Pepsi Jedi's page

144 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 144 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Why would you be able to tap into things that weren't described? Isn't that a GM failing at that point?

"Oh well I didn't tell you everything, if you want to know EVERYTHING take a feat to know the stuff I didn't feel important enough to tell you at the time"


How's that work?

Conversely if your GM is the sort that requires feats and stuff to remember things, AND the same sort that doesn't let you refer to notes.

Couldn't your -character- take notes? Carry a notebook and pencil(Charcoal whatever) and jot down important things IC?

"Well Gunthar the barbarian knows he's not the brightest torch in the bunch, and sometimes things are important, and he knows he won't remember them, so he writes the important stuff down and keeps the notes in his hip pouch"

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I think what a lot of people aren't seeing, or are choosing not to see is this...

It's not that people don't want to communicate with the GM, prior to making their character and what ever ancestry it may be. All players realize they're going to have to tell the GM what they're making/bringing before they start rolling dice.

The problem comes up, when GM's DO just blanket disallow things.
Some of you may not have faced it. If not. Good.
I can personally tell you it DOES come up. GM's being all 'Common races only!" or "Only one uncommon race to the group" The "Only One Chewie Rule" and variations on a theme. They see the distinction as much more cut and dryed. "Common=good" "Uncommon=TROUBLE" and just hand wave it and draw a line in the sand. They don't want to hear why your uncommon character could fit in. Why he might be where the game is set or what he brings to the game. They hit that 'Uncommon' designation like a wall and BOOM. Conversation -over-. I've seen players flat out thrown out of groups by just TRYING to get races approved. Not even in a 'bad' way, but some people are just so hide bound that they take it as a personal affront.

Now it's easy to go "Don't play with jerks like that" but it can be hard to find groups, that you can get to, play with, have time to do so, all at the same time, etc etc etc.

So... the result is, by naming some races uncommon they are being effectively barred from many games. Period. No debate allowed.

This isn't a matter of the GM thinking they won't fit. It's a matter of many GM's not even reading past the designation and therefore limiting a bunch of player and character options based on that single designation.

This is why the designation is important.

Yes I've read how it's layed out in the book. I'm telling you. With over 30 years of RP experience in my bag, --many gms don't care. If it's uncommon or rare it's simply disallowed. PERIOD--.

That said. One sort of needs to look at it and if it's 'worth' it to put in such designations and where those lines are drawn.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
I think it would be kinda weird if orcs were uncommon when half-orcs, dwarfs, elves and goblins are common. There is major center of orc population on both Avistan and Garund and you can't claim that orcs are less accepted everywhere than goblins or half-orcs are :p

Can you explain why one can't claim that orcs are less accepted than half-orcs everywhere, or at least most of everywhere?

(I do expect them to be common, I just don't think it would be bizarre for them to be uncommon.)

Well the goblins(they are also CE species with bad reputation whose reputation is slowly improving because of Whispering Tyrant) was the main one in that sentence, but half orcs mostly because while there are half orcs that look more like their human parent, there are really orcish half orcs. There is also that presence of half-orcs implies presence of orcs nearby.

Not really. If you read into it, most half-orcs are actually the product of half-orc/half-orc pairings. It's just not what one 'sterotypically' thinks when they see a half-orc. There's a prejudice to assume it comes from an orc on human rape.

Previously the books have pointed out that Half-orcs have been a thing for thousands of years and breed just fine with each other, when they're not purposefully created by either side.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Heh. Hiss!

Got a link to that image??

I just remember crap.... never once had a DM make me make a roll to remember stuff from a day previous. I've been roleplaying for three decades.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

Something to point out that’s been mentioned by Designers is that a design goal/hope for P2 is to avoid publishing “upgrades” or must haves. So they’re walking a tight middle ground.

I actually like this. If everything is power creep, you end up with noone using the core books or base stuff, always going for the super powered stuff later.

