When did it ever mean that? I've been in games where humans didn't even exist. This is 100% campaign setting dependent, and was never stated, or even implied, to be any kind of rule.
In my game world, you're more likely to encounter a goblin than a half-elf, because half-elves don't exist.
Golarion is not the uber-setting in which all PF games must take place, so saying 'because Golarion' is a nonsense argument.
To me, part of the class balance is the alignment restriction.
Roleplaying in no way serves as any kind of balancing effect, because it's purely subjective. Note how many threads come up asking whether or not a paladin should get hosed, and that there's never any real consensus? That's why it doesn't work as a balancer, because you may or may not be able to get away with things depending on the GM's view on things. (See: Baby Goblin Slaughter threat #58392).
Well, Demons. If you think some creatures ARE pre-set with a behavure, then it's not hypocritical: it's a disagreement on which creatures fall under which categories.
The concept of all creatures coming with pre-set behaviors and personalities is so utterly abhorrent to me, I can't even comprehend the mindset. I do believe, canonically to Golarion, there are a handful of instances of demons ceasing to be evil (and, in individual home-made settings, which are far more important, I'm certain there are). The odds are incredibly slim, yes, but they exist.
Just destrict them racially, so there's just a pool of 'em and you can take whichever one you want, when you want.
Or hell, just make 'em a class customization feature, rather than 'favored class', so if you go a level of class A, you get one from A's list, then you get one from class B's list if you level up in class B, etc. etc.
1. Problem players will be problem players, no matter what options there are or aren't. "It's what my character would do" is shorthand for 'you made the wrong character for this game'. This is why you have a 'session zero' before any dice or character sheets are touched, to make sure you don't have a problem character, or player, on your hands.
2. If you don't like 'em in your game, don't allow 'em. Lots of people seem to be looking forward to the little buggers, no reason your likes should impede theirs. You don't like the idea, then ban 'em, or hell, go hog-wild rock the casbah and change the lore so goblins AREN'T illiterate pyromaniacs in your game world.
3. Goblins, like all sentient beings, are individuals, no some hive-mind genetic experiment. If you don't demand/expect all elves to be tree-hugging hippies, dwarves to be drunken craftsmen, or whatever, then expecting all goblins to be insane pyros is just hypocritical.
It is much easier for a GM to relax a restriction than to impose one (in general). I'd much rather keep paladins LG.
I have to disagree with this. In the paladin example, it means some fairly significant restructuring of the class. On the other hand, if all-alignment paladins exist, it's easy as pie to just say 'LG only'.
Here's the thing ... if you put lots of player choice and flavor options in the game, then individual groups can pick the flavor/lore options they want. How this doesn't make everybody happy, I simply cannot fathom.
If there are non-LG Paladins, then people who prefer only LG paladins can say 'Only LG paladins in this world'. It may not be a compromise, per se, but it gives everybody what they want.
This means you can CREATE YOUR OWN world, lore, and flavor more easily.
Some of us don't give two squirts of (urine) about Golarion.
IMHO, the ideal setup would be to create a completely mechanical book,then a 'Golarion Campaign Setting' that narrows the options for 'canonical' Golarion, while leaving things wide open for those of us who make our own worlds.
And yet, you can ID a silent, stilled, material-eschewed spell ...
And it means you can build the character you WANT to play, that you envision. I once rolled a character with such stupid high stats (in front of the GM, who said after we were done, he wanted me to buy him a lottery ticket), that I said I was just going to lower some of them, because 'prissy non-adventuring noblewoman who never did anything herself suddenly out of the manorhouse for the first time' wasn't going to have a 14 STR and CON (yes, everything I rolled was 14 or higher).
As far as min-maxing/dump stats/whatever goes, I find characters with distinct strengths and weaknesses more memorable than jack-of-all-trades-no-particular-strengths-or-weaknesses.
Point buy. I will never do anything else for my games.
... because he has gear that does it. My argument stands.
I was hoping Touch Attacks would go the way of the dodo.
