I do not know what madness you speak, weylin but never happened.
I think he means the entirety of the 4th Edition Forgotten Realms (now the truly best forgotten.)
Doesnt it usually when a deity is desrcibed as attractive to any degree?;)MDT she is a most awesome goddessThe fact that she prefers to be naked, seemed to help. :)
Not in itself, but both attractive and extremely sexy does.
True, if they redeemed some of the dark elves back to Ilythiir, should she not have come back with them? :(Loved the whole story behind Eilistraee. I dont think it was a story they ever should have resolved, especially not how it was resolved.
Was more than a little annoyed when she got decapitated and they redeeemed some of the drow back into the Ilythiir they were before Lolth.
|
I'd like to see some alternative race-builds in the APG too. I'm okay with stats staying the same, but I'd love to see some new racial abilities to swap for old ones.
I think this does belong in the APG because it's more of a system mechanic than campaign fluff. "Dwarves of Golarion" with have info on Golarion dwarves, but I'm looking for some Pathfinder-wide possibilities. As has been mentioned, short templates for aquatic, elemental, etc., al la Unearthed Arcana.
I'd love to see some "ethnicity builds" for humans and non-humans, but being world specific, this would have to go in a Golarion book. I'd want suggested racial traits, weapon familiarities, maybe a few "always a class skills" (almost like racial skills), tweeks or alternative racial abilities, flaws, etc.
Loved the whole story behind Eilistraee. I dont think it was a story they ever should have resolved, especially not how it was resolved.
Was more than a little annoyed when she got decapitated and they redeeemed some of the drow back into the Ilythiir they were before Lolth.
Meh,
Glad I didn't go very far down the 4E route then before I tossed the books into an auction.
I'd like to see some alternative race-builds in the APG too. I'm okay with stats staying the same, but I'd love to see some new racial abilities to swap for old ones.
I think this does belong in the APG because it's more of a system mechanic than campaign fluff. "Dwarves of Golarion" with have info on Golarion dwarves, but I'm looking for some Pathfinder-wide possibilities. As has been mentioned, short templates for aquatic, elemental, etc., al la Unearthed Arcana.
I'd love to see some "ethnicity builds" for humans and non-humans, but being world specific, this would have to go in a Golarion book. I'd want suggested racial traits, weapon familiarities, maybe a few "always a class skills" (almost like racial skills), tweeks or alternative racial abilities, flaws, etc.
Wouldn't "cultural" traits and feats do this with far less "risk"? (i.e. Game-Balance issues)
I'd like to see some alternative race-builds in the APG too. I'm okay with stats staying the same, but I'd love to see some new racial abilities to swap for old ones.
Well I suspect the character traits are going to be incorporated into the rules book and I would love to see a nice menu of racial traits for players to choose from (for all the races). As Frye suggest this should allow the characters to mix in a significant amount of racial flavor.
Sorry Seeker, Orge and Lazaro.
I disagree.
An elf as stands in the pathfinder book seems to me both a race and a culture in both flavour and rules.
Surely a more 'wild' race of elves would be more focused on awarness rather than magic, there is other ways I could go on but I wont
To the OP.
We were told what races would be in the bestiary for players.
If you would like more request it and see if you can get some following or ask if there will be more in some other book.
See if you can get a following, I think perhaps a better name for this would be 'can we get a races book, please'
Sorry Seeker, Orge and Lazaro.
I disagree.
An elf as stands in the pathfinder book seems to me both a race and a culture in both flavour and rules.
Surely a more 'wild' race of elves would be more focused on awarness rather than magic, there is other ways I could go on but I wont
So humans of the wild get new stats? What about humans of Taldor they like magic what stats do they gain? Ulfen what do they gain?