The trick is to make new things 'interesting' and 'useful' with out resorting to before mentioned power creep.

graystone wrote:

This wasn't a thing in my experience. I've played countless variant aaimar, tiefling, elemental races, ect as well as core races with alternate race traits and never had any DM blink an eye: as long as it's legal and online [and it's not something like sacred geometry] it wasn't an issue. So 10 years of play with a few hundred DM's and it wasn't a problem: the rarity of PF2 is a huge seachange in how things work*. No longer can a Dm say legal elements are allowed but now has to delve into various element to allow/disallow things on a much, much, much finer level.

* this isn't to say that I've never had elements of a character questioned, just that it wasn't questioned because it was a variant.

As to ARG Lizardfolk I've seen them several times and I myself have played quite a few merfolk, androids, skinwalker, reptoid, ect: IMO a ARG goblin [or other...

This is very dependent on DM. I myself don't mind weird stuff, as long as it's there for an in game reason. As long as there's a reason your weird thing is there, and that there's some thought put into it.

If you want something weird just for mechanical benefit, I'm a bit more restrictive. If the player is just trying to power build by taking this or that purely for the mechanics I'm much more prone to say no, or suggest something less weird. I don't like it when someone 'plays the numbers' and ignores the character they're building to role play.

But that's me. I love weird. I -never- play human in RPGs if there's other options. Pathfinder, D&D, White wolf, Palladium/Rifts, whatever. I 'am' human and I've no interest in spending my gaming time role playing one. Heck I don't even roll human on WOW.

Though I have met and been witness to MANY DM's that hate "The weird". I don't know if they got tired of kooky characters, or just stupid concepts, or "Everyone's a special snowflake" or what. I've seen ones that are like "Everyone's human but ONE" I think they call it the "There's only one wookie" rule. To an extent I can... see where they're coming from (Even if I don't agree) If you have a Tengu, A cat folk, a hobgoblin, a kitsune and a Drow, rolling into an adventure that's going to be a bit more difficult to plan for and to run, with out either 1) Making it all about how much of the world is not kind or accepting to them, thus making almost every interaction harder than it needs to be or 2) Just 'ignoring' that weird ass party, and treating them like they're humans.

So while I personally am accepting of weird stuff and there's others out there like me. I have been witness to those that HATE non standard stuff (And had to convince/conjole/captivate and even beg) to play weird things.

Some people just flat out will ban/block such things. I can't tell you how many "If it's not in the core book, frak off" DM's I've seen. (( I usually don't sit in on those games)

By labeling some races Uncommon or rare it is going to make it harder for us folk that like the weird things to find play.

I've said it elsewhere on these forums. The fact that they made goblins a core ancestry in PF2 was what pushed me over the edge to buy all this stuff AGAIN. I played goblins in PF1 and getting DM's to allow THAT was often no easy task. In PF2 I love the changes made to Hobgoblins and look forward to playing one of those.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Hello Wayne.

I've loved your art for years, and follow you eagerly across IP. I am one of, I'm sure many, people who were -drawn- to Pathfinder due to your art, and I won't lie, your art is what keeps me coming back. PF is a good system and all but the depth of character (and Character) you give the IP is amazing. I've bought pathfinder books I didn't 'need' simply for your artwork.

I love the update on the Hobgoblins. They are instantly identifiable as being 'goblinoid' now, looking related to your "Pathfinder Goblins" Whom are so extremely distinctive (And well adored!).

I love the update.

I was wondering if you could give us any thoughts you had for the Hobgoblins, and their new designs. The Soldier from the Bestiary, and one from the Lost Omens Character Guide, are both very nice. (I'm not 100% sure the Lost Omens Character guide is your work.)

But any insight to the artistic development and implication of their new look would be appreciated.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

It could be that they understand the difference between features in a same species, but in art that's going to be 3 to 5 inches, top to bottom, leaving a face about an inch, it's hard to cram that kinda fine detail in there, in the medium.

With humans it's one thing. The human brain has been trained for hundreds of thousands of years to recognize human faces, (And at distance) it's why 'face paint' is used in the military. to break up the recognizable dimensions/outline of a human face. But 'lizard faces' aren't imprinted on our brains.

So showing for distinctive facial features for fictional lizard people drawn in comic or nigh comic styling in images where in the face is only an inch or so is going to be a touch more difficult.

So showing different heads gives an instant visual cue to define something. Each member of that heritage of course is going to look different, but you can tell the heritage at a glance and define it in your mind.