I want the game to be equally playable with four fighters as a cleric-fighter-rogue-wizard combo, or any other combo.
I want every player to be able to play what he wants, when he wants, without having to worry about 'plugging holes' or 'filling roles'.
I don't want anybody 'getting stuck' playing something they don't want to because 'the game' makes it necessary.
Does anybody else agree with this?
I'm having a hard time visualizing a healthy full of life wizard because I have always figured extensive magic use took a toll on the body. Magic always has its price, sort of thing.
No evidence to support this hypothesis in the PF ruleset (or lore, from what little I know of it).
The only difference is the casters have the magic baked in, while the non-casters gather the magic from without.
Which is another way of saying they aren't magical, their stuff is. Remove all gear, armor, weapons from the characters, and it becomes obvious who is 'magical' and who is not.
Superman without gear = Superman
Something of a difference there.
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
Generally, yes. Or peacebonded/tied up/something to render them ineffective.
I'm considering inventing a magic-suppressing material that could be crafted into bracers or neckbands or something to prevent spellcasters from casting. Kind of like Kryptonite for mana.
One country already deals with illegal spellcasting with hand and tongue removal, but that's an outlier/extreme kind of country.
Well said. It's a great way to introduce some flavor and amusing NPCs that could be contacts or friends, to say nothing of larceny the PCs could witness or be victims of (or, if that's your style of game, perpetrate).
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
You say 'fear and paranoia', I say 'logic and common sense'.
Now, to be fair, a lot of this has to do with the setting. In my game, it's entirely possible for a typical person to go their entire lives and never once see a spell cast, or anything that most people would call 'a monster', or a magic item. There's not magic academies in every major city. The local priests aren't spellcasters, just devoted religious people.
So, yes, the dire wolf stays out of city limits, you check your dangerous gear at the city gates, and if you don't like it, you can turn around and go somewhere else.
The Sesquipedalian Thaumaturge wrote:
Resource management can be made to operate on a per-encounter basis as easily, if not more easily, than on a per-day basis.
So your Aversion to SR... is that it does what its supposed to?
We already have saving throws and/or attack rolls. We don't need ANOTHER resistance mechanic for magic, if they actually make magic balanced.
I'm sure SR came along because the devs at the time realized magic was too powerful, but rather than tone down the magic, they added a 'neener-neener' mechanic.
Don't make magic overpowered, and SR isn't necessary, it's as simple as that.
If you change the canon then they aren't the same Golarion goblins we are familiar with.
Well, yes, that would be the point. The only canon that matters is the canon the GM and his players create.
Let me expressly clarify something that I think might not be well known, in regards to my personal position ...
I don't give two squirts of skunk musk about Society Play or Golarion. I don't find the setting that interesting. I've never used it as a GM. Ideally, to me, the book would be as setting-neutral as possible.
The Paladin should basically be a cleric that's less spellcasty and more fighty. If an individual GM wants to limit the Paladin to one alignment, then he can do that. If an individual player thinks the Paladin has to be LG, then he can choose to only play that kind of Paladin.
It's far easier to include things and let individual GMs remove elements they don't like.
That said, IMNSHO, alignment and power-loss mechanics need to go the way of the dodo.
And I suppose at this point I have to bring it up, fluff is mutable, if you don't want the stereotypical goblin to have personality traits X, Y, and Z in your campaign setting, then they don't have those personality traits.
You want to make goblins in your setting a race of peaceful, serene, navel-gazing spiritualists/mystics? Do that. Nobody's going to come to your house to confiscate your books.
So goblins are officially part of the core races now. I've had goblin characters before. So that in itself isn't a huge deal. But I'm wondering, Pathfinder goblins have a pretty big setback as player characters, their fear of words and books. Is that going to be removed in PF2nd? That would be a bit sad, because the goblins' absurd ideas about words are endearingly silly.
Player characters being unusual specimens by definition, said PC goblins would not have those hang-ups (or at least, not to a crippling degree).