After reading through the Bestiary I received yesterday, and then after reading this quote below, I feel compelled to speak against what I feel is a fundamental poor judgment call in Pathfinder. I am hoping perhaps to rally support for a web enhancement that might bring things into balance. Here's hoping I'm not the only one who feels this way, or I'm going to get bashed a lot in this thread :)
Level adjustments and ECLs are not a part of the Pathfinder game. Your GM has the say in what races are available for use as PCs; we presented two versions of the drow so that a GM could allow the less powerful one if he wanted. Appendix 4 of the Bestiary and Chapter 12 of the Pathfinder Core RPG give a few more guidelines on playing non-core races.
I have to say that I am really saddened that Paizo has gone with this approach.
I had heard they were doing it, but I wanted to see how they were going to do it. I thought surely there was something they were going to do to keep things balanced. Now, as I look through my bestiary and look at the drow noble, I can't help but feel even more frustrated with this decision!
Paizo spent a large amount of money and time in developing the core rulebook we have today. Between Paizo staff contributions and player suggestions throughout the testing phases, the core classes and races present fairly well polished and balanced mechanics. (Alright, so some might slightly disagree with this regarding the paladin class and the half-orc race).
So, after that huge investment of time and money Paizo has put into keeping class and race balance, Paizo then doesn't bother to implement a balance mechanism for new races? I am a little concerned now if there is going to be balance of the new classes Paizo introduces.
Compare a 1st level goblin to a 1st level drow noble. The difference is ridiculous!
I understand that players want to play some unique races (without monstrous hit dice) at times, like drow. In 3.5 there were various methods offered for playing a drow at 1st level. I can understand that trying to implement a set of rules for allowing a character of a powerful race to play as a 1st level character are a challenge -- but so was putting together the entire core rules.
I get the impression that Paizo didn't want to take on the mechanics of how to do this, so their excuse is "we'll let the GM's decide".
Some GM's don't want to waste the time or effort in having to review material for approval, create house rules, or try to judge the balance of a rules mechanic. Many GM's just stick to the golden rule of listing the rulebooks they allow, and then just accept all the rules presented in the books as canon.
Very sloppy Paizo. Very sloppy!
Because there aren't three other active threads to discuss this in...
Challenge Rating = ECL
Whoops thanks. I accidentally put "ECL" in my post title instead of "Level Adjustments".
Because there aren't three other active threads to discuss this in...
I haven't had all morning available to search through other threads to see if anyone has a topic similar to mine before I post it.
Having now looked at another thread you have referenced I saw someone stating that:
James and Jason have both said that nothing in Bestiary was intended as PC races. They are monsters first and foremost. They are all useable as such but none were designed as such in the creation system.
I also believe that such a statement is just a sad excuse for not wanting to put the work and time into developing a balanced system for introducing player races. If they were not intended to be designed as PC's, then they wouldn't have the (i.e. "Drow Characters") reference in their monster description. If such a reference was meant to be used for NPC's, then such a heading/concept is not needed. Just create the monster with monstrous HD, and then add class levels.
These monsters were indeed created with the thought that they could be used as player characters, and should have been given proper treatment. The reality is, is that players have been playing these races as PC's for the past 20 years.
I would have prefered no references to them (Drow, Goblins, Orcs, etc) being characters (pc's or npc's), if it meant that an additional character race handbook could have followed giving them all due consideration.
that reference has nothing to do with them being usable as pc races and everything to do with that most of there abilities are determined by class lvl's
?
Their significant abilities are race-based. One of the greatest benefits a race can get is when their ability score increases add up to more than their decreases. In general, its acceptably balanced if the race gains an overall +2 to their ability scores after the math is done.
Examples:
A level 1:
Aasimar: +4
Drow Noble: +8
Hobgoblin: +4
These scores alone justify why the race should have monstrous hit dice, or some other significant penalties. The drow noble stands out as being the most unbalanced.
These races are already unbalanced without racial hit dice... now add in the other special abilities they get and they are clearly unblanced before adding in the class levels abilities.
Creative Director
|
To answer the OP's central complaint:
A full system for playing monsters as PC races is complex. If we tackle such a system, we want to do it right, and that will require some relatively large footprint in text in a book... more room than we had available in either the Core rules (which are first and foremost CORE rules for the game) or the Bestiary (which is first and foremost a MONSTER book for GMs). We knew some folks would want some sort of advice on playing monstrous PCs, so we put in a little bit of advice, but we didn't have the room to do a full-on section about this. More to the point, we simply didn't have the TIME OR RESOURCES to develop a complex subsystem like this.
