Vardoc Bloodstone's page

Ashanderai wrote:

I'm leaning towards the "one" to die being Gozreh. With the Elemental Lords being around, Gozreh always felt more superfluous to me than the other gods. Now, after Rage of Elements and the return of more Elemental Lords, I feel that way even more strongly.

I have a minor argument against Gozreh biting it: worship of Shimye-Magalla, the union of them and Desna, is one of the defining traits of the Mwangi Bonuwat people. While that lore's hardly scaffolding all of Golarion, it's a bit of that region that I think would be a shame to see fall away with Gozreh's death.

I also don't see how it would spark a war between the other deities. Someone on either Team Holy or Team Unholy feels much more likely as an inciting incident, IMO.

Sorry to counter this, but the worship of Shimye-Magalla was solidly debunked in Age of Ashes as Taldan propoganda. At a meta level, I recall it being explained that Golarion deities “just don’t work that way”.

Big fan of Player’s Guides here. With the removal of Alignments I agree focusing on thematic elements is the right way to go.

Of course, at my table, good luck getting my players to actually follow the guidance. Mark of the Mantis? Sure, let me bring my pixie psychic. <rollseyes>

How much does it distort the mind? As much as the GM (and/or player if it is a PC) decide based on the needs of the story. No more, no less.

Final answer!

Red - now you’re just being argumentative.

I get that you passionately believe your points are valid. Now, you just seem to be lashing out against people that disagree with you. I engaged with you in good faith, and you responded by accusing me of straw man arguments. Hardly polite.

I think at this point, 13 posts in, it’s time to recognize that you’ve said everything that needs to be said. Recognize that we all have a right to feel differently. And having a different opinion does not mean people are up to ‘shenanigans’.

Still on an island, Red.

Yeah - sorry, renaming barbarians as beserkers sounds like a terrible idea. I’m not sure what you would be trying to accomplish with such a change.

I’m okay with keeping the barbarians.

I think all the talk of Pinkerton and ORC is a non-issue here.

First, why does Paizo need to run EVERYTHING through a playtest committee? Delay implementation of any changes they want to make by a year? Have questions divide the community until they do what they wanted to in the first place already? Or can they not make good decisions on their own?

Second, changes such as eliminating alignment are like adding LGBTQ+ content to the game. Paizo has no intention of listening to opposing opinions. It’s their right to decide what type of game they create, and the whole issue of alignment has already been WIDELY debated in the public sphere.

And lastly, like James Jacobs implied above, the remaining changes are merely quality-of-life changes along the lines of simple errata. Years of PFS have given them ample data to draw from.

Red - I believe you put forth your opinions in good faith, you’ve been positive and respectful, thoughtful in your opinions. But it looks like you are on an island here. I don’t see anyone else here agreeing a playtest is necessary.

Time for us all to move on!

Thank Aroden they aren’t doing a playtest. It would take another year for anything to come out!

Playtests are good for when new classes, ancestries, or rule systems come out, but I’d agree it is a waste of time for the types of rules modifications they are proposing here.

I feel like we aren't asking the most important question:

Q: Does the player base get to play test or provide feedback on the changes being made or are we just along for the ride?

To this point I would say that Paizo’s monitoring of the message boards, ongoing discussions with various communities, and conversations with various stakeholders were probably considered in their decision. The lack of a playtest does not mean community input was not considered.

* Wayne Reynolds! I hope he makes sure to add even more straps, buckles, ropes, catches, brooches, buttons, ties, laces, filigree, binding, pouches, hilts, buckles, pockets, straps, belts, buttons, girdles, sashes, scarves, buckles, straps, buttons and belts to….that guy on the cover of the GMC. And more peacock feathers. And straps. And buckles.

This brightened my day.

Captain Morgan wrote:

TBH for PF3 they may as well revisit the whole concept of ability modifiers. I'm not sure the game actually needs multiple modifiers to figure out how good your character is at a thing beyond circumstance, status, and item.

That is a red line for me.

I was not a fan of moving away from the standard 3-18 range. But the number lose their distribution and become unreal if players are nomally getting number like 22. So at that point just ability modifiers make sense.

But if the Strength of your character is not relevant. Then that game has just become abstract nonsense and has lost me.

