Paizo is probably working out the kinks now that the Companion has moved to monthly. Fine by me.
Actually the Campaign Setting has been pushed back as well as the NPC Codex, so I don't think that's it.
Around this time of year there always seems to be stuff pushed back so it isn't a real surprise. It's not like it will never come out or anything besides I would rather have a well done finished product then some crappy rush job to meet a deadline.
PaizoCon and GenCon tend to have this effect on product schedules :)
Around this time of year there always seems to be stuff pushed back so it isn't a real surprise. It's not like it will never come out or anything besides I would rather have a well done finished product then some crappy rush job to meet a deadline.
PaizoCon and GenCon tend to have this effect on product schedules :)
Yeah I completely understand. Not an issue really. But it does tend to produce months without much material coming out followed by months during which my bank account makes a little shrieking noise! :)
I will be getting this book..but I doubt I'll ever use it..the subject matter and the basic premise leave me cold..and with concerns that PF is going in a direction it should not even look at.Huh? What shouldn't the company look at?
Monsters as PC's is just WRONG.
So if any of my players is reading this..Blood of the Night is banned from my campaigns..
I said that the goblins book was going to be the thin end of the wedge and it seems my fears have been realised.What next I wonder..Alu fiends and succubi as PC's?
Having said that I'd love SKR to do something along the lines of Ghostwalk for Pathfinder.
I will be getting this book..but I doubt I'll ever use it..the subject matter and the basic premise leave me cold..and with concerns that PF is going in a direction it should not even look at.Huh? What shouldn't the company look at?Monsters as PC's is just WRONG.
So if any of my players is reading this..Blood of the Night is banned from my campaigns..
I said that the goblins book was going to be the thin end of the wedge and it seems my fears have been realised.What next I wonder..Alu fiends and succubi as PC's?
Having said that I'd love SKR to do something along the lines of Ghostwalk for Pathfinder.
You know this isn't for actual vampires, right? It's for dhampirs, a player race that's half-vampire.
You know this isn't for actual vampires, right? It's for dhampirs, a player race that's half-vampire.
Hrm.
Dhampirs were introduced in Bestiary 2, along with Ifrits, Undines, Sylphs, and Oreads.
Paizo has been sending mixed signals on these from the beginning. The sections on "X as Characters" have been, on at least a few occasions, explained as being "for GMs to make NPCs"; however, the Stat Block section in the Introduction in each Bestiary says you can find information in the Description for "using them as PCs".
Perhaps, like the Monk Flurry, what is intended by one group is not being reflected in the actual written work by another group.
In any case, here are the issues as I see them:
- GMs are free to allow or disallow any race in their home games as they see fit.
- Paizo's publishing of Player Companions for previously monster-only races like Orcs, Goblins, and now Dhampirs gives tacit endorsement to players seeking to play such races.
- There are players who will beat their GMs about the head and shoulders with phrases such as "it is in a book so you have to use it". Some of those players will also be spoilers.. people who ruin the game for all if they can't have it their way.
- It leads to the "menagerie" party issue, in which no PC is a "normal" character. GMs then need to suppress the natural reaction of the populace in a town (chasing the menagerie out) for the sake of actually playing.
GMs can, and do, "stick to their guns", but it can feel like publishers are undermining that when they produce such books specifically aimed at players. No matter how many disclaimers the publisher makes about it being up to the GM, in the end, the biggest issue becomes:
The GM is no longer the nice one who says, "ok, we'll try this and see where it goes", the GM is now the mean one who says "no, you can't play that". The focus has shifted from the GM allowing odd or experimental PCs to the GM dis-allowing them... meaning they are presumed (by some vocal players) to be allowed, which encourages others to assume the vocal players are right, despite them being wrong.
In short: Books like this increases the acrimony in some groups.
I don't agree that they should be suppressed or not explored.. I dislike gunpowder in my games, but I don't go around saying those who do want it should not be able to get it. At the same time, Paizo has been much more vocal about "this is NOT presumed to be common" with regard to gunpowder and firearms.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo has been sending mixed signals on these from the beginning. The sections on "X as Characters" have been, on at least a few occasions, explained as being "for GMs to make NPCs"; however, the Stat Block section in the Introduction in each Bestiary says you can find information in the Description for "using them as PCs".