Look back at 3rd edition. They didn't have full rules for playing monsters at the start. It took 3.5 before they got the ECL and LA system worked out, and I'm not alone in thinking that system was far from perfect. Savage Species is an ENTIRE BOOK dedicated to the subject, and even it is far from perfect.
Eventaully, we're likely to start exploring using non-core races as PC options. Hell... we already DID THIS with tieflings in Council of Thieves.
We'll get to the rest of the monsters eventually. Give us time. And try to keep the overreactions and anger that we chose not to include this (or other variants like Epic rules or psionics rules) as a major part of the core game. There's simply no room to do it all.
That said, that doesn't mean we can't set drow and duergar and tieflings and their kind up as NPC foes and allies. That's the way they're meant to be handled in the core game, anyway. I'm sorry if that's not the game you want to play, but we can't build the perfect game for everyone. We can eventually expand the existing rules to cover these variant modes of game play... but those expansions can not come all at once.
When did those races become core races? i have seen posts that an exotic race book for players might be in the cards for the future. I think calling the choice lazy is a little negative and does not really help with discussions.
I'm just not afraid to point something out. I didn't mean the comment to be inflammatory or spiteful. I honestly believe that they chose not to address the issue because of the amount of time it would take to develop rules mechanics to ensure races that were traditional Level Adjustment based races, would balance. In my books, that's being lazy.
If they changed Paladin hit dice to d6's, I would also be similarly vocal. I wouldn't dance around the issue, nor candy-coat a big change to a fundamental mechanic. I would call such a change "dumb". I know, it lacks the luster of calling "lacking logic" or "insufficiently mechanically balanced", but sometimes its just easier to keep things simple. Accordingly, removing Level Adjustments and simply stating that now it's up to the GM's discretion whether it should be allowed, is "lazy", and bordering on "silly".
The races/creatures noted are in fact balanced for their intended use. As NPCs (friendly or otherwise). If they were meant to be player races, they would have been in the player's guide back in 3.5, and despite the fact that there were official rules on how to run them as player characters they were still always a 'use at your own risk, with DM approval' proposition.
Paizo had enough work to do as it was to get the base races and classes all working together. They've provided guidelines on how to run monsterous PCs that look reasonable to me at first glance. Sure, the Drow Noble is more powerful than a goblin, and more powerful than a regular Drow for that matter. That's why they're a CR+1 (also noted in another thread).
The various "playable" races in the Bestiary are not balanced against each other the way the player races are because they're not meant to be. They're designed as monsters, to fulfil particular roles as adversaries. If you want to play against the intended design of the system, you have to expect that things aren't going to be exactly right, and that some adjustments may have to be made.
|
Creative Director
|
In my books, that's being lazy.
Well, if you're not afraid to point something out, I hope you're not afraid of being struck by the full wrath of the Editor-in-Chief.
Because in my books, calling someone lazy because they didn't spend an 8th day in the week working to build you something to use is being a jerk. And comparing a change to a fundamental core concept of a core class (Paladin HD to d6s) to the neglecting of including full rules for something that has ALWAYS BEEN A NICHE ELEMENT TO THE CORE RULES is ignorant, willful, and blatantly ridiculous.
Nothing about the creation of the Pathfinder RPG or the Bestiary qualifies as "lazy" from where I'm sitting. Building these books has been an ENORMOUS strain on Paizo, and we're months behind on our regular products as a result... hence me being at work on a weekend again trying to help get things back ON schedule.
When we were scrambling to get the Bestiary and the core book out, we had many people at Paizo putting in 60 to 80 hour weeks. Coming up with something as complex as a fully functional system to allow any monster in the Bestairy to be played as both a monster or as a possible PC race would not only have increased the size of the Bestiary by a significant number of pages (and would have likely made it IMPOSSIBLE to present many monsters in a one-page format) would have had us probably having to work 100 hour weeks.
Frankly, I'm incredibly insulted by the idea that Paizo's editors and designers and art directors are lazy. This isn't the way to go about requesting us to expand a game into a non-core area, frankly, and I'm not interested in arguing the point further with someone who seems to be so ignorant of the work and strain that creating an RPG actually consists of. Sorry if I'm coming off a bit crabby and harsh here, but there ya go.
