So does this imply that Ihys is still alive, or is he resurrected on the death of his brother? Did Asmodeus kill Ihys with a sword, or with a spear like the Ihystear is described to be? Either way, this was the best prophecy so far!
Okay, so prices must be lower than in 1e... I hope :p They are. The whole economy is different.
According to Paizo twitter, players guide is out on Monday, Feb 28th!
Can anyone name a sport on Golarion other than boundball? Stick fighting and boat races, both down in the Mwangi Expanse.
Nothing makes me happier than the idea that Pathfinder 2E is going to go forward with Starfinder's philosophy on weird/alien ancestries. Loving everything about the Anadi, please keep giving us more monstrous options!
If you look at it one way, its almost weirdly fitting to put what amounts to moral prompt of group story telling in a table top rpg system with in depth rules for violent conflict. Cops in real life are given all the tools to to solve problems with a stick instead of a carrot. If put in a situation where the onus of peaceful and not always easy burden of conflict resolution is completely on you as a player to pursue through your characters choices, but at your fingertips are tools to solve the problem through force, what do you do? Neither arguing for or against here, just something that occurred to me reading posts in this thread.
I don't know, right now the depraved hedonists roaming the land sowing plague sounds pretty on point.
More Starfinder fiction, please!
Very cute. I liked the old cute little Final Fantasy Mandragora looking designs better than these more humanoid ones though. They kind of lost some of the old charm.
Please allow us to get wild and crazy with player races as per Starfinder. Monstrous races are where its at.
I am very happy that a single healing spell scales higher than 4d8+X, and that there isn't a vast empty gulf of nothing between that and Heal's entry level 110 HP per cast at level 11.
Is there a possibility you guys could find a book, or maybe even a blog post, to put that kind of stuff in? Especially the delve into magic theory. Please?
Tieflings and Aasimar complete with the customization charts for appearance and alternate racial 'gifts/SLAs'.
I honestly just named my Sarcesian mechanic Indrid Cold because my first thought when I saw the race was "Space Mothman." But for Golarion based names, her butterfly inspired hover drone is called NM-02, named after the Night Monarch herald of Desna, who is still around obviously but... might possibly have different heralds it's been so long.
I'm not sure if I'd play a Bantrid myself but I am happy they are included in the game and that weird races are really getting their time to shine in Starfinder. I love the unusual becomes the mundane aspect of the game when it comes to player race variety. Also when I read about what Bantrids were, I immediately thought of the Mulefa from His Dark Materials.
I support any decision that makes equipment such as weapon and armor choice less fiddly for small races. Just let me use things I find and not have to worry about resizing it for figuring out what 'sized' weapon it converts to just because I'm a halfling. Or both to remember what weapons I'm 'allowed' to use because of my size, no thank you. Especially now if weapon damage dice is going to be multiplied in any way by weapon enhancements. Demanding that a small dagger does d3 instead of d4 just really doesn't matter when eventually I'm going to be rolling like 8 of them.
To be honest I'm more that perfectly happy to trade away increases in damage die for larger sizes if this means that Paizo is more willing to include Large sized PC races like they do in Starfinder. I just want to be tall. Let me be a tall Gnoll. Or a Minotaur. Or both, both is good.
Let's be real the only thing small damage dice did was make it so if you played a gnome/halfing you couldn't use 90% of the gear that dropped. "You find a +2 flaming burst warhammer." "Awesome! I want it!" "Well... It's medium sized." And then you have go through whether or not your GM allows resizing rules for weapons/armor and whether or not those rules are actually any good. "Sure you can resize it, but it's going to cost just as much as buying one sized for you so there's no real point in you keeping this one." It's less work for the GM than having to remember to either make house rules, or remembering to consistently throw your small sized PC's some bones with the otherwise overwhelmingly medium as standard loot tables, especially if you run modules/APs.
Doing away with Small sized damage dice for weapons is a game changer. Thank you for this.
I like the breaking of racial traits into more digestable customizable chunks. I was talking with my partner about this change in PF2E, and she said something to the effect of, "Thank god. One of the main reasons I never wanted to be a Dwarf was I looked at their racial entry and they had like... 15 different things I needed to write down."