Looks like me "wild elves" are elves but tend toward ranger, druid and barbarian classes not different race stats. Your an ethnicity not a off shoot race
Now if your wild "elves" swung from trees, where very primitive and kinda ape like or something I can see a new stats but dropping a race into a new environment does not change the stats
I do have racial variants in my campaign, but only a few and only if there's a good reason for them to be separate. For instance there are three variants of Elves, High Elves, the so-called Wild Elves and the Dark Elves. They split off very early in they're history and thus developed different tendencies and thus racial traits. There are many different cultures which have different tendencies, but those aren't strong enough to be racial traits, except maybe in the other sense of the term. Then there are Gnomes who are split into three different subraces as well. You've got Tinker Gnomes, who signed a pact with a force of law that requires them to fulfill a Life Quest before entering the afterlife and thus have made considerable advancements in technology and magic, and Rock Gnomes that were "adopted" by Garl Glittergold after they left Faerie and thus have certain tendencies and then there are the original fey Gnomes most of which still live in Faerie. These three varieties have very different focuses. I'm not going to give them the same racial traits, it just wouldn't be appropriate.
Sorry Seeker, Orge and Lazaro.
I disagree.
An elf as stands in the pathfinder book seems to me both a race and a culture in both flavour and rules.
Surely a more 'wild' race of elves would be more focused on awarness rather than magic, there is other ways I could go on but I wont
It's your right to disagree ;)
|
True, if they redeemed some of the dark elves back to Ilythiir, should she not have come back with them? :(Loved the whole story behind Eilistraee. I dont think it was a story they ever should have resolved, especially not how it was resolved.
Was more than a little annoyed when she got decapitated and they redeeemed some of the drow back into the Ilythiir they were before Lolth.
I fast forwarded my coming Skullport campaign a hundred or so years and most of the panty posse is dead but I didn't destroy the rest of the Realms to do it. The only mover and shaker left is Elminster and he doesn't get around as much as he used to. In the meantime, there has been a slow corruption that is tainting the Realms and things are a lot darker and grittier. All the moving targets got shot down and it really is up to the mortal heroes to save a world that doesn't want to be saved.
On Topic: I dislike having dozens of sub races each with their own set of stats as well. I tend to use weapon proficiencies and skill to differentiate elasticities and cultures. Flavor goes a long way as well.
SM
|
StarMartyr365 another option for subraces would be to treat them like a disadvantage (similar to what is presented in Tome of Secrets), giving each subrace a specific set of bonus skills associated with a penalty, but also include a racial trait related to the subrace. So a wild elf might have bonus skills survival and knowledge (nature), but suffers -2 to diplomacy and intimidate checks when dealing with other elves, along with the racial trait +2 survival.
I'm very pleased about it.
PC races should be in the Pathfinder Core Rules, which they are and critters to bash in the Bestiary.
No more wacky races (brilliant cartoon!) for munchkins to try and get one up on everything else at the table. Fantastic!
|
|
StarMartyr365 another option for subraces would be to treat them like a disadvantage (similar to what is presented in Tome of Secrets), giving each subrace a specific set of bonus skills associated with a penalty, but also include a racial trait related to the subrace. So a wild elf might have bonus skills survival and knowledge (nature), but suffers -2 to diplomacy and intimidate checks when dealing with other elves, along with the racial trait +2 survival.
I like that idea. I missed it when I read the Tome of Secrets. Thanks for the reminder. That would be a wonderful way to differentiate ethnicity/culture for any race and it isn't overpowering. I also like local feats that are available to anyone who lives in a geographical area or maybe cultural feats for people who share a common culture. The traits in Pathfinder open the door for this kind of granular customization without making it easy to min/max into munchkinland.
SM
|
A wood elf in a nice suit still could not pass as a sun elf, nr a sun elf for a moon elf, nor could a sea elf pass at all for the other races. The skin tons among other things were very different
Just like a real-world black man would have a hard time passing himself off as Japanese. Are you going to say that how they look on the outside also determines their inherent skills and abilities (i.e. +2 to different stats)? Sounds pretty racist when you put it in real-world terms.
Now let's move it to fantasy.