You see this in videogames. Blizzard for example spends a great deal of time working on 'racial silhouette'. So you can tell an orc running at you vs a Tauren running at you vs a gnome. At a glance. No matter what gear they're wearing. It's a large part of the design philosophy. When they added the panda's which could be on either team they worried that it would be a big problem. (and it should be noted that after they did that they have -not- repeated it)

So the 'different heads' define the lizard heritages at a glance and allow for you to 'know what you're seeing'.

You see this in other 2E stuff as well. The Visual Update on the Hobgoblins is AWESOME!. They look more like goblinoids now, and less like "Gray Orcs" or "Gray half orcs" You can tell a Hobgoblin at a glance now. "Goblinoid Head. Goblinoid Mouth, spindly overlong limbs, but 5-6 feet tall instead of 2-3 feet tall. That's a Hobgoblin!"

I was thinking the same thing. "I remember art for a Tanuki that sort of looked like a crazed Red Panda "

James Jacobs wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:

I think it's pretty frigging cool that the Lizard folk have different heritages that indicate different aspects/roles/evolution.

Good job there!


A part of why we're calling it "ancestry" now is that it lets us do this sort of thing for EVERY one of them, from humans to lizardfolk to tieflings to whatever we wanna do in the future. It's good to have variety.

Can't wait to see Goblin and Hobgoblin heritages. :D

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it's pretty frigging cool that the Lizard folk have different heritages that indicate different aspects/roles/evolution.

Good job there!

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Maybe I'm the odd one out here, but when I choose to play a race, it's because I want to play that race. Not because of the numbers under the write up.

If I have a character concept. I build that character and that concept. The stats are what they are. Are some races 'better' at some things than others? Sure. That doesn't dictate what I play in the least.

If I want to play a Goblin Barbarian I play one. Even if he's not going to be as 'strong' a barbarian as a human. I simply don't care. I have fun with the character I build. If I'm a point or two behind in this aspect or that aspect, I see it as a challenge to overcome through good roleplay.

I do understand the want to maximize your returns during character creation. I 'get' it. But if you don't like a race, choose another race. If you like one. Use it and accept it's pros and cons.

If you're just choosing a race for the numbers and not for the race itself... Well you're not going to get any sympathy out of me. You're not playing a race then. You're min/maxing a list of stats.

I personally play a character. Not the math equations.

Kasoh wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:
How do the three Ancestries look?

Hobgoblins are tough, good at fear, and fighting. The most interesting racial feat to me is one that causes mental damage when a foe you feared is still fighting you.

Leshies are...well plant people. And the art creeps me out. I skimmed their section. Fungus Leshies get Darkvision, Leaf leshies are immune to falling damage, Gourd leshies have backpacks in their heads.

There's a racial feat at 9 that lets them heal from standing in the Sun.

Lizardfolk are interesting. Five varieties to choose from. A few interesting feats, like "Parthenogenic Hatchling" which says "You were hatched from an unfertilized egg during hard times for your people, and you are a biological copy of your mother." It gives bonuses to saves and surviving without food.

Good overall feat support for their natural weapons and a few other tricks.

Aasimars, Catfolk, Changelings, Geniekin, and Tieflings are mentioned and get art, but no stats.

Ahhh thank you very much. Yeah Cats are supposed to be in the APG, and I think (I could be wrong) That they're doing Assimar's as a heritage. I'm pretty sure they are doing Tieflings as a heritage.

But thank you. I look forward to this book.

How do the three Ancestries look?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Put me down for needing a pistol for a Swashbuckler! It's a part of the iconic package.

Sounds like you guys are starting your game about... 2 and a half weeks early (For the usage of those three races).

Either play a stand in with knowledge of your group of replacing with the new char/race when you get the book. (with the agreed upon condition your 'new' char gets the experience and what not you garner on your stand in) Or just.. sort of fudge it till then. If you're starting on saturday, and play once weekly you're only looking at two sessions.

But yeah I'd just make a throwaway char to play and speak to my group. get them to agree that I could just transfer the EXP to my Hobgoblin or whatever when we get the book.