I think the only race that actually says, "For GMs to make NPCs" is the Drow Noble. Because they're ridiculous.
Perhaps, like the Monk Flurry, what is intended by one group is not being reflected in the actual written work by another group.
I do not understand this reference.
In any case, here are the issues as I see them:
Goodie; I LOVE playing Devil's Advocate!
GMs are free to allow or disallow any race in their home games as they see fit.
GMs are free to allow or disallow anything in their home games as they see fit. That's why its the GM's home game. I always tell my players that if they don't like my rulings, they're free to start their own campaign that I will gladly play in. So far, no one has taken me up on it. :(
Paizo's publishing of Player Companions for previously monster-only races like Orcs, Goblins, and now Dhampirs gives tacit endorsement to players seeking to play such races.
The beautiful thing about this is that, as a GM, now I have tons of goodies to customize my monstrous NPCs with!
There are players who will beat their GMs about the head and shoulders with phrases such as "it is in a book so you have to use it". Some of those players will also be spoilers.. people who ruin the game for all if they can't have it their way.
In my neck of the woods, we have a saying. "Players are a dime a dozen but GMs are a diamond in the rough." Maybe you have a surplus of GMs where you're from, but on the East Coast GMs are things that you treasure deeply and you never, ever make them upset at you. Unless you don't want to play anymore, of course. As such, I've never seen a player act the way that you're describing, but the beautiful thing of being a GM is that you have the power to say, "You know what? If you're going to act like that, then don't play." People who would ruin friendships over a couple of +2 bonuses and a handful of daily spell-like abilities in a game of imagination probably aren't worth calling your friend anyway.
It leads to the "menagerie" party issue, in which no PC is a "normal" character. GMs then need to suppress the natural reaction of the populace in a town (chasing the menagerie out) for the sake of actually playing.
Do tell me what constitutes "normal" in a Fantasy Campaign Setting? Personally, I don't think the "menagerie" complex is actually an issue; if anything, it makes even more sense for a bunch of weirdos to stick together over hanging out with "normal" people. After all, weirdos are drawn to the life of the adventurer; normal people stay home and churn butter or do other normal people jobs.
GMs can, and do, "stick to their guns", but it can feel like publishers are undermining that when they produce such books specifically aimed at players. No matter how many disclaimers the publisher makes about it being up to the GM, in the end, the biggest issue becomes:
I'm going to pause you right there. I'm a GM. I own Blood of Fiends and Blood of Angels. Player Companions. I use these books when building my NPCs. A golden rule that most GMs have is that if the players can use it, I can use it too. Books that are marketed to players are usually done so because they A) provide information about a campaign setting for them to immerse themselves in and B) possess game mechanics that are appropriate for characters and not things like Reputation, for example, which is a very GM-centric construct. That said, even books like Inner Sea Magic, which is heavily tailored to helping the GM flesh out the role of magic in Golarion, has plenty of PC options in the form of new spells and archetypes.
Basically what I'm getting at is that the line between Player Supplement and GM Supplement is basically non-existent in the Golarion product line, and in the Core RPG line, there are no player supplements; only mixed ones and GM ones (aka Bestiaries, GM Guide, etc.)
The GM is no longer the nice one who says, "ok, we'll try this and see where it goes", the GM is now the mean one who says "no, you can't play that". The focus has shifted from the GM allowing odd or experimental PCs to the GM dis-allowing them... meaning they are presumed (by some vocal players) to be allowed, which encourages others to assume the vocal players are right, despite them being wrong.
I don't think I've ever marketed myself as "the nice one." I threw an animated suit of Large armor at my level 3 PCs on Friday with hardness 5 and a 1d12+9 battle axe attack. GMs aren't supposed to be "nice," they're supposed to be the story tellers, and if the story you're telling doesn't involve cat people or vampires or whatever, then Players should respect that. If they don't, then send them off to find a different GM who will let them be a vampiric catgirl monk with flurry of glomps or whatever.
In short: Books like this increases the acrimony in some groups.