The statistical differences between a plain ol' Elf (+2 dex, -2 con), Wild Elf (+2 dex, -2 int) and a Gray Elf (+2 dex, +2 int, -2 str, -2 con) in 3.5 for example. Those three Elf 'variants' have a more diverse set of racial modifiers than the difference between Dwarves and Gnomes (+2 con, -2 Cha or Str respectively), or Halflings and Gnomes (-2 str, +2 dex or con respectively), from 3.5 rules.
How does it make sense that variants of the same race (fantasy equivalent of African bushmen compared to Native American buffalo hunters) to have more difference between them than two core races?
That's what I always disliked about race variants. There is just as much of a difference between a Wild Elf and a normal Elf as there is between a Dwarf and a Gnome.
Why not show it for what it really is: the mechanical differences allowed somebody to play an 'Elf' fighter that didn't suffer from -2 con, or an 'Elf' wizard that got a bonus to intelligence.
A wood elf in a nice suit still could not pass as a sun elf, nr a sun elf for a moon elf, nor could a sea elf pass at all for the other races. The skin tons among other things were very differentJust like a real-world black man would have a hard time passing himself off as Japanese. Are you going to say that how they look on the outside also determines their inherent skills and abilities (i.e. +2 to different stats)? Sounds pretty racist when you put it in real-world terms.
That is indeed my issues with different stats for "sub races" which are really ethnicitys and not off shoot races. A wood elf is an elf same stats just a different ethnicity. Look at Golarion they have "sub races" of human{I dislike that term} but none have different stats
It gets down to a "subrace" has always really been just a ethnicity of a non human race. So why the double standard? Unless the races has evolved in a wildly different way the stats are the same, the culture is different
Ok I see alot of people hating on sub-races or racial variants.
Now I am a big believer in pratice what you preach.
I play with racial variants.
Let me tell why there good and why you should have them if not at least try them.
Wile all of us are humans we are not the same at all.
Now I am not a racist I know when people ussally say they're about to say something racist I am about to say something true.
We are all different because of our race.
I know in Sydney there are alot of Sumoans are bounces.
Why, because there huge people, not fat, there huge, you have to be ten kinds of stupid to mess with one of these guys.
And in general there good natured.
I know europes a very different place now but germans were traditionally tall stoic people.
The japanese are very tempered.
Anyone whom is honest has to agree.
Now when it comes to D&D were all just plus two to any stat and get an extra feat.
Now wile that is good for the general core rules because this way you don't have to over compicate your set up it does not repesent our diversity.
Now you have to say that do I want to walk away from reality more if so then racial varients are not your cup of tea.
But the thing is it is still a huge part of who we are.
I count myself as an Australian, but that does not mean my ancestory doesn't matter.
I know many people whom are the same.
Why would you want to remove this aspect of the game.
Well look thats enough of the why not here is the why.
It is stated that some times elves and dwarves or whatever are not trusting of humans because they are so wildly varied.
This BS.
Any elven community will have constant contact with one people.
Those closest to them and they will form there opinons in acordance with who they see the most.
This seems like a cheaty way of saying elves are all the same.
You live up in the mountains life is harsh you always climbing things are always out in the open.
Why would an elf whom is always in the mountains have poor stamina and great eye sight.
You live up in the mountains you can always see it comin' unless your in heavy forested low lieing mountains but we both know thats not what I am talking about.
The thing is that generic elf doesn't fit the bill there.
Now we haven't even begun to talk about there culture and how it differs.
And with all of this comes conflict (in game) and conflict is great it's the meat and potatoes of GMing.
/sigh
Although this debate is interesting from several points raised on both parts, i do not think that the pro-subraces will convince the anti-subraces that subraces should be detailed in this book or another, with their own ecology and stats.
Not more than the anti-subraces will convince the pro-subraces that all elves should have the same basic racial traits, and that only the ecology and cosmetics really matter.
Both sides have a point.