You're not going to get the information 'early' at this date.

lemeres wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:
That dog, was askin' for it!
Yes, it is. But the smart move is to slit its throat in its sleep when the pink skins aren't watching.

Well, where's the fun in -that-??

2 people marked this as a favorite.

That dog, was askin' for it!

Sorry it was the bestiary Bugbears that they didn't like. Was thinking one and typed the other. They're wanting to go with skinnier more sinister looking Bugbears.

My bad. Mistype.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The one in the Bestiary has the full out feline head and digitigrade legs and a tail.

That said, if there's any sort of vote to be had, I would say "Include both and just let people choose which they like. Thundercat/Khajiit. Mechanically have them be 100% the same and just let the people choose."

With PF trying to be a bit distant and unique in some races though, they may want a more codified and specific look. (Such as Hobgoblins being changed to look more goblinoid.) If that's the case with the catfolk, and the bestiary is indication (It may not be, we know they do NOT like the hobgoblin from the Bestiary and there will be a running change in future printings) the Catfolk we have are more Khajiit, than Thundercats.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like catgirls as much as the next guy, but I don't see the APG being 'too' much of a wait. Seems pretty quick out, all told.

Artofregicide wrote:
A giant dwarf on the other hand...

You mean.... Giant Dwarf?


Will do.

My characters tend to have quirks, and they're character driven. I don't 'optimize' every single aspect of my chars. I play the -character-. That said my chars would have their quirks or 'flaws' regardless of mechanical benefit.

If I happen to get a mechanical benefit, ok. If not, that's ok too.

I do find fault with the "Well people take them and then don't play them"

That's not a system problem. That's a bad player problem. Just like mini/maxing and munchkins are player problems. If the GM allowes chars with flaws but they never come up and the player doesn't play them, that's on them. If you play with people that do that, point it out to them. "Dude don't take that flaw if you're not going to play it" or as GM make sure the guy that has 5 phobias is allowed to play out those phobias. Part of flaws is that the GM knows about it and makes sure they're able to be played.

That doesn't mean someone scared of spiders hits spider foes every 10 feet, but it does mean that at some point spiders will make an appearance. Where in the GM looks pointedly at the person with arachnophobia on their sheet and waits.

Remember RP is collaborative. If people are taking flaws and not playing them, then they are 'cheating' or doing the game a disservice. Doesn't mean the game is broken.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not being passive aggressive at all. I straight up said it seems like an extreme reaction to the depiction of one race among 100s.

Canceling an order on a book due to the art of one race seems extreme to me. There's going to be three ancestries in the book and tons of other stuff. So I said so. I also gave options on how to enjoy the game if one didn't like the depiction of that one race. Like all the other depictions we have before the new one.

He's of course free to buy or not buy what he wishes. I'm free to say it seems silly to draw the line where he's drawing it. It very much -does- seem like a table flip to me.

To straight up say you're considering not getting an entire book, of which the part you don't like boils down to two or three illustrations on two or three pages, and canceling your subscription due to it, seems nigh on comically excessive to me. Thus.. the table flip characterization.

I'm unsure why someone would hang the entire book purchase on such a thing, but, it's their money. What ever makes them happiest.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you found it highly offensive it's because you wanted to be offended. Either way you're threatening to leave over some art you didn't like.

Describe it how you wish. You're not so 'quietly' packing up and leaving if you're putting the threat on the forums for how ever many people to read. (Including the creative director who's been posting in the thread)

It is a "I'll take my ball and go home" moment either way. Which is fine. That's how people are supposed to show what they like in a product. With their wallet.

But feigned offense because you didn't like how I phrased it just reiterates the fact that it's an extreme reaction to leave over art of a race. Finding it HIGHLY offensive is just more extreme reaction.

You're dodging the point that you have years and years of other depictions of hobgoblins to use if you like those better. Or that it's just one race of 100s.

My point is, you're threatening to leave a game because they drew a race a new way, and the iconics style is a touch different. To -me- that seems like a rather nuclear option for a minor thing. The iconics are a little different but they're the same people. The art style isn't a radical 180 or anything.

