UlrichVonLichtenstein's page

Well, the extra time/more work I mentioned was in relation to all the other combinations that some people got excited about. By doing it just like the other ancestries, these more "exotic" combinations (half-dwarf/half-orc etc.) couldn't be done by a unifying system, but would have to all be written up separately or, more likely, wouldn't be covered by Paizo (but might fall into 3rd party territory).

Or, and go with me on this, develop a universally applicable template that basically does what the Heritage Feat does (granting cross-ancestral features), and let people play whatever the Fak they want?

If Paizo could take the time to develop those alternate Races (tiefling, aasimar, dhampir, etc), and drop them into an optional add-on book for 1st edition, they can do the same for 2nd edition, without much more effort. I see this is pure laziness. That, or they just hate half-breeds and want to make it difficult for me to play 80% of my favorite characters.

I think that's basically what they were going for with the Halfbloods here TBH, the biggest issue just comes back to, again, you only have 5 Ancestry feats across 20 levels, and Heritage feats (which the Ancestral Dedication would have to be) can *only* be taken at first level and currently locks out any other Heritage (the source of anything physical) feats.

Except Archetypes don't have Feat Taxes associated with them- they trade out feature for feature. And, that's actually what I was asking for, either an Archetype or Template system. I'd be happy with either.

Though, I'm reminded of the sobering fact that Goblins are a full-blooded playable Race/Ancestry, while Half-Elves are *NOT*...

Go home, Paizo. You're drunk.

UlrichVonLichtenstein wrote:

Reading through this issue again, and going over some of the comments and designer replies therein, I'm becoming less and less of a fan of what is a blatant Feat tax to play interesting and diverse characters.

I might be missing an obvious flaw with what I'm about to suggest, and I'm sure somebody will point it out if I am, but wouldn't a better alternative to this -again- blatant Feat tax, simply to allow players to create Half-bloods without paying any sort of tax?

i.e. Take the Human Ancestry, replace two features with that of the Elf (the exact function of the Heritage Feat) without actually needing to spend a Feat. Then I still have my Ancestry Feat available to me at first level. This would, in theory, quell the need to give *everybody* an additional Ancestry Feat at 1st level.

And before anybody cries "House Rule!" at me, I'm not a Dungeon Master. I'm a Player, therefore it's not my place to establish House Rules or make such requests of a Dungeon Master who hasn't had the opportunity to vet the idea for game balance. And why should I have to House Rule it, anyway, when 90% of people in this thread *CLEARLY* want their Ancestry Feat back?

Question: how is this not making half-bloods literally better than humans in every way?

Because you'd be replacing two Human features with two Elf features (for example). Basically, what I'm asking for is a "template".

Reading through this issue again, and going over some of the comments and designer replies therein, I'm becoming less and less of a fan of what is a blatant Feat tax to play interesting and diverse characters.

I might be missing an obvious flaw with what I'm about to suggest, and I'm sure somebody will point it out if I am, but wouldn't a better alternative to this -again- blatant Feat tax, simply to allow players to create Half-bloods without paying any sort of tax?

i.e. Take the Human Ancestry, replace two features with that of the Elf (the exact function of the Heritage Feat) without actually needing to spend a Feat. Then I still have my Ancestry Feat available to me at first level. This would, in theory, quell the need to give *everybody* an additional Ancestry Feat at 1st level.

And before anybody cries "House Rule!" at me, I'm not a Dungeon Master. I'm a Player, therefore it's not my place to establish House Rules or make such requests of a Dungeon Master who hasn't had the opportunity to vet the idea for game balance. And why should I have to House Rule it, anyway, when 90% of people in this thread *CLEARLY* want their Ancestry Feat back?

I must admit, I was a more than a little skeptical at first, when I read that I'd need to sacrifice a Feat slot just to play my Half-Race characters. Though, this might change when we see the general level and Feat progression chart.

But I love the idea that Half-Races are more like templates, applicable to *every* race in the book- Aasimar Dwarf Paladin, Tiefling Hobbit Bard, Dhampir Wizard Elf, I can't wait to get my hands on the rules.

Though, I do have to ask; what about Half-Drow characters, resulting from a union between Drow and either Humans or Elves/Half-Elves? In Pathfinder 1st edition, it was as easy as taking the Blended View alternative racial trait (half-elves). And I doubt that Drow will be a playable race in the playtest (let alone the official release).

Can you give me anything to assuage my worries?

"no longer has the spellcasting ability"

F&#@Yeah.Gif

I've always hated the Core Ranger in PF1st, because spellcasting didn't fit the theme of "rough and tumble mountain guide", and always opted to play the Spell-less variant from Kobold Press.

I have to admit, I was a bit skeptical, and not all that excited to read this Class entry. But after that bit of text, you have my full and undivided attention!

Says he doesn't like "spellcards".

Half the comments suggest, or point towards websites selling, spellcards.

SMH

Will definetely be using these sheets, thanks. And for people concerned about the number of spells per page... Just print an extra page, you dolt.

The title says it all!

If a character has a Str bonus of 0 (zero), then what is his carrying capacity- light, medium, heavy loads?

Thanks.

I'm putting together a "contingency" stash of gold, in case my current character dies. It's something that my character would do, considering that he's the last living person of his family, and wouldn't want to be a burden to whoever discovers his body or happens to be adventuring with him at the time.