I didn’t realize how much goblins have been getting just a little bit tamer over the years until I started researching rebuttals for this thread. It really has been a long time coming, and I think I’ve convinced myself that goblins should be core.I'd really love to see a timeline of the changes. But I don't even know where to start. Can you PM me some of those sources you've discovered, and we can build a timeline of the changes together? The Goblin in Council of Thieves who wants to join the Hell Knights, an order so lawful Judge Dredd would joine, and is completely 100% tolerated by them and even given a relatively important job comes to mind as one source.
I don't understand why evil races are unrealistic. Biology drives behavior just as much as environment. Maybe evil races have brain chemistry that leads to evil acts? They do have to deal with the real world though. Our creations are always partly influenced by of our thoughts, values, and morals as a society. Completely reflective of it? No, not always. But they do resonate with human experiences, and as a role playing game where we are literally putting ourselves in the shoes of other people and world views this needs to be kept into consideration at the table. Especially since this is not a single player game. Racism and bigotry as seen in game from the perspective of a PC or portrayed by a GM is inherently influenced by our historical knowledge or experience of racism in the real world. This is why saying something like, "X are born evil." is a charged statement both in game and out. You might be looking at a player, currently in the role of an Orc, who might be part of a cultural group that was once thought to be 'born evil'. The adjacency of thought between this statement in a fantasy world to this statement in a real world is what can make people uncomfortable, and why its inclusion in a social game is flawed and to be handled with care and mutual consent.
I find it interesting that you brought that up because from my experience with discussing and reading about this topic Tolkien is actually often referenced as being very directly responsible for the unfortunate racial coding of standard fantasy races.
I don't understand why evil races are unrealistic. Biology drives behavior just as much as environment. Maybe evil races have brain chemistry that leads to evil acts? This would be an incredibly unfortunate road to take, and would amplify the problem of evil races rather than doing anything to fix it. Please don't do this Paizo. Attempts to use science to justify inherent biological inferiority or lack of character has led to some of the greatest atrocities in history. Baking this as fact into your setting is... not a great PR move.
I agree, evil races are completely unrealistic. And its a sort of inherited problem with Pathfinder, and a lot of fantasy based fiction in general. Its useful to have stereotypes in a fantasy setting so people can more easily grasp what they're looking at immediately, but again they're just stereotypes. Easy to write and with a use for a tabletop setting, but more of starting off point from which to expand than the definitive. I can actually think of very few mortal races in Pathfinder that are definitively all the time evil. Actually only one, and that's drow, but they even have a sidebar that says, "Sometimes drow are different" so that isn't even the case. All the definitive alignments I can think of are creatures with an aligned subtype, generally outsiders. My issue lies with some arguments I've seen where people want racism in their game, because a world without discrimination isn't realistic and ruins their suspension of disbelief. But they aren't willing to deal all the moral questions and development that arise from having exactly what they wanted because that's too serious and ruining their fun. It's wanting to have your cake and eat it too.
Also to ask for the game to be just realistic enough so you can include discrimination and potentially racism fueled violence where you feel is warranted in setting, while stipulating that the cultural push back by targeted minorites in response to the above maladaptive social divides is too realistic because 'I'm just here to play a game, man' is both a double-standard and dishonest. It's like playing expecting to play a game of dodgeball, but where only your team gets to throw, and all the opposing team can do is dodge if they're lucky.
There is an argument that not having NPCs react in a way that matches what the GM feels like their outlook should be on a 'typically evil' race is unrealistic. The idea that all members of a race act the same way, share the same worldview, and worship the same gods is unrealistic. Especially in a world where there are so many different cultures in such close proximity with each other. Culture is not a stagnant thing, and no one society is an island. Even if a culture was somehow completely uninfluenced from the outside world, culture evolves and changes as the participating members of that culture innovate due to changing needs.