I don't think there is a solution to this.
Paizo might decide to announce that once and for all in Pathfinder and/or Golarion all elves share the same basic traits.
Or they might one day bring different traits for each, at least the major variants.
Or they might not take firm decision, keeping options open, if one day it becomes necessary to individualize one subrace.
In the meantime, nothing prevents DMs and players to make up their own subraces stats if they want to.
Of course, these would not be recognized as official in Pathfinder Society, but for other campaigns that's fine.
Creative Director
|
Barring something like a major changeover in staffing, I think we're very VERY likely to stick with what we've already decided—subraces and/or ethnicities do not get different racial modifiers or abilities. If we do anything with this type of differentiation it'll be through the character traits system.
Barring something like a major changeover in staffing, I think we're very VERY likely to stick with what we've already decided—subraces and/or ethnicities do not get different racial modifiers or abilities. If we do anything with this type of differentiation it'll be through the character traits system.
I love you guys Glomps James Jacobs
Barring something like a major changeover in staffing......
Don't even think anything like that!!!!
Barring something like a major changeover in staffing......Don't even think anything like that!!!!
what does something smell bad? Did a dwarf walk into the room?
Ok I see alot of people hating on sub-races or racial variants.
Now I am a big believer in pratice what you preach.
I play with racial variants.
One of the few racial advantages of Humans is "adaptability". You Samoan would use his "adaptability" trait to boost strength.
Other races are less variable, that's kind of coded in the rules.
If you don't like that. I would suggest a much simpler idea rather than spelling out a bunch of subraces. Just leave the racial penalty and mental stat boost and let the player pick which physical stat they want to boost. Then all the characters (other than humans) benefit equally.
It's a bit of a nerf to humans whose big stick is adaptability but adding subraces pretty much puts a nail in that advantage anyhow.
|
|
Wile all of us are humans we are not the same at all.
Now I am not a racist I know when people ussally say they're about to say something racist I am about to say something true.We are all different because of our race.
I know in Sydney there are alot of Sumoans are bounces.
Why, because there huge people, not fat, there huge, you have to be ten kinds of stupid to mess with one of these guys.
And in general there good natured.I know europes a very different place now but germans were traditionally tall stoic people.
The japanese are very tempered.
Anyone whom is honest has to agree.
I agree, that people of different areas of the world have different tendencies. That's where the +2 to a stat of your choice comes in- we tend to adapt quickly. That is our whole schtick as a race in D&D, that we are clever and adaptable.
Now when it comes to D&D were all just plus two to any stat and get an extra feat.
Now wile that is good for the general core rules because this way you don't have to over compicate your set up it does not repesent our diversity.
No, it perfectly represents our diversity. Your Samoan would get +2 strength. The tempered Japanese man would get +2 wisdom. Et cetera et cetera.
Now you have to say that do I want to walk away from reality more if so then racial varients are not your cup of tea.
But the thing is it is still a huge part of who we are.
I count myself as an Australian, but that does not mean my ancestory doesn't matter.
I don't think it's walking away from reality at all. A difference of +2 constitution is massive for the average person. It's the difference between a normal Humans alcohol tolerance and a hardy Dwarves. That +2 bonus to constitution isn't saying that all Dwarves are rough and tough. It's saying that they tend to be more tough than Humans, which is very reasonable.
I know many people whom are the same.
Why would you want to remove this aspect of the game.
Because as I mentioned before, there's a bigger difference between Gray Elves and plain ol' Elves than there is between a Dwarf and a Gnome, or a Gnome and a Halfling. How does it make sense for subraces to be more diverse than the core races?
Well look thats enough of the why not here is the why.
It is stated that some times elves and dwarves or whatever are not trusting of humans because they are so wildly varied.
This BS.
Any elven community will have constant contact with one people.
Those closest to them and they will form there opinons in acordance with who they see the most.
