Thurgon's page

The real question is do modern gamers have enough self awareness to be thoughtful, kind and generous in their criticism?

** spoiler omitted **

So we have now blamed both sides for anger and issues that don’t even exist yet.

Maybe everyone should just check their baggage and we can start with positive outlooks instead.

That isn’t to say there is anything wrong with saying X,Y,and Z are not fun, they don’t work numerically as I think they should, or we tried them and its confusing. That kind of feedback is all fine. After all if there are parts that you find unfun, report it. If there is math that does things unexpected report it. If there are rules that are confusing report them. But remember as much passion as we all have for this game show as much respect as you can.

As for a universal system, there are better ones out there for that. I have found don’t try and be everything to everyone one, you end up doing nothing great. I would rather PF2 made a great RPG for D&D style gaming.

Historically, in D&D, the Cleric didn't select her spells - her Deity did. She could pray to be granted a particular set of spells each morning, but what she actually got was determined by the DM.

While this would undoubtedly beunpopular today, it did help compensate for the small number of spells per day as the DM could ensure that the character always had spells that would be useful on a given day.

Historically? What edition are you referring to, I’ve played all but 4e, still have them all and I don’t recall this in any of them.

In AD&D spells level 1 and 2 actually worked a lot like wizard spells in that you learned them and could cast them, even if you didn’t currently have a deity at the time. They were rituals. Spells level 3 through 5 required some divine agent to pass on to you the power to cast them. And technically spells of level 6 and 7 (cleric’s top spell level was 7 back then) required actual divine action to get them, so some interupted that to mean you needed to cast the commune spell to request spells of those levels. Remember clerics back then had far few spells and spell levels and their spells did not scale flame strike did 5d8 damage regardless of level where as fireball did d6 per level of the caster...no max number.

My DM back in the 80s actually came up with small spell lists per tradition within the churches he had defined. It tended to be about 8 spells for level 1-5 and 6 for levels 6 and 7, he did the same when 3.0 came out. I think this method works well.

In advanced D&D with the printing of Unearth Arcana the Paladin was a subclass of Cavalier....so there is historic support for such I suppose.

Orcs/goblins in Tolkien were inherently evil because of their creation and creator. He warped their minds and bodies on purpose to produce them so. He did the same with other races it was his way to corrupt. This left them forever inherently evil. He was effectively a god and I suppose that is enough to explain it.

Half orcs were made by well a less powerful being and frankly did not last long since he got them all killed quickly. Maybe a few escaped but in Tolkien magic was still used to make them so you can argue either way with them I suppose.

Half orcs in d&d were never made that same way per the phbs. In ad&d the playable half orcs were only the 10 % that looked human and could pass as so. (Also the orcs in ad&d were LE not CE, so more able to be negotiated with and even trusted). Those half orcs now had free will in that they were not directly created by a being of godlike power directly to be evil.

You can define the races how you want, and can certainly create a world were certainly races are inherently evil. Its been done before obviously. And in the tradition this game follows it certainly exists.

I personally think goblins do not belong in the core books, they should not be part of what defines the base game as it will make them too common and they will loose their flavor in the change. Putting them in a splat book later allows players determined to play them to do so while additionally keeping the races flavor and even making that pc more special for it.

Thurgon wrote:

Sara Marie wrote:

If you want to discuss how the shift from using "race" to "ancestry" is too politically correct or caving to identity politics you'll need to take it off of paizo.com. We will not be hosting discussion of that on our forums. Those conversations almost immediately stray into debating or arguing in a way that does not promote a welcoming environment on our forums.

...Or having read to the end of the thread....maybe just killing it so it can be started anew with less political talk and more game play talk.

As the OP, this feels pretty aggressive towards me. Paizo made this change on their own for many reasons, including that word "race" was not the correct word to describe everything that it covered in the existing Pathfinder rules, and that "Ancestry" seemed like a better way of grouping all of these things together from the beginning, as Vic Wertz himself has pointed out.

I don't have an obligation to apologize for feeling like this is a change that also makes me feel more welcome into pathfinder gaming, but I never made that the central point of this thread...

I admit it is agressive towards anyone trying to make this about politics which you did. Look it doesn’t need to be your central view, that you added it set the fire that became the blaze this thread became. It has no place here. Just as those calling it PC talk has no place. If you mute one side of the political spectrum and not the other...well you are indeed making it a political issue. I am suggesting the moderators strike both sides, take the politics out and make it all about the game which I think they are trying to do.