You're free to do as you wish though. I hope you find groups and play, in spite of some art. The things we play are illustrated in our minds by our minds eye. Your hobs can look how ever you wish them to. :) Don't let a few drawings rob you of the fun man.

Cydeth wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:
Cydeth wrote:

Doesn't matter to me if I use other art or not. Every time I look them up, I'll see that art (unless I do it online, but that's another subject) which will make me not want to touch them. I'm currently debating canceling my LOCG since they'll be in the book, though I probably won't.

While the appearance of hobgoblins may not have been a deal-breaker for me where PF2 is concerned, it and the iconics art very nearly made me abandon the game entirely. As it is, I do everything in my power to avoid their art.

AKA: What's important to me isn't necessarily important to anyone else. JJ indicated people should throw out their opinions, so I gave mine. If my opinions diverge from what Paizo produces enough, I will quietly drop their products and leave.

So if I'm reading this right, you're saying you are debating canceling a book order, due to the art choice, of one race among 100s in a fantasy product? And may leave the entire game due to that same single race and slightly different art style for the Iconics?

I do agree that what's important to one person is very much different to another.

That just seems like a bizarre reason to table flip and walk out.

If the art bothered you that much for the Hobs, couldn't you just use the old 'Blue orc' art? Or... use one of the other 100s and 100s of species?

I said I was considering canceling LOCG, or should have said my subscription that would get the Lost Omens Character Guide, because the ancestry is in the book.

Now to be even more clear, I nearly didn't buy the PF2 books at all due to what I'd seen of the art style. The examples at the time I was very hesitant were the iconics (half of which had gotten worse, from my perspective), and the art in Doomsday Dawn, which had a hobgoblin (which I disliked the new design of) and other art that felt lackluster compared to PF1.

Previews of other art from the core book changed my mind, because it turned out not all of it was terrible, IMO. I...

"Considering" "Debating" In context means the same thing.

While I can totally agree that if one hates the art, they will avoid aspects that it represents. There's an artist that Palladium books likes to use. Burles. Who's work just looks like piles of vomit or snot on a page. Lumpy, indistinct, a-symmetrical, just groady. And due to that, it makes it very hard to use/play anything that his art depicts.

That said, he's one artist and I tend to just sweep past his crap as quickly as possible.

In this case though, you still have a decade of previous artwork for Hobgoblins that you don't seem to object to. Could you not just use that?

As for not getting into PF2 due to the art, well I suppose some of the above could be said but it's an entire game system. Are you playing the game or getting the books for the snazzy art. ((Not judging or being snooty. There's been more than one book I've bought for art. I have tons of art books on the shelves))

And I'm not attempting to be rude. The "take my ball and go home due to a race being ugly" just seems to be a bit extreme. yes you did say you'd quietly leave, but you're posting here to the effect so I was asking.

There's always going to be some art, or write up, or description, or rule you don't like in an RPG. Especially one the size and depth of PF. Leaving because you don't like a more goblin, less orc, hobgoblin seems excessive. Especially if you've put the money in to buy the books.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Cydeth wrote:
Quandary wrote:
Cydeth wrote:

I very, very much dislike the direction of the appearance of hobgoblins. Previously, I enjoyed using them as common opponents and empires in my games. Now I'll simply avoid anything to do with them. Simple enough to do, generally speaking.

I liked hobgoblins far more than orcs before. The art change puts them at the bottom of the list of antagonists I'd use, or allies for that part.

Have you considered just using different art if you need a prop to explain what they look like?

I mean, somebody could draw a human or dragon or elf in a style I don't like, but doesn't mean that dictates the game...?

Doesn't matter to me if I use other art or not. Every time I look them up, I'll see that art (unless I do it online, but that's another subject) which will make me not want to touch them. I'm currently debating canceling my LOCG since they'll be in the book, though I probably won't.

While the appearance of hobgoblins may not have been a deal-breaker for me where PF2 is concerned, it and the iconics art very nearly made me abandon the game entirely. As it is, I do everything in my power to avoid their art.

AKA: What's important to me isn't necessarily important to anyone else. JJ indicated people should throw out their opinions, so I gave mine. If my opinions diverge from what Paizo produces enough, I will quietly drop their products and leave.