Mostly I expect that because I'm here to play a game and have fun, not be punished and picked on because a GM declared my fun to be wrong. That's not fun. I'd find another GM and have my fun with them.Not everyone's fun is equal, especially when you go in knowing that your fun is stepping on others fun: if you know the DM doesn't like goblins, it seem odd to want to play one. And if I love Goblins, and I just really want to play one because I have a great character idea? What if goblins are my favorite race? I should just forget about it because my GM doesn't really like them that much. Despite the fact that it is my character, and not theirs. And the fact that I might be the only goblin in their entire campaign. And the fact that I would be perfectly fine with them ignoring the fact that I was a goblin and having an NPCs never ever comment on it. I actually had a DM who banned Stryx from his table for no reason other than, "he didn't like them". No reason given other than he wasn't feeling them. This wasn't made apparent until I approached with the express purpose of wanting to play one because I thought they were really cool both aesthetically and lore wise. Nope. Banned. Why? I still don't know. To this day, still never gotten the chance to play one. This same GM also banned Gunslingers because he didn't like them. It didn't keep him from playing them exclusively as GMNPCs though. He liked them enough for that I guess. But hey, not everyone's fun is equal. Isn't there a story about how Pathfinder almost didn't have Dwarves because one of the developers just didn't like them?
... Wait, *I* came here to play a game, not to get looked at funny for playing Goblin that loves kittens, or a Lizardfolk that babysits children *because* of some deep seated real life reasons!
Going out of your way as a GM to also make sure your player has the worst time possible because of the fantasy race they picked isn't great. Players generally expect good fun times from tabletop rather than constant judgement that mirrors a pretty extant real world problem. If it's agreed upon between player and GM, and both parties consent that discrimination be part of the PCs backstory or ongoing story... Thats a-okay, and there is interesting character development to explore there. Having, "I will make the lives of this race as hard as possible in order to discourage my players from ever picking this option again" is not a-okay. Even "I will let you play this race only on the condition that you allow me to insert very real, heavy, and damaging hardship into whatever character you have planned. Otherwise it's banned." sucks. I've run into that latter one often enough when attempting to play uncommon races.
Going out of your way as a GM to also make sure your player has the worst time possible because of the fantasy race they picked isn't great. Players generally expect good fun times from tabletop rather than constant judgement that mirrors a pretty extant real world problem.
Is this an actual thing? Like a Canon goblin or something that took off in the community? I see it everywhere when it comes to Goblins being 'good' "Compassion and peace are her greatest virtues, and if enemies of the faith can be redeemed, they should be." Redemption, especially of foes often seen as irredeemable or not worth redeeming, is Sarenrae to the bone. It would make a lot of sense for a goblin, especially a goblin paladin, to worship Sarenrae as her clergy are likely some of the most devoted toward nurturing that change it outlook.
An extremely sheltered goblin from, lets say a relatively isolated Kingdom of Low Repute of the River Kingdoms, where goblins living among the populace is completely normalized and they are every day citizens. This goblin goes on an adventure and is absolutely baffled and caught off guard by the continual reactions that people have to him. Someone reincarnated as a goblin might be fun too. I'm thinking something similar to the gnome character in one AP who was reincarnated as a Kobold, but without the crazy self-hating vengeance angle.
I'm going to say, I had a recent revelation regarding Starfinder that I feel applies to this discussion, which is now one of my favorite things about that system. In Starfinder era Golarion-verse, the options for races are way more varied and some incredibly bizarre compared to what is playable in PF. Its a giant rapidly expanding interconnected cosmos where more and more oddities are making themselves known, coming to the forefront of society, contributing to the economy, etc. ( See the new Pact Worlds book for some of the crazier things. ) In Starfinder it's incredibly difficult for the GM to do the tropey have NPC's just shoot you in the street for playing something atypical because you're just so weeeeirrd. The atypical is now pretty much the usual. If you haven't seen that alien before on your planet, then you've probably heard about them on the internet, or seen them on a media broadcast. It's actually so refreshing as a player to not have to deal with constant IC (and occasionally OOC diguised as IC) resistance to your character choices.
Pretty much all this blog has said is: "Hey guys, sometimes Goblins can be totally cool, and like to go on road trips to be big hero guys." Even if that was all the justification that was given, and we never get this upcoming lore revelation that Jason mentioned, the above statement is completely fine and reasonable in terms of including them as a player race. This isn't making huge sweeping changes to their currently existing culture. Its a 'sometimes', its a 'recently', its a 'few'. This is not "watering down" the lore. It's sad that I can almost see why they have to put that "Sometimes Goblins are good" sentence in there. Because otherwise, if someone wanted to play a goblin character they might get told, "You're playing a goblin wrong." "You're not acting goblin-y enough." "Are you sure you don't just want to be a halfling or a gnome instead?"