It's not saying that they fully isolate themselves from other races. They're just distrustful. I'm distrustful of the clerk at the corner store down the street because they frequently short change me. Doesn't mean I never go there, it just means I could my change before leaving the building.
This seems like a cheaty way of saying elves are all the same.
You live up in the mountains life is harsh you always climbing things are always out in the open.
Why would an elf whom is always in the mountains have poor stamina and great eye...
They are not claiming that Elves are all the same. They are saying that the tend to be frail but skilled and intelligent. You still get Elves with stats ranging across the spectrum, but usually they are frail but skilled and intelligent.
Elves at least in every classic story I have read, both D&D wise and else where have always been isolationists.
Regardless of how live this would still effect your skill set and out look.
In addition most elves that interact are young and have only seen there villages out look and have not done a around tour of the world.
And I don't recommend core races at all the conscept doesn't fit for me.
It easy for quick play but I prefer racial varients according to region.
Because that makes much more sense.
I am personally very glad that there are no subraces in this book. I have very specific subraces in my campaign and it's a pain in the neck to have to say no to "official content".
It does establish a clean slate for home games and setting specific uses. The Variant races, especially elves, started creeping in from their respective settings over time. Its why you see Warforged and two variant 'monsters' in the WotC MM3, oddly those two variants were never added in any Eberron book.
As to building real racial variants I guess it becomes an opening for a third party to bring out a guide to stated versions. The Environmental Racial Variants OGC rules found in Unearthed Arcana would be a good starting point an balloon out in into general concepts. Mind you for a DM setting building tool, not a Player min/max grab-bag.
Why? Why is it magically ok for a GM to have varied setting building tools but not for players to have equally varied character building tools?
I guess that depends on your group. In most groups the GM is the keeper of the setting or the group uses a standard setting.
If there are 6 elf sub-races for the players to pull from but the campaign setting only has 2 major elf cultures then where do you cram the other 4 in? If the player wants to play a Wild Elf but the elves in the campaign world are all civilized how does that make sense?
Building the game world as a collaborative effort would be cool also, but most groups don't do that.
You do realize that wild elves and wood elves arose from a misunderstanding of subrace names between the Forgotten Realms and Core AD&D? IIRC, one FR sourcebook said, "in the Realms, wild elves are called wood elves," and thereafter all FR books referred to them as wood elves. And then someone working on a non-FR AD&D saw the term "wood elf" and thought, "oh, this is a new subrace of elf that we should cover in AD&D Core!"... not realizing that it already existed in the Core as the wild elf. So then AD&D had wild elf stats and a slightly different set of stats for the wood elf (because you HAD to have different stats for them in Core AD&D, otherwise why would they have different names?), and then at some point that got carried BACK into FR so now FR has both wild elves and wood elves....
Plus, you have all forgotten to mention valley elves, which is shocking and shameful!!!
Amen to that!
In that specific instance a 'Wild Elf' could be one that grew up apart from traditional elven communities, who's family cut themselves off from the cultural norm.
But, I'll give you that some GM's create restrictive settings, and there will be times not all options will fit. What bothered me was Dorje's min/max comment. He's all "For DM's not munchkins" bla bla, and I just wanted to know why it was considerred ok for GM's, but not for players to want to use the race with the best statistical setup.
For example, Dwarf Sorcerer. That cha penalty would really hurt a sorcerer (Tiefling sorcerers are lucky SOB's that get to ignore their cha penalty in regards to sorcery) so the player instead wants to use a Gold Dwarf (+2 Con, -2 dex, so Pathfinderized we'd just tack on a +2 wis to match) suddenly, hey, it's not suffering so bad as a sorcerer, and heck might even be a bard instead.
Then why not just take my suggestion and allow the players to pick one of their bonus stats outright? If there is no regional context behind the subrace you are just arbitrarily assigning the stats.