In my books, that's being lazy.Well, if you're not afraid to point something out, I hope you're not afraid of being struck by the full wrath of the Editor-in-Chief.
Because in my books, calling someone lazy because they didn't spend an 8th day in the week working to build you something to use is being a jerk. And comparing a change to a fundamental core concept of a core class (Paladin HD to d6s) to the neglecting of including full rules for something that has ALWAYS BEEN A NICHE ELEMENT TO THE CORE RULES is ignorant, willful, and blatantly ridiculous.
Nothing about the creation of the Pathfinder RPG or the Bestiary qualifies as "lazy" from where I'm sitting. Building these books has been an ENORMOUS strain on Paizo, and we're months behind on our regular products as a result... hence me being at work on a weekend again trying to help get things back ON schedule.
When we were scrambling to get the Bestiary and the core book out, we had many people at Paizo putting in 60 to 80 hour weeks. Coming up with something as complex as a fully functional system to allow any monster in the Bestairy to be played as both a monster or as a possible PC race would not only have increased the size of the Bestiary by a significant number of pages (and would have likely made it IMPOSSIBLE to present many monsters in a one-page format) would have had us probably having to work 100 hour weeks.
Frankly, I'm incredibly insulted by the idea that Paizo's editors and designers and art directors are lazy. This isn't the way to go about requesting us to expand a game into a non-core area, frankly, and I'm not interested in arguing the point further with someone who seems to be so ignorant of the work and strain that creating an RPG actually consists of. Sorry if I'm coming off a bit crabby and harsh here, but there ya go.
Seconded.
I'm sorry you posted that James, because I was about to post it for you. Yeah, sure, it's better that you do it, but now, when I want to chime in and tell this guy he's being childish and selfish, I just sound like a sycophant.
A tarrasque sycophant.
Ah, well, I think the vast majority of us appreciate the time you put in. Speaking as someone who often works 60+ hours per week to earn a 40-hour salary, I know how tiring and thankless that can feel.
Awesome books, and the effort you put into it really does show, even if some folks don't take the time to notice it or say it.
And while I'm at it, here's a blanket apology from me. I often poke at a rule or a mistake and call attention to it, arguing in those cases that the rules are incomplete or inconsistent or just plain poorly written. In those cases, I'm pointing at just that one rule, just one rule out of ten thousand or so, and I still find the other 9980 that I'm not beating with a stick to be quite good indeed. Sorry I don't spend any time writing up posts about the rules I like (though I do defend them when others chose the good (IMO) rules to bash).
Keep up the awesome work!
DM_Blake
Tarrasque Sycophant
Good stuff
I just want to use this space for a second to say thank you to James, and to the other staff at Paizo. Not just for a great product, but for also being so communicative and available to the users of said product. You guys, and James in particular it seems, put yourself out here against the slings, arrows and magic missiles of every disgruntled fan who didn't see their favorite balliwack turn out the way they wanted. How you manage to do that and still keep true to your vision (not to mention your sanity) is quite impressive. Keep up the fantastic work, and I look forward to more down the road.
Good stuffI just want to use this space for a second to say thank you to James, and to the other staff at Paizo. Not just for a great product, but for also being so communicative and available to the users of said product. You guys, and James in particular it seems, put yourself out here against the slings, arrows and magic missiles of every disgruntled fan who didn't see their favorite balliwack turn out the way they wanted. How you manage to do that and still keep true to your vision (not to mention your sanity) is quite impressive. Keep up the fantastic work, and I look forward to more down the road.
Uh oh, looks like a steel predator sycophant too. ;)
Mr. Jacobs, there's only room for one monstrous sycophant here, so if that steel pretender gets too irritating, just say the word, I am pretty sure I can CHOMP it, even if it means picking rusty steel bits out from between my armored teeth for the next half century or so...
Firstly, thank you for replying to my post. This is what sets Paizo aside from other publishers and is why I will always continue to support your products even if there is in an occasional rule that is backwards to my logic.
A full system for playing monsters as PC races is complex. If we tackle such a system, we want to do it right, and that will require some relatively large footprint in text in a book... more room than we had available in either the Core rules (which are first and foremost CORE rules for the game) or the Bestiary (which is first and foremost a MONSTER book for GMs). We knew some folks would want some sort of advice on playing monstrous PCs, so we put in a little bit of advice, but we didn't have the room to do a full-on section about this. More to the point, we simply didn't have the TIME OR RESOURCES to develop a complex subsystem like this.