Stop trying to make every game have the same. I don't want that. I need the detail for the visualisation.

I used to feel that way. Having every single L1 PC with an 18 in their key attribute just didn’t feel right - like every fighter can bench press the exact same amount?

I’ve moved away from that, though, and now I see the bonus as just a combination of natural talent and trained skill. So having a 22 Int doesn’t mean you have a 220 IQ, it just means you’ve trained your mind and are able to apply it to your Int-based skills.

Pahtfinder 2E is a great system for the veteran player. The Beginner Box for 2E is also an amazing product for new players. The problem is the transition of a new player from a nice Beginner Box to a huge 640 page Core Rulebook. The D&D Player's Handbook is half the size and half the price. I believe Paizo should make all three options:a player's guide, a game master's guide, and an all-in-one game guide. Also, I think Paizo missed out on quite a few sales when the OGL scandal hit because they would have had more inventory to sell if they printed three options for the base rules of the game.

Well doesn’t this look prescient.

Speaking for myself, as a 30+ year D&D veteran who has played virtually non-stop at least 2x/week, with roots going all the way back to 2nd edition AD&D, and as well as someone with the discretionary income to purchase every Pathfinder product when it is released: I approve of the move away from traditional alignments.

It is funny, I’ve been working on some homebrew rules that did away with alignments in my next homebrew campaign. I’ll be looking forward to seeing how this is implemented.

This blog is dated 2022?

Is this a first solo outing for Vanessa Hoskins? If so I am excited! Love her work.

Any hints as to the themes of this adventure? As in, other than the setting, what separates it from the pack? Or can/should we speculate until it comes out?

Working off my experience with other big TTRPG scandal controversies, I'm not looking forward to the point where people start saying, "See? I told you there'd be nothing to worry about," as if this change in policy isn't very obviously directly sprouted from the massive and well-organized fandom backlash.

Haha - that was me!

Honestly, this is more a lesson in public relations than it is about licensing or anything law-related. I’ve been of the opinion that the OGL 1.0 was not revocable, and everyone with any credibility (including Paizo) agrees with that position. Pathfinder was always safe.

But holy cow - what a fiasco for Hasbro, and what a move by Paizo to seize the momentum and build goodwill. This feels like something that Paizo was prepared for and expecting for quite some time. Well done Paizo.

I’m sure this will all end up the the textbook of some MBA class in the future.

To be fair, the video wasn’t out yet when I shared the link.

This is relevant. Roll For Combat is hosting questions at 4:00 EST today. Bottom line is that fears of OGL 1.1 are probably overblown:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ6iTzeiNY8

Edit: time error

Also, Vardoc, we've linked two accounts now from lawyers who seem extremely concerned. They're a good read, and an informative watch.

Look, I’m not saying don’t have an interest, or don’t follow the story. But frankly, most these folks don’t know what they are talking about. I love Ron as a content creator and member of our community, but he is not an expert in these fields.

So my message is to ease the panic, but if that doesn’t sit well with you then by all means, you do you.

And for what it is worth, I am fairly confident that none of these fears will come to pass and that Paizo can continue to Paizo. Like 80-90% certain.

Edit: typo.

So this may be a hot take - but I think we should all chill and hold off on the torches and pitchforks.

Contracts, intellectual property, and licensing law is not for the faint of heart. There are a lot of doom-and-gloom articles and posts out there, but most of them are from folks who have no idea what they are talking about. The best one I saw was with an actual lawyer on Roll For Combat, and even he had a lot of qualifiers to his thoughts. He did seem to believe that this isn’t the end-of-the-world.

So I totally get the concern over our favorite hobby. But I’d wait until something official comes out (not a leak), and/or when Paizo comes out with something official.

The ability score and alchemist changes should help bring my lizardfolk mutagenist to life!

Yeah, while it's worth keeping in mind your manipulate-trait having ability does provoke, the amount of enemies with AoO are a lot less than they used to be (because literally everyone could make AoO).

I specifically avoided using the word ‘useless’ for that reason. Theoretically you could stand being your frontline fighter outside of the enemy’s reach and provide the parry bonus too.

But it is an extra calculation you need to make as a player, and narratively just feels wrong. Why give yourself up to a possible AoO for a measly +1/+2 bonus??

