom, in so far as it would have to agree to our charter and not run contrary to our goals. As long as everyone understands that most other aspects are open for discussion.

This was discussed before, but we are adamant about not serving an arrangement we do not directly benefit from, or one where we do not have a prevailing vote on alliance matters.

What level of control would the Kingdom exert over the Company as far as finances, leadership, direction, and politics are concerned?

If you could please elaborate on what you mean by prevailing vote. You wouldn't join an alliance in which there could be a possibility of the alliance deciding to do something contrary to the wishes of Aeternum is my understanding.

Goblin Squad Member

My understanding is the term we are collectively trying to create will represent a post-beta live release. During this period, they'll be expanding on multiple system stubs that were rooted but not developed prior to launch.

Goblin Squad Member

Forencith, I hit you up on PM. Get back at me when you can.

-OB

Goblin Squad Member

*counts letters in name* Hopefully there's not like a 10 character limit or anything :)

1 to 50 of 280 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>