I guess my thought is, that it is apparent that Paizo lacked the time or resources for such a system. I really wish Paizo didn't even try to introduce this concept in this resource as the balance is really off because of this. (i.e.: Giving a race no monstrous hit dice when it starts with a +/- ability balance of +8, is pretty crazy.)
I really like options that deviate from the norm, and this for me means unusual humanoid player races. When I read that the Bestiary was going to deliver on this, I was excited to see what options were going to be introduced. Instead, I was somewhat disappointed. (On a side note, I think Paizo balanced the Drow fairly well, which I'm sure many people were eager to see the results of).
It took 3.5 before they got the ECL and LA system worked out, and I'm not alone in thinking that system was far from perfect. Savage Species is an ENTIRE BOOK dedicated to the subject, and even it is far from perfect.
Yes, it is indeed far from perfect. Paizo has had a good history of taking on such challenges, so I was hoping to see this challenge taken on in the Bestiary.
Eventaully, we're likely to start exploring using non-core races as PC options.
That indeed would be good news, and I won't give up hope for such a resource. Please be kind to the orcs, and give them a reason to be feared all across the lands :)
Give us time. And try to keep the overreactions and anger that we chose not to include this (or other variants like Epic rules or psionics rules) as a major part of the core game. There's simply no room to do it all.
I can understand why this concerns you, especially given all the time and dedication you have given this project. It was certainly not an attack on the project as a whole (which turned out dang good!), but instead is an attack on a small mechanic used within the project.
The best way I could try to explain why this does not sit well with me, would be to give an analogy. What if in the corebook, instead of giving pre-requisites for Prestige Classes, you just told the GM's to use their discretion on when a player should be able to qualify for it. To me, this would also be lazy. I would rather then that if you didn't have time to create pre-requisites, to just either say the PrC has no pre-requisites or to remove the PrC section all together. I feel this is a fair comparison to what was done with the traditional level adjustment races and their respective rules as characters.
I'm sorry if that's not the game you want to play, but we can't build the perfect game for everyone. We can eventually expand the existing rules to cover these variant modes of game play... but those expansions can not come all at once.
I don't want you to build a perfect game for everyone, I just want you to build a perfect game for me :) Anyways, I'll keep my fingers crossed for a racial expansion book -- and will hope it well represents the fearsome savage brutal orc player characters :)
Good stuffI just want to use this space for a second to say thank you to James, and to the other staff at Paizo. Not just for a great product, but for also being so communicative and available to the users of said product. You guys, and James in particular it seems, put yourself out here against the slings, arrows and magic missiles of every disgruntled fan who didn't see their favorite balliwack turn out the way they wanted. How you manage to do that and still keep true to your vision (not to mention your sanity) is quite impressive. Keep up the fantastic work, and I look forward to more down the road.Uh oh, looks like a steel predator sycophant too. ;)
Mr. Jacobs, there's only room for one monstrous sycophant here, so if that steel pretender gets too irritating, just say the word, I am pretty sure I can CHOMP it, even if it means picking rusty steel bits out from between my armored teeth for the next half century or so...
...meep?
:D
Well, if you're not afraid to point something out, I hope you're not afraid of being struck by the full wrath of the Editor-in-Chief.
Uh oh... I awoke the dragon :)
Because in my books, calling someone lazy because they didn't spend an 8th day in the week working to build you something to use is being a jerk. And comparing a change to a fundamental core concept of a core class (Paladin HD to d6s) to the neglecting of including full rules for something that has ALWAYS BEEN A NICHE ELEMENT TO THE CORE RULES is ignorant, willful, and blatantly ridiculous.
Hrmm, I can't think of the last time I was called a "jerk" for criticizing a publishing company. Oh wait this would be the first time. However, I know how hard all of you do work there though, and although I would have thought that with the plethora of criticism that I'm sure you receive on a daily basis, that you would have broader shoulders than that -- I will simply infer that you feel a heartfelt duty to defend the product (I'm guessing also somewhat fueled by sleep deprivation).
Nothing about the creation of the Pathfinder RPG or the Bestiary qualifies as "lazy" from where I'm sitting. Building these books has been an ENORMOUS strain on Paizo, and we're months behind on our regular products as a result... hence me being at work on a weekend again trying to help get things back ON schedule.
When we were scrambling to get the Bestiary and the core book out, we had many people at Paizo putting in 60 to 80 hour weeks. Coming up with something as complex as a fully functional system to allow any monster in the Bestairy to be played as both a monster or as a possible PC race would not only have increased the size of the Bestiary by a significant number of pages (and would have likely made it IMPOSSIBLE to present many monsters in a one-page format) would have had us probably having to work 100 hour weeks.