So if I'm reading this right, you're saying you are debating canceling a book order, due to the art choice, of one race among 100s in a fantasy product? And may leave the entire game due to that same single race and slightly different art style for the Iconics?

I do agree that what's important to one person is very much different to another.

That just seems like a bizarre reason to table flip and walk out.

If the art bothered you that much for the Hobs, couldn't you just use the old 'Blue orc' art? Or... use one of the other 100s and 100s of species?

3 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
It's also the 3rd edition D&D look for a hobgoblin, and that means we want ours to look VERY different.

It feels like this philosophy was applied to a lot of PF2e :(

Anyway, the hobgoblin I like is this one. Which is another D&D 3e hobgoblin, but I like it anyway.

Looks more like a red Fel Orc from Wow.

Bandw2 wrote:

yeah i do have to say i like the art from the blog post or whatever with the alchemist and the tian xia hobgoblins, the ones in the bestiary just don't look like their anatomy was planned out before drawing the picture. the face and mouth don't look like they have bones underneath and the hands look out of proportion to their legs.

the hobgoblin soldier from the entry above it though has art i really like.

I love that one. That's the mental image I'd have if I were to play one. Like that.

I'm already envisioning one with a heritage of having more green skin.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:
Any online source for a reference for the Hellknight Hill bugbear?

Ahh thank you. I like that too!

Any online source for a reference for the Hellknight Hill bugbear?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the proportions are a willful and purposeful thing. Before some of them looked like half orcs with different colored skin. Very 'human' in the 'humanoid' category.

By purposefully bringing out more of the 'goblin' in the 'golbinoid' the proportions are going to be exaggerated a bit 'on purpose'. To get them that half step closer to goblins and a half step 'away' from "humans with tusks'

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Just speaking for myself I love love LOVE the new hobgoblin look. And for exactly the above mentioned reason. They look "Goblin-oid" They look like a tougher, more militant breed of Goblin (The Pathfinder design for goblins are what brought me to the game). That the Pathfinder Hobgoblns now look like their cousins is a home run for me, and my group.

Before they looked like halforcs or such for me and just had nothing distinguishing about them visually.

Now, they look like something I'd want to play as a character. (Already loving the pathfinder Goblin design ascetic, this just adds in a larger option).

James, I know you said you wern't taking votes. That said, put me and my entire group (7 people) down for _____LOVING______ the new look for Hobgoblins.

I think it was a magnificent change.

Now... we need them as actual character ancestry!

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Slyme wrote:

I like the concept of Goblins and unusual humanoids as playable fact, I gravitate towards playing characters like that. I am also fine with the idea of races which are generally viewed as evil having outcasts, or even whole clans which break off and become 'good'. I've been playing RPGs for decades, the standard 'core' races are generally pretty boring for me, so I love coming up with unusual characters and backstories. In fact, my -2001 PFS2 character is a Goblin, which is also the character I was playing in the game that got ruined by the guy playing the Goblin Bard. I specifically wrote my character to break the stereotype Paizo has been pushing on the Goblins though.

The problem is, Paizo has written Goblins as comical from the start, and that encourages people to play them comically. Even the outcast/good Goblins are written that way in the official source materials. This does nothing to dissuade people from playing Goblin PCs that way, and IMHO actively encourages it.

You're not wrong. It's hard to find one represented as 'normal' (if that's such a thing) in the fluff.

Again this seems to be something for the group of players. And yes goblin PC's --are-- prone to this sort of thing. So it's good to nip it in the bud at the start.

I've had GM's that are like "Wait you wanna play a goblin? We don't want stupid PC's or Ace Ventura running around man"

And I assure them "no no. I play them like any other PC, just with a quirk or two" (__ALL__ My char's have quirks of some kind)

Some GM's will let you try and sort of watch to make sure you don't get dumb.

Some flat out refuse, because in their eyes, the possibility for stupid, out weighs the possibility of fun.