As for feeling more welcome, I am sorry to have been so aggressive, I don’t mean it at you personally just your talk of an side of this that I feel should be left off the boards. You, everyone should be welcome to come here talk about a game we all play and enjoy. I think anyone who wants to be welcomed into the pathfinder gaming community should be, we can only gain by being inclusive of all players. But enough, even that smacks of too much politics for me.

I think race or ancestry whichever they end up going with might be interesting and I look forward to seeing the playtest and seeing what effect it has on the game. Personally I tend toward non-human characters just because often picking against the flow on purpose.

If you want to discuss how the shift from using "race" to "ancestry" is too politically correct or caving to identity politics you'll need to take it off of paizo.com. We will not be hosting discussion of that on our forums. Those conversations almost immediately stray into debating or arguing in a way that does not promote a welcoming environment on our forums.

I do agree such topics don’t belong....but isn’t the threads very name in violation of such?

Maybe altering it to something having to do with what will the impact of ancestry on characters in PF 2 be, be a better title with less politics and all.

Or having read to the end of the thread....maybe just killing it so it can be started anew with less political talk and more game play talk.

Have a *little* bit of faith in the Paizo team.

When the Playtest is here, kick the tires hard. But kick them honestly - as fully implemented in the Playtest, we'll see how the Goblin works. Then, if Goblin still don't work, raise an uproar.

I respectfully disagree on the goblin question. Goblins are well define in D&D, Pathfinder, and even their own world lore. Yes they can rewrite such but that only goes to show you that what they are doing doesn’t fit with the goblins we all know. There is no need to play test the inclusion of a race that has no business being core to the game. Its not a matter of how it plays, or if its balanced. Its a matter of flavor and history.

You want to test changes in classes or combat or anything numbers and game play related that is what you need to wait for the play test for. But a change in flavor, or history....nope we know enough to make our minds up about that without a play test.

I do not have your faith in the dev team, sorry. But I will wait to discuss the combat system and class balance till after the play test and some number crunching, that is to me just being fair.

But they are not. Goblins are the evil race, not the by product of an evil race assaulting humans. Goblins can’t pass themselves off as humans easily as a half orc can. Heck in 1e half orc PCs were specificity stated to be the 10% that looked human enough to pass themselves off as humans. Goblins are the race defined as evil and this not at all like half orcs. Sorry I do not draw the same conclusions you are from these musings.

Bardic Dave wrote:

One of the most interesting design insights that came during D&D 5E's development was that a given concept or mechanic had to meet a 70% favourable public feedback threshold to make the cut. Just under 70% and they would rework the idea and release another version for playtesting. Significantly less than 70%, and the idea would either get completely scrapped or sent back to the drawing board for a total redesign.

This is perhaps a gross exaggeration, but one could make the claim that 5E was an RPG designed by committee/focus group. Whether or not you like 5E might inform whether or not you think this is a good approach to game design.

Good design is not a democracy.

Good design might be defined by its end product being successful. And 5e has been.

I'm confident that, like previous playtests, Paizo will listen to civil, well-connected feedback from players and GMs who have playtested the material. Threads/posts that back up their assertions with theorycraft will be weighted less that actual play information.

If you want to contribute and be taken seriously, do what Paizo has asksd you to do. If you don't do that, then your feedback might not matter nearly as much. Paizo is asking for help and they get to define the terms of what "help" means.

-Skeld

Your experince with previous play tests held by paizo differs from mine. I expect little from them and certainly don’t trust they will listen or even reveal everything in the playtest.

They certainly do get to define help, and if it follows previous definition I don’t see anything players posting making changes. Players get to define support...and if it does as 4e did, differing too much from what is wanted, well they may define support in ways other than buying the product. Yes they have the power to make any product they want and ignore all requests, ultimately the players though decide if the product is a success. I will watch, post what I think, and give them the chance to surprise me but I will not buy a product that is not what I want.

I think adding Goblins to core is a poor decision. Reminds me of Ewoks in Return of the Jedi. It sounds cute but in the end detracts from the overall product.

Making them core is my issue with it. And I see it as a strike against PF 2 a reason not to give it even a try. But one strike isn’t enough in my eyes to give up hope the game can be ok.

If Paizo aren't planning on taking comments from the community onboard, they are spending rather a lot of money just for the privilege of ignoring us.

More expensive print options (Canada rather than China so they can get the final copy to the printers two months later than normal); developer time on blogs and forum posts; delaying getting the new product out by a year......

One could argue its simply advertising and getting people to try the product.

Look I say try the play test stuff, give feedback but I have no expections even if the boards agreed that X needs change that we would see the change requested. I also think they might just sneak in the most contentious stuff after the play test to avoid negative feedback they simply don’t want to hear.