So the 5th level dwarf ancestry feat Clan Protector.

Doe the fact that this feat requires an Interact action make it useless in combat? Parry requires an Action but not an Interact action. Interact includes the Manipulate trait, meaning Clan Protector now provokes many Attacks of Opportunity.

The way it is written, however, leads me to believe this may have been an error:

“…When you use an Interact action to gain a circumstance bonus to AC from your clan dagger’s parry trait, you can grant the circumstance bonus to an adjacent ally instead of gaining it yourself. You can use multiple Interact actions to protect multiple allies, or to protect yourself and an ally.”

I was not a fan of mythic in 1e, and I would not be interested in tacking in an OP ruleset to 2e. But I do think it would be interesting to have a true L20 adventure where you could rock those capstone abilities and have some demigod-level fun.

The one thing I *really* want from Drow is the ability to make them almost entirely pigmentless, like blind cave salamanders. I know that black to purple skin is traditional, but we know what animals that never see the sun look like and they're not darkly pigmented.

Agreed - see my post above about albino Drow. I really like the idea of that for a heritage that delves deep and in isolation.

If folks get a kick out of things like Kingmaker and Crown of the Kobold King, please let us know! Leaving reviews not only helps us see what folks like, but also helps us find out what parts we can learn from and improve on. And of course, sales are a big part too. We're much more likely to continue to periodically update and revise and expand older adventures like this if we feel like folks are interested and engaged! I know that I have several potential projects in my own head I'd love to see us tackle in a similar way—not to the detriment of putting new content out, of course, but to supplement it. But feedback, reviews, and sales will certainly help make these sorts of products more likely. (Whether those happen here at paizo.com or wherever.)

What I like about Crown of the Kobold King is that there is sufficient material there for a modern adventure, there is plenty of nostalgia, and there are Easter eggs to the lore that would lead to the Tryant’s return.

As a fan of the non-AP adventures (PF1+PF2), what I really appreciate is the ability to have a specific themed scenario where players can experiment with unusual character concepts within a tight level range. I love the setup of No Response From Deepmar, for example, but the “Con Air” concept would get tired over 20 levels.

Looking through my 1e catalog, the adventures that seem most “ripe” for a similar treatment would be 1) the Crypt of the Everflame series, 2) the We Be Goblins series (although these have historically been free), 3) Dragon’s Demand, and 4) Emerald Spire.

Looking through the rest, there are a ton of adventures that I think would be SUPER interesting, but a lot of story would have to be added to make a similar sized adventure. I wonder if it would not be better to simply design a “spiritual successor” to the original with a new story instead. I don’t know. But the adventures that fall into this category for me include 1) Carrion Hill, 2) Feast of Ravenmoor, 3) Midnight Mirror/Cradle of Night (more Nidal please!), 4) Doom Comes to Dustspawn, 5) Ire of the Storm/Seers of the Drowned City, and 6) Down the Blighted Path. But I my opinions are based more on the adventure hook than personal experience with the adventure.

Well, I’m glad the discussion has moved towards Avistan’s geopolitics in general, versus the superiority of one system over others.

Pathfinder started out with clearly defined “themed” settings in close proximity to each other. This remains the case, in broad general terms. But I believe the strength of Pathfinder over the last 10 years or so has been its ability to blend themes and cultures together in new and interesting ways.

In my Age of Ashes campaign, currently on hiatus, I was looking forward to exploring how the discovery of an elven portal network in Isger would impact the PCs, Breachton, Isger, and the region in general.

Vardoc Bloodstone wrote:

There’s plenty of precedent for commoners in higher-level cities to be higher-level themselves.

The Darklands are a dangerous place. Most cities are medium to high level. So sure, most average Drow are higher level than an average commoner elsewhere.

By that logic, wouldn't commoners from Absalom be stronger than your average drow? Absalom is a Level 20 settlement, after all.

Ansalon is a much safer city.

For reference, see Promise, from Broken Promises, Age of Ashes.

There’s plenty of precedent for commoners in higher-level cities to be higher-level themselves.

The Darklands are a dangerous place. Most cities are medium to high level. So sure, most average Drow are higher level than an average commoner elsewhere.

I like arm-chair geopolitical speculation more than most, but this doesn’t seem like a fruitful discussion for this forum.