Both are valid depending on time and place. I've played games with some people, my friends, whom, if I'm honest, I'd not WANT to see them play a goblin, because i KNOW they'd play it annoyingly. lol

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Slyme wrote:

My biggest complaint about Goblin player characters is how people roleplay them. I played my 2nd 2ePFS game last night, The Mosquito Witch...which is written to be a more serious, horror themed scenario. The GM is great, and warned people ahead of time that they were going to lean heavy into the horror aspects (which I was super excited for)...then one of the players chose to play a Goblin Bard, and proceeded to completely derail any attempts at seriousness, within an hour the GM gave up even trying to run a serious game.

It completely ruined my enjoyment of the game, to the point where I almost withdrew from the table. The same thing happens in Starfinder most of the time when people decide to play Skittermander characters...they play them as ridiculous comic relief characters, hell bent of turning every game into a comedy.

I will probably never sit at another table with someone playing either of those races again because of how annoying and disruptive they are, and the in-universe lore completely backs up and encourages that type of behavior.

This can be a problem, but is a 'player/individual' problem vs a problem in general. People CAN do this. It IS a thing. But it doesn't have to be.

Goblins CAN be played for a more comedic aspect and for fun.

But they can also be played straight.

I've played both sides of it. And it depends on the group/story. You can get down right dark and creepy with a goblin, or yeah a bit funny.

The thing is to stop a player that's just getting stupid with it, before they get too much steam and be like "ok I'm glad you're having fun, but you're a little too much Jim Carrey with this and it's taking away from every one elses enjoyment.

The same can be done with Gnomes and Halflings too.

It 'is' a thing, but not one to totally boycott games for. Just let people know -before- they get stupid with it.

Part of the problem is that some things require a specific sense.
I have a very acute nose. Walking around in public can be a real strain for me sometimes. Body odor is like a smack in the face, even 5.. 10.. 15 feet off sometimes. Heavy smokers are even worse. A candle store can affect me 100.. 200 feet away and I can't even get close to a Bath and Body works with out getting a migraine. Etc.

But even with an acute sense of smell, I couldn't SHOOT the target just sniffing. I could tell you which side of the room the stinking party is, but I couldn't aim and shoot them.

You can hear people moving in a pitch black room but if you try and shoot them, you're not likely to hit them and if you do it's going to be shooting wild and pretty much by accident.

The sense of smell or hearing even acute is not the same thing as sight. Now that seems like a no brainer "Yes we know sight and smell are different'

But as others above have pointed out, unless very specifically pointed out, you can't just substitute one for another. Shy of finding someone with your tongue, you're not going to 'taste' where your enemy is to be able to shoot them. Nor is the person's scent going to travel 10s or 100s of feet, and be precise to allow you to shoot them. Could you smell someone over there with a hyper acute sense? Sure, but can you "SMELL" precise enough to shoot someone dozens or 100s of feet away? NO.

Now something such as echolocation could allow you to do it, but that's a precise sense, specifically evolved for that exact purpose. And there are specific rules for such.

Someone above pointed out, much of the above would be fetishising disability and turning it into a superpower. You're acting like anyone that can't see is suddenly Daredevil and can do 100% what others can do, just differently(Or better).

This isn't avoiding abilism. It's not turning someone's disability into a superpower and acting like it doesn't exist, or even worse is some how a boon, giving mechanical benefit. "Well Character X doesn't have to see his target to hit with his magic. He can just listen real hard and blow them away. Mighty nice in pitch black caverns huh!?"

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I personally prefer the brisk pace.
As others have said trying to achieve perfection would mean no book ever gets published. That, and there -is- such a thing as too much polish. At some point you have to declare it done and put it out. You can second, third, fourth, twentieth guess yourself into absolute stagnation.

Does a brisk pace mean a few more errors? Yes. I would much rather a few errors than waiting months or years down the road, for a product that didn't have those few errors (But absolutely would have different errors).

There is something to be said about quality over quantity. At this point the quality is there. So keep them coming nice and fast.

In my mind the -few- errors that the books have are far outweighed by the overall quality and pace that we're getting them.

Again, give me a book with a few errors -today- than a book with 2 or 3 less errors 6 to 12 months from now.

To sum up -alot- of words here... skill means alot. As does size and experience. Both ways. As does PREFERENCE.