For all the flaws of the DnD Next play test they certainly did use the feedback to modify the game sometimes. Not as much as some would like, more then others, but certainly in ways you could identify. DoM and Martial Healing were too very hotly debated topics and on both they decided to scrap what 4e had done to get more buy in from the pre-4e crowd. Because frankly they needed it. They also used the playtest to beat the drum that it was more 2e like then anything else, and its early fans adopted that stance and statement even though anyone how played 2e can see how patently false it really is. It gave them a slogan to cry out that would bring players of older editions back and they was their primary goal. And it worked.

I don’t know what Paizo’s goal is with the play test, maybe they think the changes they made will be so well recieved once actually used it will bring in everyone, maybe they think it will help them settle some issue they can’t agree on. Who knows. Not I. But my theory is better to say your piece and be ignored then never speak up at all. Also to the poster who wants to put in their input but is nervous about starting a shouting match, don’t be afraid. One many people out there are decent and will let you say your peace and even if they disagree not fight you on it. And two these boards are it seems pretty well moderated. Please say what you think you need to, even if I disagree, I want to hear it and I want you to be safe to say it.

I switched to pathfinder 1e because it was more or less faithful to and an improvement on 3.5. 4e was not for me and this gave me a living edition of my favorite game to still play. It wasn’t perfect, but it was faithful and it was ok. What it got wrong could be fixed, mostly.

I have been looking at 5e and each time I think I might try it...there is a good reason why not to. It keeps giving me 4e flashbacks and I truely hated that game.

Another plus is the quality of the books and the APs.

I love the current PF skill system, so if you can keep it.

I want less feats but more meaningful ones. And some class specific ones that have some meat on them,

I would love a trip back to 2e style clerics with your warrior priest type, heavy armor and all but with a much more limited spell selection and your more specific type with more spells and maybe less access to armor/weapons.

Make alignement matter. It should its add flavor and defines things like Paladins.

Don’t

Make Paladin a generic class, open to all alignements.

Let worries about balance overwhelm you. The PCs aren’t fighting each other just try and make sure each has some way to stay relevant.

I think you missed the part where this healing only works when the heroes are resting. The winded hero fighting on through tremendous odds would actually be more noticeable with this rule.

Not at all. Why does a party need to be at full health for every fight? What is so heroic about entering a fight always at full health?

Entering that fight already low on health makes the fight heroic, entering at full does not.

So to prevent this from sliding back into another class-specific thread, in a class-general sort of concept, is it a bad thing to ask for a separation between alignment and character class requirements?

1. Classes that have ethics/morals have those internally, not bound to an alignment.
2. Alignment is a personal choice outside of class choice and neither directly impacts the other?
3. Ancestry likewise is not bound to an alignment.

Do these sound unlike unreasonable goals/requests?

I think they are unreasonable.

Ancestry is an interesting thing too. Are not all devils evil by nature? I think they are. Can their offspring be different, well maybe but I think it’s more iconic that the default is they are not. In this case player characters can choose to be different but they would be the exception not the rule.

The Paladin is different. Its something you decide to strive toward and something you dedicate yourself to. Its defined by that dedication to good and thus requires a certain moral code. Lawful Good is a requirement of being a Paladin. The powers of the class are restrained by this and it looses its way when opened to all alignments and looses its very meaning.

Now you want to argue it should not be a core class but a subclass of knight or fighter, fair enough. But in the end the Paladin is a person who lives up to an ideal and anything else just isn’t a Paladin. At least in my view.

I still support alignment and alignment restricted classes.

Alignment is like backstory, its what you characters starts the game with. Its a set of beliefs, morals and maybe even motivations.

Alignment is part of what makes a stat sheet a real character. A person with goals, motivations, and core beliefs. Without that you just have some numbers on a sheet of papaer.

Paladins are all LG....because only those with the dedication to that set of beliefs and morals will be granted the great powers of a paladin. The gods granting such powers simply wont trust someone else with such power.

To be a dedicated martial artist like a monk, it takes a high level of lawfulness.

These are ok and fit the genre. Does this restrict the players...well yes, it does and that is ok. But its no more restrictive then saying a wizard with a 7 intelligence wont work well. Look restrictions are not evil they are tone setting. I run a game with no high elves, they simply arent around anymore and that is part of the plot and the story of the world. Allowing a player to play one would wreck that and destroy the plot. Restrictions add flavor.

Anyway in ending I hope the new system keeps alignment and that classes keep restrictions based on alignment. I understand those locked into disliking wont be swayed and I support your right to make your arguements against it. I just wanted to make mine in support of it. Thanks and be well all.