To be honest, you come off as being someone who doesn't like to say, "No" to your players. That's fine and in that light I'm sure books that you don't like being published can be frazzling to you. But there are people who clearly want these books and will enjoy them. And most people who do not want this material in their games will simply refrain from buying them and tell any player who wants to use it that the content is not available for use. End of story. I think a lot of the scenarios you are presenting are strawman arguments; the most extreme situations in every possible case.
My suggestion to any GM that doesn't want publishers to make stuff simply because they don't want players asking if they can use it is ... learn to say no. One of my best friends asked me if his brother could play a summoner in my game a couple weeks ago. I said no. We're all still friends; the player just made a different character.
I don't agree that they should be suppressed or not explored.. I dislike gunpowder in my games, but I don't go around saying those who do want it should not be able to get it. At the same time, Paizo has been much more vocal about "this is NOT presumed to be common" with regard to gunpowder and firearms.
This is kind of random.
After reading Dave Gross' amazing Prince of Wolves, I find myself hoping for a Blood of the Moon next with some were-options, specifically Sczarni options!
It second this. Golarion needs more (were)wolf-folk. An of course those other lycanthropes/therianthropes, too.
You know this isn't for actual vampires, right? It's for dhampirs, a player race that's half-vampire.I will be getting this book..but I doubt I'll ever use it..the subject matter and the basic premise leave me cold..and with concerns that PF is going in a direction it should not even look at.Huh? What shouldn't the company look at?Monsters as PC's is just WRONG.
So if any of my players is reading this..Blood of the Night is banned from my campaigns..
I said that the goblins book was going to be the thin end of the wedge and it seems my fears have been realised.What next I wonder..Alu fiends and succubi as PC's?
Having said that I'd love SKR to do something along the lines of Ghostwalk for Pathfinder.
really..then let us look at the actual wording from the Fluff about it
Join your next campaign as a day-walking dhampir from a variety of vampiric heritages, or infect your game with the vampiric curse as a full-blooded jiang-shi, moroi, nosferatu, or vetala vampire—complete with details on how to integrate such deadly and deathly characters into existing campaigns
seems to me that they are quite explicitly saying that this book allows you to play undead characters..
How to integrate them into your game, not how to make them work as player options.
many incorrect assertions
I really don't have the time or inclination to get into king-of-the-mountain silliness with you, so I'll keep it short, and just list where you got it wrong.
Two of the cited issues are based on my own experiences. One of them was the "menagerie" party that you said you don't believe ever happens. The other was the player insisting that "if it is in the book, you have to use it."
I don't have a problem with telling my players "no". Ergo, your "you come across as..." is 100% wrong. That's what happens when you base your analysis on one post.
I don't have a problem with sticking to my decisions despite wheedling.
If you had followed the part you declared "kind of random", you would note that I am *not* saying such books should not be published. I then gave an example of something that is personally more on my dislike list than this book, and said Paizo had handled that well. What I could have been more clear about is that putting books that support Monsters-as-PCs in the PLAYERS COMPANION line (and, whether you agree or not, that means there's a difference to some people) puts more strain on some groups, and putting the book out under the Campaign Setting line would have made it more clearly GM-oriented material.
As for the East Coast.. that's where I live (Boston), and I have *never* heard or spoken the saying you cite as being "in my neck of the woods".
Now.. have a nice day.. and next time you see a post that you don't agree with, please don't feel compelled to shred the post and mischaracterize the poster. If you disagree, fine, say so.. but don't assert that your experiences define how every group works.
How to integrate them into your game, not how to make them work as player options.
I am not going to continue this argument..I'll let the book speak for itself.
Would anyone else like to see a Vampire Hunter prestige class to compliment (and add on to) the archetype (like the Aldori Swordlord and Winter Witch prestige classes do)?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know this isn't for actual vampires, right? It's for dhampirs, a player race that's half-vampire.I will be getting this book..but I doubt I'll ever use it..the subject matter and the basic premise leave me cold..and with concerns that PF is going in a direction it should not even look at.Huh? What shouldn't the company look at?Monsters as PC's is just WRONG.
So if any of my players is reading this..Blood of the Night is banned from my campaigns..
I said that the goblins book was going to be the thin end of the wedge and it seems my fears have been realised.What next I wonder..Alu fiends and succubi as PC's?