I'm 6'3" with a good reach. I went to state finals, Fencing in college, where I came in second. There was a girl in my class, who was maybe, --maybe-- 5'1" and was faster than a greased priest. She beat me. She beat me like a red headed stepchild. I just couldn't match her speed. I had reach on her. I had skill. I had a bit of experience. She was just better and faster.

When I took Kendo I did well in that as well. It is very different from Fencing.

To try and say "Sword X is better than sword Y" You're basicly trying to say "All things OTHER than the swords being equal"

But.. they're not. Not ever. Anyone that's seriously trained with blades ends up with a preference. They're better with Sword Q than Sword Z, but the next gal is better with sword Z than Q. People aren't the exact size or exact skill level either. Robots (( that we have now)) Couldn't even come close to deciding skill or ability.

Someone above pointed out that Katana's are good for cutting demos. And they are. That same person correctly pointed out that demo's are not real life.

Swords work by cutting, hacking, slashing, or piercing and stabbing. Some do more than one. Their basic function doesn't make one better than the other.

That's preference and style. You give a Colombian drug dealer a machete he can hack you up and cut off your head. He'll probably do it pretty well too. Does that mean he's a master swordsman or a common $5 machete is an amazing sword? No. It means it's meant to cut things and if you hack and slash something like a human body you can cut it up.

People have personal preference. Many think THEIR preferred weapon is the best. I prefer hand and a half swords. It's my style. I like them. I like the look. The feel the utility. I can fight with a Katana, a foil, a rapier, or even short swords. I just prefer a Hand and a half. I'm 'best' with a hand and a half. But that's --me-- the blade it self is not 'better' or 'worse' than a katana, or a rapier, or whatever.

Just a small point, yes, Katana's weigh less than a broad sword of the same length, because the blade is alot thinner (Less wide from edge to back, not 'thick')) at the same length. That's sort of a no duh sort of thing. The Katana's blade might be 1.5 inches from edge to spine and a broad sword 3 inches. At the same length the three inch wide blade is going to weigh more than the 1.5 inch wide blade.

The Katana might have more compact mass, but still. More steel= heavier blade.

I received mine as well.

Read over it. Very good work! I'm thinking of picking up the bundle when I get some cash.

Thank you!

I've recently picked up the Inner Sea Bestiary.

I'm really liking how they did the Androids there. Sort of half Data and half Cyclon. Set them in the Pathfinder world and they look alot of fun.
My group are working on concepts right now. I'm working up an Android and one of the gals is converting a Warforged. Should be interesting to play out.

I like the concept of the Ghoran as well. Plant people that have an.... I wouldn't call it a power.. an aspect... that they're TASTY, so if they get bitten it's worse as the biter wants to nom nom nom them.

Yeah but still, even smaller run splat's you're looking at an amazing price difference.

I don't complain. I love that the Hard Cover Pathfinder books are so inexpensive when held up against.. well most anything in the industry.

You still gotta look at it and go

$33 = 575 page full color hard back
$16 = 64 page full color soft back

And tilt your head a bit. You get almost 10 times as much content for only 2 times the price. That's not a 'print run' thing.

Either way. I love it. I have all the Hard backs now and am slowly branching out into the soft covers.

Don't forget, STUPENDOUS MAN!!

One of my Faves. 18.jpg

And another 0x384.png

I've not, as of yet, received mine either.

If they have the need/usage, Im sure they'd do another. The Inner Sea world guide is what, 320 pages? Rise of the Runelords is 420.

So yeah, they'll make big books if they need. Thing is, the profit on larger books is more narrow. It benefits them to make two 300 page Bestiary's more, than one 600 page one.

All things considered, and using Amazon, Pathfinder books are great deals. You pay as much or LESS for the 576 page core book, hard cover, full color, all the way through, than you do for a new Palladium book, soft cover, black and white 160 pages from their company. (( They charge almost as much to ship as they do for the book. A $16 book costs about $16 to ship, in the same state))

I think the larger pathfinder books are a great deal. The smaller splat books are a bit steep. $33 for the hard cover 576 page core book, but $15 for a soft cover 64 page splat book? lol.

Very good to hear. I hope the Androids from the Inner Sea bestiary are included. I find them to be an interesting take on the concept. One part Data, one part Cyclon.

1 to 50 of 144 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>