Frankly, I'm incredibly insulted by the idea that Paizo's editors and designers and art directors are lazy. This isn't the way to go about requesting us to expand a game into a non-core area, frankly, and I'm not interested in arguing the point further with someone who seems to be so ignorant of the work and strain that creating an RPG actually consists of. Sorry if I'm coming off a bit crabby and harsh here, but there ya go.
I should perhaps try to emphasize, that I am suggesting that the idea of saying that "its up to the DM" to determine the usability of the overpowered race as a PC, is "lazy". Perhaps I could have worded it better to emphasize that I am calling the decision lazy and not the project or the company as a whole.
I assure you that I am neither a jerk nor ignorant, and simply that the passion behind my posts are simply a product of how passionately I support Paizo's products. When I see what I feel is an obvious pimple on an otherwise perfect product, I feel empassioned to point it out. It is with the same passion, that you have replied in this post, and I appreciate the passion and time you put into the product, because trust me it shows.
|
Creative Director
|
I assure you that I am neither a jerk nor ignorant, and simply that the passion behind my posts are simply a product of how passionately I support Paizo's products. When I see what I feel is an obvious pimple on an otherwise perfect product, I feel empassioned to point it out. It is with the same passion, that you have replied in this post, and I appreciate the passion and time you put into the product, because trust me it shows.
Well.. as we all know, the internet (and messageboards in particular) are ill-suited to convey emotional context. Messageboard posts have the tendency to make communication feel more antagonistic than they actually are, which is why it's important to make sure that before you post something to make sure that what you're posting isn't losing something in the translation.
Anyway, that said... while I'm sure you're not a jerk NOR ignorant... the way in which your posts were worded had that air to them... at least from where I was sitting.
I know you're a passionate support of our products, so I also know that you've doubtless noticed that in all of our Golarion-related products, we've presented a world that is VERY humanocentric, and that all of our adventures assume human or demihuman PCs. The core assumption of our core world is that PCs are not monsters, and that's a primary reason we built the Pathfinder rules the way we did.
The Bestiary was never intended to be a player's book. The concept that players can play any race is a strength of the d20 rules, but it's also treacherous ground when it comes to game balance. Furthermore, the game has ALWAYS had powerful humanoid races like the drow and the svirfneblin that fill specific niches in the game; leaving them out would have been like leaving out demons or dragons, I think. Wouldn't have been a good idea at all.
So in closing, all I can really say is to repeat that I'm sorry you felt that the Bestairy should also be Savage Species. It's not, and was never intended to be a dual-purpose book. We also decided not to include lots of rules for psionic stuff, epic stuff, or science fiction stuff. The decision to not include that is not lazy. It's called "good planning." Lazy would have been not bothering to do a monster book at all, or simply reprinting the SRD statistics and adding in CMD and CMB bonuses but not reworking every monster from the ground up to rebalance them.
I guess that's the core of my indignation—the concept that by not finding a way to accomplish the work of, say, 20 employees with only 10 available in the time alloted is lazy is just mind-boggling. It's like complaining that a 10 gallon jug can't be bothered to hold 11 gallons is lazy. Doesn't make sense.
No worries. I will ensure that in the future (especially when I am quoting or responding to Paizo staff), that I try to be as accurate as possible in my wording. I do agree that my post may sound like more of an attack on Paizo as a whole, than criticism against a particular decision or rule inclusion.
I think the comparison I gave to the Prestige classes in my post in this thread probably best explains the situation, and makes me wishing I would have thought of it in my original post.
Oh well, it looks like its time for me to start thinking of a pseudoname to use before the next RPG Superstar contest starts :)
Because there aren't three other active threads to discuss this in...I haven't had all morning available to search through other threads to see if anyone has a topic similar to mine before I post it.
I find it deeply ironic -- and, to mirror Mr. Jacob's opinion, more than a little jerkish -- to lambaste Paizo for being lazy when you yourself are too lazy to even look at the first two or three thread TITLES in the very same forum you posted this in. If you had, you'd have seen the thread called "Bestiary and Monster PCs", which is clearly about exactly this same issue, and, furthermore, already has responses by Mr. Jacobs in it.