Having said that I'd love SKR to do something along the lines of Ghostwalk for Pathfinder.
really..then let us look at the actual wording from the Fluff about it
Join your next campaign as a day-walking dhampir from a variety of vampiric heritages, or infect your game with the vampiric curse as a full-blooded jiang-shi, moroi, nosferatu, or vetala vampire—complete with details on how to integrate such deadly and deathly characters into existing campaignsseems to me that they are quite explicitly saying that this book allows you to play undead characters..
Those options get added in to the Dhampir race as racial heritages much like "Blood of Angels" did with Aasimar and "Blood of Fiends" did with Tieflings. Each Heritage will for the most part get a different set of Ability Modifiers, and alternate spell-like ability and 2 traits. There is likely going to be additional Dhampir Feats, and hopefully a random chart of vampire-like abilities on can roll for at the cost of their spell-like ability.
These are player options that are playable, it is smart to wait until you actually read a book before banning it from your game, you miss out on a lot.
Would anyone else like to see a Vampire Hunter prestige class to compliment (and add on to) the archetype (like the Aldori Swordlord and Winter Witch prestige classes do)?
Don't really need one the Dhampir Kinslayer Inquisitor Archetype Does this rather well.
I will buy this book, hopefully love it, then sigh loudly.
So far I have fielded two off-the-wall race requests for the campaign I am putting together.
"Can I play a kender?"
"No, halflings exist but they're not kender."
"If I play a halfling, I'm going to play it like a kender."
"Then you probably shouldn't play a halfling."
"OK, I'd best stick with human then."
"Can I play a centaur or a bugbear?"
"No. Neither of those is really appropriate as a player character in a horror campaign set in Ustalav. And they both have racial hitdice."
"I like to play something unusual."
"You can, however, play a dhampir, or [list of other 0-hitdice races, including tengu, kobold, and genie-kin races]."
If I had my way, all of my players would play humans or half-humans, such as half-elves, half-orcs, dhampirs, changelings, aasimar, tieflings, and genie-kin. I also like halflings. They're not human, but they're like miniature humans. I also favor Golarion's gnomes, just because they're awesome.
I'd prefer a game without PC elves and dwarves. I like them better as NPC races so they're more exotic.
No, it is not a typo.
Was this really pushed back to December now, or is that a typo?
Nope, not a typo.
Don't really need one the Dhampir Kinslayer Inquisitor Archetype Does this rather well.
That's for Dhampir only dude (it's a racial archetype). I'm talking about the "VAMPIRE HUNTER" archetype for everyone else. Not everyone who plays a PC Undead Slayer is a Dhampir.
Nope, not a typo.
Jebus. What in gods name caused it to be pushed back two whole MONTHS?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A combination of GenCon and a hardcover.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"...expand your arsenal with the latest and most effective in undead-fighting gear, tactics, and character options."
Am I the only one excited about this line? Everyone else is talking about being vampires, and I want some new ways to kill them :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Huzzah!"...expand your arsenal with the latest and most effective in undead-fighting gear, tactics, and character options."Am I the only one excited about this line? Everyone else is talking about being vampires, and I want some new ways to kill them :)
Eat hot stake, Ed Cullen!
Do you have any idea how hard it is to get a cyborg horse? I mean that one guy tried to sell one and the stupid sheriff wasn't going to let him sell it.
I've heard they're a major export from Numeria though. ;-)
I still want this book sooo much. How much is a kidney worth these days? I need some quick cash and I've got a spare.
I still want this book sooo much. How much is a kidney worth these days? I need some quick cash and I've got a spare.
I know the crew here works hard to bring us quality works (I'm so stupid in love with Carrion Crown, Rule of Fear, and anything that F. Wesley Schneider has written), and I know their schedules are tight, so I'm not complaining at all when I say I CAN'T WAIT for this DD:
I've got my fingers crossed for a spell-less Undead Hunter archtype for the Ranger - I've been working on my own homebrew for the last few weeks. I really want a Van Helsing (Bram Stoker, NOT Hugh Jackman :P) ranger class.
C'mon, December!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Belmont vampire hunter spell-less ranger archtype would be nice, well heck more spell-less ranger arctypes would be nice period.