So far, I've only found the following...

Coffin; Common - 10gp
Contingency Service (hireling) - 3sp/day (setting aside 1gp, in case)
Lawyer, Experienced - 10gp
Cart - 15gp
Mule - 8gp

Total; 44gp.

I can't seem to find the cost of a burial plot, services, etc. Are there rules for such a thing, or do I just need to talk to my GM about house rules?

Thanks, in advance, for any help given!

I never appreciated the many failings of the established alignment system. Lawful Good? You're a religious zealot. Chaotic Evil? You're a mad-man (psychotic villain) and shouldn't be allowed to play that alignment. Evil? You're still the villain, and there's no Evil PCs in my campaign (as a GM).

So, I began my quest to redefine the 'alignment' system. And I think I've come up with a fair compromise. Gone, are the notions of "good" and "evil", at least, for the most part. I came up with this system after reading an article, which I'll link below, and would like to get your thoughts on it (my proposed system).

http://thatboomerkid.tumblr.com/post/99181385456/in-defense-of-the-nine-poi nt-alignment-system

Why do I prefer this new method? Because it facilitates roleplaying, more so than the current system does. Alignment isn't something you just get up one morning and decide to do. It's an integral part of the characters psyche that was molded throughout their childhood and teenage years.

So, without further ado! I present to you, the MTG Alignment System!

== Red (chaotic)
"If you disagree, that's your problem, not mine!"
- Chaos
- Personal Freedoms

== Blue (open-minded)
"I prefer to remain open minded"
- Listens to all votes, views and voices
- Doesn't 'hate' on other religions, etc.
- Keeps things fair for all parties involved
- Values all forms of life (regardless of other's alignments)

== Black (selfish)
"I'm right, you're wrong, I'm big, you're small! Now sit down, and shut the hell up!"
- Accomplishes goals, regardless of sacrifices
- A means to an end
- Superiority (complex?)
- Greed (possibly)

== White (lawful)
"I refuse to compromise my personal beliefs" (whether they be religious, political or personal)
- Loyalty
- Honesty
- Patriotism
- Order and Structure
- Keeps oaths and promises

== Green (neutral)
"Uh... Erm... I don't like confrontation!"
- Usually defaults to secondary color
- Thinks through difficult decisions
- Considers Pros and Cons of all outcomes
- Common sense, above all

===== Possible Alignment Combinations

Black + Black = "I'm a selfish bastard, and proud of it!"
Black + White = "I'll accomplish my goals no matter what, though, I'll do it from within the system."
White + Black = "I abuse the laws and regulations to my advantage. I think it's time we had a raise in taxes!"
Black + Blue = "I may just be looking out for 'number one', but, even I am not without a moral compass."
Blue + Black = "I'm open to suggestions, as long as I get a fair cut of the profits, if not more-so."
Black + Red = "I'll accomplish my goals, my own way! Without regards to good or evil."
Red + Black = "I don't care for your laws or religious ideals! I will accomplish my goals, no matter what it takes!"
Black + Green = "I do what needs to be done, but only in regards to my own survival."
Green + Black = "I'll try to be fair when I can. But if it comes down to it, I need to accomplish my goals, no matter the cost..."

White + White = "We must follow the laws of the land's government and religion to a T!" - ((not recommended, you have been warned!))
White + Blue = "We like to follow a set of rules and laws here, but your ignorance of them can be forgiven, and we'll try to help you get acclimated."
Blue + White = "I respect all governments and religions, though, I won't be swayed from my own beliefs as easily."
White + Red = "Law? I *am* the Law!"
Red + White = "Personal freedom should be attained through debate and politicking. I'll fight injustice wherever I see it, but wont go out of my way to break the law."
White + Green = "We have rules and regulations, which everybody must adhere too. If not, perhaps we can come to a compromise?"
Green + White = "Let's keep things civil and in accordance with the laws. Lest we find ourselves clapped in irons!"

Blue + Blue = "I'm open-minded about everything. I can respect and appreciate all world views."
Blue + Red = "I respect your laws/religion, as long as you remember that not everybody has to worship your deity, or adhere to your moral compass."
Red + Blue = "Keep your rules and religion to yourself, I don't want to hear it. We'd just end up arguing anyway!"
Blue + Green = "I try to ensure that everybodies voice is heard, and calculate all the Pros and Cons before making a decision."
Green + Blue = "I enjoy being the voice of reason."

Red + Red = "I do whatever I want, whenever I want, because I want too. I don't have time for your moral/philosophical musings!" (can be very brash, or even psychotic)
Red + Green = "My hotheadedness can sometimes get me into trouble. Though, I'm not incapable of learning from my mistakes, after I've had time to think things through."
Green + Red = "I prefer to think things through, weighing my options. Though, I usually go with whatever grants me the most personal freedom."

Green + Green = "Let's try to keep things fair and as civil as possible. Confrontation isn't good for the group, if we plan on working together for a long time!"

I'd like to throw together a back-up character, just in case of the unfortunate event in which my current one dies off.

This is basically what I had in mind; http://youtu.be/TkiQa-qGves

So. Hehe, any ideas? I mainly want to do this because I think it'd be just the funniest character to play (for a short while, at least, maybe a few sessions) and I don't think anyone except 1 other player would see it coming (he's seen that particular Ultimate Spider-man episode.