You do realize that wild elves and wood elves arose from a misunderstanding of subrace names between the Forgotten Realms and Core AD&D? IIRC, one FR sourcebook said, "in the Realms, wild elves are called wood elves," and thereafter all FR books referred to them as wood elves. And then someone working on a non-FR AD&D saw the term "wood elf" and thought, "oh, this is a new subrace of elf that we should cover in AD&D Core!"... not realizing that it already existed in the Core as the wild elf. So then AD&D had wild elf stats and a slightly different set of stats for the wood elf (because you HAD to have different stats for them in Core AD&D, otherwise why would they have different names?), and then at some point that got carried BACK into FR so now FR has both wild elves and wood elves....
Plus, you have all forgotten to mention valley elves, which is shocking and shameful!!!
I'm quite certain that's at least partially incorrect. It the very least it was the wood elves that were around first, having appeared in the 1e MM. It may well be the case that wild elves came about that way though.
|
I'm quite certain that's at least partially incorrect. It the very least it was the wood elves that were around first, having appeared in the 1e MM. It may well be the case that wild elves came about that way though.You do realize that wild elves and wood elves arose from a misunderstanding of subrace names between the Forgotten Realms and Core AD&D? IIRC, one FR sourcebook said, "in the Realms, wild elves are called wood elves," and thereafter all FR books referred to them as wood elves. And then someone working on a non-FR AD&D saw the term "wood elf" and thought, "oh, this is a new subrace of elf that we should cover in AD&D Core!"... not realizing that it already existed in the Core as the wild elf. So then AD&D had wild elf stats and a slightly different set of stats for the wood elf (because you HAD to have different stats for them in Core AD&D, otherwise why would they have different names?), and then at some point that got carried BACK into FR so now FR has both wild elves and wood elves....
Plus, you have all forgotten to mention valley elves, which is shocking and shameful!!!
Wood elves were in the AD&D First Edition Monster Manual. Wild elves (grugach as they were alternatively known then) first appeared in a module I believe (forget which one) and then in the AD&D First Edition Monster Manual II.
Valley elves, of course, hail from the Valley of the Mage in Greyhawk, and, I believe, first appeared in either S4 or WG4, and were also in the MMII.
Elves are like ninja, so many varieties the only proper thing to do is hunt them down and kill them all! Cause they are watching you!! And there can only be one! New for Pathfinder it's the Highlander Elf, come equiped with razor sharp sword and personal soundtrack performed by Queen.
OMG I need the stats to that elf!
Hmmm its all turning into this. We have a wonderful product and people are moaning. Its all a bit "We've got receipies for Plain scones but I want cheese!"
Amen to that!
Me too! I used to love the Realms but now.....
|
You do realize that wild elves and wood elves arose from a misunderstanding of subrace names between the Forgotten Realms and Core AD&D? IIRC, one FR sourcebook said, "in the Realms, wild elves are called wood elves," and thereafter all FR books referred to them as wood elves. And then someone working on a non-FR AD&D saw the term "wood elf" and thought, "oh, this is a new subrace of elf that we should cover in AD&D Core!"... not realizing that it already existed in the Core as the wild elf. So then AD&D had wild elf stats and a slightly different set of stats for the wood elf (because you HAD to have different stats for them in Core AD&D, otherwise why would they have different names?), and then at some point that got carried BACK into FR so now FR has both wild elves and wood elves....
Plus, you have all forgotten to mention valley elves, which is shocking and shameful!!!
LIKE TOTALLY! Like how could you like totally forget like the valley elves! Valley elves TOTALLY have like the prettiest hair, and like the nicest like outfits of like all the Elves. Those Wild Elves are just like, totally trashy. (I totally like saw a bunch of them on Elves Gone Wild Programmed Image). Also those Wood elfs, TOTALLY remind me of those "This Old House" guys! You know? Like! Whatever!
That's why they're listed in the Bestiary under Drow, Duergar, and Svirfneblin, not like "Elf, Drow" or "Gnome, Svirfneblin.
Oh thank you!
I was so tired of looking up Animal, Bear.