AdamWarnock |
Sorry if this has already been addressed elsewhere, but I was wondering if this means that playable races for PFS play will expand beyond the core 7. If so, then YAY!
If not, then ;_;
I'll still probably get it. Seems to be too interesting to pass up even if some of the things are going to be closed.
Threeshades |
I'm with Mikaze, hoping that some slight differences from the humanoid form will be possible in the race creation section, like Snaketails instead of legs or an extra pair of arms. The former especially shouldn't be a cause for huge imbalances, all it would probably do is change speed and a few movement related rules and maybe need something to deal with magical footwear.
Wolf Munroe |
Golden-Esque wrote:I'd forgotten all about that. How about Spartoi ("sown" per the Wikipedia entry) as the race of dragon-men.Mournblade94 wrote:You certainly could not call them Draconians. But I do not think that creating a race of Dragon Warriors can be copyrighted. I remember a cool Dragon article from the 80's before dragon lance came out, where you cast spells on a Dragon's Tooth, plant it in the ground and a Dragon Warrior formed.Considering that the concept of planting a dragon's tooth into the ground and warriors popping out is directly from Greek mythology and is therefore a trope "Older Than Writing," you are in deed correct in that it cannot be copyrighted :).
Spartoi already exist in Pathfinder as undead warriors that spring from teeth planted in the ground. The singular form is Spartolos and the creature is listed in the bestiary for the Council of Thieves AP. They're undead warriors that spring-up from "Spartoi Seeds," which are teeth stained by ash. While usually appearing as dragon teeth, spartoi seeds sometimes also take the form of serpent, wolf, or human teeth. Spartoi gain special bonuses to flanking and channel resistance by working with other spartoi. Their illustration makes them look more like undead Roman legionnaires than any kind of dragon men.
Since the Spartolos appeared in Council of Thieves, hopefully it will be in Bestiary 3.
Zaister |
I'm with Mikaze, hoping that some slight differences from the humanoid form will be possible in the race creation section, like Snaketails instead of legs or an extra pair of arms.
Interesting what some people consider a "slight change".
Changing legs to a snake tail shouldn't be possible for a humanoid. Snake tails should not appear on humanoids; that's for monstrous humanoids (four arms, too, probably), and I don't think changing creature type should be a bigger thing.
Zaister |
Merfolk are humaniods so having a snake tail is not that different.
Huh, you're right. I always thought that humanoids were supposed to be, well, humanoid. :)
The rules for the humanoid creature type say "A humanoid usually has two arms, two legs, and one head, or a human-like torso, arms, and a head." Ah well, just usually, then.
For the monstrous humanoid type it says "Monstrous humanoids are similar to humanoids, but with monstrous or animalistic features." That makes me think that races like the merfolk should actually be filed in this category.
Threeshades |
Dragon78 wrote:Merfolk are humaniods so having a snake tail is not that different.Huh, you're right. I always thought that humanoids were supposed to be, well, humanoid. :)
The rules for the humanoid creature type say "A humanoid usually has two arms, two legs, and one head, or a human-like torso, arms, and a head." Ah well, just usually, then.
For the monstrous humanoid type it says "Monstrous humanoids are similar to humanoids, but with monstrous or animalistic features." That makes me think that races like the merfolk should actually be filed in this category.
Well the description also fits gnolls and lizardfolk, both now humanoid (as opposed to 3.5 where they were monstrous humanoids) the category got broader I guess.
Threeshades |
Threeshades wrote:Well the description also fits gnolls and lizardfolk, both now humanoid (as opposed to 3.5 where they were monstrous humanoids) the category got broader I guess.In 3.5 gnolls were humanoid (gnoll) and lizardfolk were humanoid (reptilian)
Then it was 3.0.
Anyway the only major difference between a lizardfolk and a humanoid with a snaketail for legs or a merfolk is a pair of limbs, and that doesn't have to affect the rules any more than modifiying speed.
Wolf Munroe |
Yes but deffinetly have to be monstrous humaniod, aberration, or outsider to have tentacles. Well of course plants would have tendrils or vines.
The only tiny sized creature type I would play would be Fey, but having the option for other types would be nice for variaty's sake.
Don't forget the star-nosed mole: Youtube star-nosed mole
They have tentacles on their noses.Guessing there are also some other creatures of the animal type that have tentacles.
Of course I suppose that's less relevant if we're talking about player races. But if gnolls are humanoids, then star-nosed mole people could be too. Or Squid people.
Mikaze |
Dragon78 wrote:Yes but deffinetly have to be monstrous humaniod, aberration, or outsider to have tentacles.Why is that?
What exactly makes you draw the line at tentacles?
Have to ask the same question.
I'd really rather not force any race intended to be a player option out of the stock "humanoid" classification for a lot of reasons, many of which involve rules effects which don't make any sense for the flavor.
Besides, not every homebrew world is going to adhere to the same strict standard expectations. That and I don't really see this body type as being any more monstrous than a merperson.
To require a race to be of a specific type to qualify for tentacles is like requiring a race to be Fey in order to be Tiny, really.
Threeshades |
Exactly. Why create artificial restrictions to certain things when they're not necessary?
It's not like we're asking for options to make something completely insane like a snake-tailed, winged zombie-pigman with 3 heads, 17 eyes and 8 tentacles for arms, merely the option to exchange one or two humanoid features for something else, which doesn't even have to be an inherent bonus but can come with both advantages and disadvantages, simply for more variety.