I actually have my Dhampir Vampire Hunter have both the vampire hunter and kinslayer archetypes and just let them gain both replacements in place of detect alignment.
This book will be great for the Carrion Crown campaign.
I've got my fingers crossed for a spell-less Undead Hunter archtype for the Ranger - I've been working on my own homebrew for the last few weeks. I really want a Van Helsing (Bram Stoker, NOT Hugh Jackman :P) ranger class.
Abraham Van Helsing from the Dracula novel would be a tough fit for ranger. He's a doctor and researcher, and ultimately an open-minded intellectual. Expert, or one of the INT-based classes, works better for him than ranger. Ranger might suit Quincy Morris or, if multi-classed with aristocrat, could work with Arthur Holmwood.
I'd like to see more undead hunter archetypes in general though. A shame kinslayer and vampire hunter archetypes don't stack normally.
Here's what I think the class fits would be for Dracula characters
Johnathan: Rogue?, foolish but cunning Solicitor
Seward: Alchemist, Mental Illness studying alchemist
Helsing: Wizard or Alchemist, Professor of Obscure Magical Diseases
Quincy: Ranger or Gunslinger, Cowboy
Holmwood: Fighter or Cavalier, Nobleman
Lucy: Bard, Social Master and player
Mina: Cleric, virtuous and intelligent woman.
Dracula: Vampire Sorcerer, master of dark powers
though other variants are possible and could be more fitting.
I've got my fingers crossed for a spell-less Undead Hunter archtype for the Ranger - I've been working on my own homebrew for the last few weeks. I really want a Van Helsing (Bram Stoker, NOT Hugh Jackman :P) ranger class.Abraham Van Helsing from the Dracula novel would be a tough fit for ranger. He's a doctor and researcher, and ultimately an open-minded intellectual. Expert, or one of the INT-based classes, works better for him than ranger. Ranger might suit Quincy Morris or, if multi-classed with aristocrat, could work with Arthur Holmwood.
I'd like to see more undead hunter archetypes in general though. A shame kinslayer and vampire hunter archetypes don't stack normally.
What I should have specified was that I would love to see an educated, deliberate hunter of the undead, that would combine the traits of a Van Helsing archetype with that of a ranger.
Also, Castlevania's Belmonts work for what I want, too :P
I just hope to the nine Hell's we get a Vampire Hunter PRESTIGE CLASS to compliment the Vampire Hunter ARCHETYPE (like the Aldori Swordlord or Winter Witch received). Seriously, it needs a major power up! Like becoming permanently immune to an undead's "Create Spawn (Su)" special ability or being able to permanently kill an undead with the "Rejuvenation (Su)" special ability.
Am I the only one excited about this line? Everyone else is talking about being vampires, and I want some new ways to kill them! :)
You are most certainly NOT THE ONLY ONE excited about new ways to kill the Undead! ^_~
Eat hot stake, Ed Cullen!
COUNT CHOCULA is a better vampire than Edward Cullen!
COUNT...FREAKING...CHOCULA!
I've heard they're a major export from Numeria though! ;-)
The Technic League of Numeria! Providing cybernetic death machines to Golarion since the fall of Aroden! BUY NOW! ^_~
How much is a kidney worth these days?
About $6,000 American dollars for approximately one human kidney and the UNHOLY MIND NUMBING AGONY you'll have to go through via the occasional dialysis you'll have to endure for the rest of your life.
Ranger might suit Quincy Morris or, if multi-classed with aristocrat, could work with Arthur Holmwood.
Quincy: Ranger or Gunslinger, Cowboy
Holmwood: Fighter or Cavalier, Nobleman
A undead hunting Gunslinger archetype would make for a PERFECT Quincy Morris! As for Arthur Holmwood, perhaps a Cavalier with an SPECIFIC ORDER dedicated to HUNTING UNDEAD (like Advanced Options: More Cavalier Orders's "Order of the Shroud")?
Personelly they need undead hunting archtypes for most classes but particularly Ranger, Bard, Rouge, Fighter, Barbarian, Alchemist, and Gunslinger.
Final product image and description are up!
Wonderful cover! Congrats to Wes and Tork!
Wonderful cover! Congrats to Wes and Tork!
Yea! I can't wait to see what magic Tork can bring.