... outside of The City of Strangers (and Irrisen) where do trolls integrate into society? Starfall in Numeria, and a few River Kingdoms if I recall.
I don't see how any of that is changing. I love those goblins too. We can still play those goblins, we can still use those goblins as a GM. Those goblins in lore aren't going anywhere. But what we love about Goblins doesn't mean there isn't room for growth, especially when it comes to PC options. Diversity is not a 'watering down', it's adding another dimension to what it currently understood as the full picture. Racial stereotypes can be useful in a fantasy setting because they can easily let players grasp what they're looking at in a few key words. But stereotypes is all they are at the end of the day. The fact that there might be entire tribes or just single lone goblins of different worldviews makes them more interesting, not less.
Just to point out that a problem player is often going to be playing a problem no matter what race they are. If you don't trust your players to play a goblin, you've got bigger problems than goblins as a core race. I can see how this might be a concern in Society where you are matched up with a table of strangers every session, but if they are disruptive in that case, is there no policy for Venture Captains to eventually weed out bad players? I'm honestly curious as I've never played PFS.
Now people are going to have to say "Core Only, NO GOBLINS!" instead of just "Core Only!" Tangent, but nothing turns me off of considering joining a game faster than the words, "Core Only." I'm interested in having goblins added because it gives lots of opportunity to explore their space as characters, and have a lot of fun potentially playing against type.
It already does though. If I'm investing my limited options to improve my character into my pet to improve its overall performance in preference to mine, why shouldn't it get stronger though? If I'm willing to focus all the resources I'm given into the pet, those resources aren't going toward the functioning of the actual PC. If I choose to specialize in a melee front-line companion, why shouldn't it be competitive? I'd like to be able to have it contribute, and not be told, "Oh, you have a animal companion, but that's just going to make it so crowded..."
That's odd. I always thought CR was based on a balanced party of 4, not individuals.CR is "meant" to mean that a PC of equal level has a 50% chance of winning against it in a one-on-one. It is. There are plenty of monsters that would wipe the floor pitted against a single character of equal CR.
Please keep the bonuses from wildshape being a buff to your own stats. This keeps forms that are used as character theming viable. If I play a wolf based druid, I want to always be able to turn into a wolf and have that be beneficial. Additionally, consider unlocking size templates on different animals. If I want to play a wolf shaman, let me use the small or tiny templates to turn into a wolf puppy, or the giant template for an exceptionally large direwolf. Keep the gradual unlocking of greater and smaller sizes of wildshapes consistent with character theme. Be clear on communication rules. If as a wildshaped druid, i'm not allowed to speak human languages, can I speak with other animals of my kind? This would be a fair trade off. Be more lenient toward abilities offered from some specific wild shapes. Set a DC based off your class level or what have you for them if you have to. Just don't be afraid to let your druids do the cool thing the monster does instead of just the basic things the monster does.
I'm glad that AoO's are being restricted. Combat is about to get way more interesting, and I no longer am going to feel like I have to remind a player every single time they move or take an action, "That is going to provoke, would you like to do it anyway?"
I 100% am so happy Power Attack is no longer going to be a required investment. I *hate* being told what feats I should take otherwise I'm being 'suboptimal'.
Love the new power attack. There is nothing I hate more as someone who has always loved fighter than being told every single time I make one at low levels. "Take Power Attack."
Again, the fact that they know how to move more quietly doesn't actually change the fact that their armor probably has something close to a -5 to -8 Armor Check Penalty, which in every instance of this scenario I've seen has never been factored into the roll. Also considering, that an untrained heavy armored person might be able to use that +5 bonus to hide behind cover, or blend into a crowd. But a trained person who's job is is might be able to use that bonus or higher to hide in shadows, sneak up behind a person without being noticed, or hide after firing a bow. Yes, I think thats fair.
I find it silly to think the cleric couldn't pick up a few basic sneaking tips from hanging around with a rogue for twenty levels. I also find it silly that someone who would be used to wearing heavy armor wouldn't through its constant use be gradually more and more able to compensate for its bulk and know how to move a little more quietly than normal. |