Marc Radle |
If I missed this, I apologize - I only skimmed through the six pages worth of posts and did not really follow the playtest much.
It seems like most, if not all of the playable races are of the less than CR 1 type. Has there been any discussion about how more powerful monsterous races can be a balanced, playable PC race? Obviously there is no more level adjustment ...
Azure_Zero |
If I missed this, I apologize - I only skimmed through the six pages worth of posts and did not really follow the playtest much.
It seems like most, if not all of the playable races are of the less than CR 1 type. Has there been any discussion about how more powerful monsterous races can be a balanced, playable PC race? Obviously there is no more level adjustment ...
One suggestion was in the playtest document and will likely be in the book.
Marc Radle |
Marc Radle wrote:One suggestion was in the playtest document and will likely be in the book.If I missed this, I apologize - I only skimmed through the six pages worth of posts and did not really follow the playtest much.
It seems like most, if not all of the playable races are of the less than CR 1 type. Has there been any discussion about how more powerful monsterous races can be a balanced, playable PC race? Obviously there is no more level adjustment ...
Do you by any chance recall what that was?
Enlight_Bystand |
Azure_Zero wrote:Do you by any chance recall what that was?Marc Radle wrote:One suggestion was in the playtest document and will likely be in the book.If I missed this, I apologize - I only skimmed through the six pages worth of posts and did not really follow the playtest much.
It seems like most, if not all of the playable races are of the less than CR 1 type. Has there been any discussion about how more powerful monsterous races can be a balanced, playable PC race? Obviously there is no more level adjustment ...
Depending on how many points you use to build the race, and your character level, there is an adjustment to the APL of the party so that more difficult creatures turn up.
One of the example races in the back of the playtest doc is the Frost Giant, so the system is pretty capable...
Azure_Zero |
Azure_Zero wrote:Do you by any chance recall what that was?Marc Radle wrote:One suggestion was in the playtest document and will likely be in the book.If I missed this, I apologize - I only skimmed through the six pages worth of posts and did not really follow the playtest much.
It seems like most, if not all of the playable races are of the less than CR 1 type. Has there been any discussion about how more powerful monsterous races can be a balanced, playable PC race? Obviously there is no more level adjustment ...
On Page 3 of the ARG playtest
Challenging Advanced and Monstrous Races
Because they have powerful racial traits and abilities, advanced
and monstrous races require greater challenges, especially
at lower levels. The basic guideline for accomplishing this is
to treat a group of characters with advanced and monstrous
races as a level or more higher for a number of levels based
on their total RP spent, using the following chart. When you
create encounters or adventures for the group, treat them as
the adjusted level instead of their actual level. For groups with
mixed power levels, average the RP and round the results to
the nearest multiple of 10.
____________________Level
RP __1–5 ___ __6–10_ _11–15__ __16–20_
20 (+1 level) (+0 level) (+0 level) (+0 level)
30 (+2 level) (+1 level) (+0 level) (+0 level)
40 (+3 level) (+2 level) (+1 level) (+0 level)
Strife2002 |
Are we going to see additional favored class options, like what we saw in Advanced Player's Guide? Specifically, are we going to see an addendum to those rules to make up for the classes that came after that book was published, namely the Magus, Gunslinger, Ninja, Samurai, and Antipaladin?*
*Yes I know antipaladin was in APG.
Azure_Zero |
Are we going to see additional favored class options, like what we saw in Advanced Player's Guide? Specifically, are we going to see an addendum to those rules to make up for the classes that came after that book was published, namely the Magus, Gunslinger, Ninja, Samurai, and Antipaladin?*
*Yes I know antipaladin was in APG.
That was requested and is likely to be printed, but no guarantees at this point.
Baroth |
Well, at least we are getting at least some sort of description for the various races. If I remember correctly, we did not get that kind of treatment of these races in 3.5.
Concerning something else, I will be playing a newly created Sylph air elementalist wizard in a new campaign. Did anything change concerning the abilities of the Sylph? Most importantly, does Air Affinity now help with being an air elementalist wizard (as it currently helps a sorcerer and a cleric, but not a wizard)?
Mikaze |
I know there's going to be plenty of mechanics present for these races, but I wonder how much flavor is going to be there for the races getting the 6-page treatment, especially since it doesn't have to be bound to what's canon in Golarion. Could we see some interesting non-always-evil cultural details or suggestions for races like orcs, goblins, etc.?
Todd Stewart Contributor |
I know there's going to be plenty of mechanics present for these races, but I wonder how much flavor is going to be there for the races getting the 6-page treatment, especially since it doesn't have to be bound to what's canon in Golarion. Could we see some interesting non-always-evil cultural details or suggestions for races like orcs, goblins, etc.?
Hopefully a lot of flavor!
TheTwitching King RPG Superstar 2009 Top 4 |
Golden-Esque |
Will this book give us back things like "wood elves" or "forest gnomes" and the like?
Not as a separate subrace, but probably as Alternate Racial Traits. With the exception of the Drow, Paizo has done a good job at preventing subrace bloat (and even then, the drow are a classic subrace that are actually interesting. Wood Elves are just elves that live in the woods and have slightly different racial stats to make the min-maxers happy).
Ashanderai |
Giffs are WotC IP, so no go.
So, folks can just create their own homebrewed race of pachyderm-like humanoids with a penchant for firearms and travel to otherworlds with an urge to conquer... four-armed Elephant Men of Mars... er, Castrovel... FTW! ;)