Far too many assumptions imbedded in the original post that are going to bleed into arguments about real-world politics.

For what it’s worth, I think I’d vote for the Drow ancestry being Rare by default, and not include light sensitivity (unless it is part of a heritage).

As far as the elf/elf debate goes, rather than ask why Drow are a separate ancestry from Elf, I’d argue the opposite direction for adding more Core-adjacent ancestries to an Darklands sourcebook.

The thing I think I would do if Drow were a heritage and someone really wanted to play a Drow Aasimar or w/e is that it doesn't seem unwieldy to let players choose two heritages. After all, it's canon that things like Tieflings and Aasimar are often due to some outsider influence many generations ago, so presumably your parents had a completely different ancestry. So I don't see a problem with letting someone be a Death Warden Dwarf and a Duskwalker or an Umbral Gnome and a Dhampir.

I do have it in my headspace for a future campaign to use the Ancestral Paragon rules from the GMG give my players an elemental versatile heritage ala the “free archetype” style.

So not a bad idea here.

Here's a thought: a Drow "Ancestors" Oracle who is fueled not by the spirits of their honored dead, but by a seed of the Maelstrom's chaos they were blessed with by a protean - their random empowerment the result of a roiling plane. It's a novel angle on the classic 'Chaos/Wild Mage' trope, especially if played as a blessing to the host.

This is interesting! I may have to build this PC.

Where could I find lore related to the Drow and the Maelstom? I’ve seen this pop up a few times and feel like I might be missing something.

Well - being required to pick Cavern Elf in order to play a Drow and not having any other heritage options, well, sucks.

My Drow PC ideas are as follows:

- A skilled alchemist focused on mushroom-based poisons
- A barbarian who has been lost in the Darklands for too long
- An esoteric bard/thaumaturge trained to combat the occult dangers of the Underdark
- A cleric Droskar seeking to subjugate their own city “for their own good”
- A Druid/ranger dedicated to exploring and mapping natural resources in the Darklands
- A fighter/magus trained to defend the great Houses before their House fell
- A summoner with a demon/devil eidolon who “knows what is best”
- An albino ancestors oracle who’s family predates the Fall
- A smiling swashbuckler who views all other ancestries as inferior and “suckers” to Diplomacy

I now return the thread to its original topic, which I'll eagerly continue to lurk in since I'm super interested in finding out what folks want in a playable drow ancestry.

Thanks so much for the background, and for directly addressing one of my concerns!

Hmmm, what would I want from a playable Drow ancestry? I’d agree to treat it as a separate ancestry from elves. The heritages could branch out to their themes of spell resistance, innate spellcasting, underground hunters, demon-touched, animal companions, and fleshwarping. “Albino” drow seem like an interesting concept too. And obviously, the ability to build effective PCs (mechanically and narratively) with as many of the classes and other toys of the system as possible.

More importantly (for me, anyways) would be that the Drow culture would have to have a purpose and a place in the world of Golarion. Based on this discussion so far, my headspace would have them as the most “civilized” of the Darklands, power brokers and intermediaries between the other subterranean cultures that are too evil or too alien for other cultures to avoid conflict. This may support their largely “evil” outlook (e.g. being evil is necessary for survival) but also leave space for communities who have found another way.

I’m so glad I asked my question. Some really good responses here. My interest is piqued!

I own but never played Second Darkness. My impression was that to be Drow on Golarion was to be innately evil, no exceptions. That always rubbed me the wrong way. I know a lot of lore got updated, so I may need to update my brain too.

I can also see the Drow as fulfilling a specific niche in the socioeconomic landscape of the Darklands. Although I would still like to see more separation from the D&D product.

The potential influence of Nocticula and Sarenrae is exciting to me too.

Keftiu - you have an extraordinary command of Golarion lore. What narratives do you see Drow characters fitting in to, in a unique way?

I’m with PossibleCabbage in that I struggle to think of interesting Drow characters that I would want to play.

I think kobolds are a great metaphor for how trauma and fear (they're a small-sized species that evolved in the Darklands) can make you bitter and mean and toxic yourself. Kobolds are insular, arrogant, paranoid, cowardly, spiteful and cruel, and they got that way because they're vulnerable and always have been and channeled it in an unhealthy way.

I enthusiastically support this interpretation.

I tend to look at things from an evolutionary/sociology perspective.

Kobolds had a competitive advantage in underground complexes sized for small races. This led to a lot of conflict with other underground races, good and bad. I can totally see earlier dwarven civilizations viewing them as nothing more than vermin to be exterminated. Being “monstrous”, few “good” deities had any interest in them.

So who do you turn to when you are being bullied? A bigger bully. Hence the fiend connection.

Times are changing though!

Vardoc Bloodstone wrote:

JiCi wrote:

The only other reason is that kobolds are often seen as the gnomes' most dangerous archnemesis... but what does it do for goblins then?

I always thought kobolds were in conflict with dwarves, not gnomes.

In terms of mechanically relevant racism/favored foe/racial enmity, I believe dwarves are opposed to orcs, goblins, and giants traditionally.

I found where I got dwarves from - Classic Monsters Revisited, way back in the 3.5 days.

The mention gnomes too. I don’t really get that one. I understand kobolds and dwarves both being subterranean races competing for the same underground resources. Maybe deep gnomes too. But surface gnomes? I don’t know how often they would come across each other.

The only other reason is that kobolds are often seen as the gnomes' most dangerous archnemesis... but what does it do for goblins then?

I always thought kobolds were in conflict with dwarves, not gnomes.

I read them like a magazine, often backwards (as in last chapters first). I’m normally excited too but the day they come out, but may take months to work my way through the whole book.

I’ll be blunt. PF2e is harder than a lot of us fanboys give it credit for.

Now, I enjoy it. I like applying clever tactics to complex problems, I love the consistency, the optimization, the customization, the playability all the way from Level 1 to Level 20. But if you are coming from another system you will struggle - at least at the beginning. And in my opinion, that is a good thing.

But if you want an easier game, folks here can help you modify yours to be easier and less deadly.

Normally the mix of modern slang and monster names for fantasy stuff kinda annoys me... but the swolbold is pretty delightful.

Although my playstyle would work better going in the other direction, down to a Tiny kobold.

AKA: The smolbold.

This would be pretty close to their origins!

I think we need to move on from Agents of Edgewatch.

Yes, I probably took us here when I disagreed with Keftiu’s opinion that the adventure was about PCs brutalizing a kobold union. I still disagree with that characterization because a) I really don’t think the writers intended it to come out that way b) you can’t really expect PCs to do anything and c) I’ve listened to the Agents of Edgewatch actual play podcast by Roll for Combat and rather enjoyed it. And I don’t like seeing folks trash things I enjoy.

But at the same time I can admit the story had problems. I said as much above. Paizo put a content advisory on it, and GMs should be thoughtful about how they present the adventure.

So let’s all just agree to disagree and move on to enjoying the game. Set aside the ad hominem attacks. This doesn’t need to be a conversation we “win” or “lose”. We can both have valid points.

And if you want to continue the conversation, move it to the AoE forum.

Very excited about this!

To really expand on kobolds while still using all that draconic lore that WoTC developed could be seen as poor creator's etiquette.

Y’know, this is a very good point.

I don’t think etiquette is the right term, but it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense investing a lot of creative capital on someone else’s intellectual property.

You gave me something to think about Spamatron. :)

You know what's a fun AP where you can kill all manner of evil things on sight? Blood Lords.

Speaking of killing evil things on sight, and tying it back to the prior discussion:

There is an old-school charm to having a beer-and-pretzels game where you don’t have to think about morality and you can tell a monster is Evil just by looking at it. All humans and elves are Good, all goblins, orcs, and humanoids are Evil, and all you have to do is roll initiative and swing your shiny sword. As a big fan of Dragonlance, I still thought it was funny how all the magic users were color-coded for your convenience.

But that type of game breaks down when you analyze it more closely. Tropes where an entire ‘race’ is considered “evil” carry negative parallels to real world and have been justifiably criticized. I’m sure others here can expand on this further.

So I’m all for expanding the ‘alignment diversity’ of kobold and goblin PCs and NPCs, and applaud Paizo for doing so. Besides, any true old-school gamer knows that the best villains are humans anyways.

Fine Keftiu - you are right, I was wrong. Argument rescinded.