But no, you were too lazy for that.
|
Creative Director
|
No worries. I will ensure that in the future (especially when I am quoting or responding to Paizo staff), that I try to be as accurate as possible in my wording. I do agree that my post may sound like more of an attack on Paizo as a whole, than criticism against a particular decision or rule inclusion.
Cool! And again... it sounds like the core of the problem is a misunderstanding about what the Bestiary was supposed to do in the first place. We never claimed it would be a book for PCs to use for alternate races, and if we did somewhere, we were in error as well. But it's just as likely that you may have had some assumptions about what a Bestairy should do that simply didn't sync up with what it actually does.
|
Creative Director
|
And! This thread has had enough antagonism. Let's go ahead and let it lie. As the previous poster noted, there are already plenty of other threads about the misunderstanding many folks had about what the Bestiary's goal and purpose was intended to be.
Be good to each other, in other words!
I should perhaps try to emphasize, that I am suggesting that the idea of saying that "its up to the DM" to determine the usability of the overpowered race as a PC, is "lazy". Perhaps I could have worded it better to emphasize that I am calling the decision lazy and not the project or the company as a whole.
I'd like to chime in as a player who also likes freak options.
Lazy is still the wrong word to use, I think. If you've got X pages available in a book and you've got X+Y pages of material, you've got hard decisions to make. What doesn't get printed? More, what doesn't get written in the first place?
Plain and simple, the Beastiary is the best monster book Paizo could produce. The changes in design and layout are fantastic and it delivers precisely what it presents itself as in a really brilliant fashion.
Problem is - as James has said - is that monsters as PCs is a complicated premise. This isn't a simple matter of retaining ECL and calling it a day. That would be a cop-out because we all know the system is broken. Some monsters - for instance - benefit different classes more than others. Kobold. A Kobold barbarian is in worse shape than a Kobold sorcerer or wizard.
As much as I like freak options, it's better that this stays up to the DM to adjudicate until a proper system can be designed to accommodate monsters-as-PCs. I imagine such a system would involve weighting each "feature" such as darkvision and tables that compare relative values of those features to PC class features. A couple categories of different scores might be needed. I could see such a system be easily in the range of 32 pages on its own.
Removal of the ECL line let Paizo concentrate on making the monsters make more sense than ever before as monsters. Not having to worry about what someone might try to do with the monster as a PC freed them to focus on what works.
I get it, it's not the best result, but it's the result that makes sense given page count, complexity of the problem, and the inherent purpose of the book. Really, if you're miffed - or even if you're simply not lazy yourself - sit down and try and write a formal system for measuring monsters as PCs. I'll help. I'm sure a bunch of other people will help. Betcha we still won't get it done. But I'm game if you are.
|
I have to say that I've come to think that monster design should have been exactly the same as PC design. What do I mean?
Every monster should have been a 20-level class.
Now of course there would be caveats. You don't just get to play a 1st level solar. Of course, that thought suggests you should have the base monster class (say, aasimar?) and then prestige classes. (solar entry at level X)
Of course, this is enormously time consuming, and probably has a lot of bugs that would need to be worked out.
Possibly something for a community project...
|
Creative Director
|
I have to say that I've come to think that monster design should have been exactly the same as PC design. What do I mean?
Every monster should have been a 20-level class.
Now of course there would be caveats. You don't just get to play a 1st level solar. Of course, that thought suggests you should have the base monster class (say, aasimar?) and then prestige classes. (solar entry at level X)
Of course, this is enormously time consuming, and probably has a lot of bugs that would need to be worked out.
Possibly something for a community project...
I agree that this is probably the best way to tackle the problem; it's certainly the solution that the authors of Savage Species presented in the final third of the book (thanks, in no small part, to our own Sean K Reynolds, after all!).
BUT. It should be obvious that that's an entirely different type of game. It looks different. It PLAYS different. A book like savage species's last quarter that treats each monster as a 20-level class is not a Bestiary... at least, not a Bestiary that I'd like to use as a GM. It's a different book entirely, and that's the whole point I've been trying to make.
|
|
Exactly what I was saying James. This would be a complete rebuild, and not the tweaking that Pathfinder was intended to be.
I think he meant having perfectly playable monsters would negate the difference between core races and them. There would suddenly be less arguements to restrict monster PCs and the feel of the world could change.
Of course, making it outside of core keeps the "No we're not using that book, suck it up." answer valid.
Really, if you're miffed - or even if you're simply not lazy yourself - sit down and try and write a formal system for measuring monsters as PCs. I'll help. I'm sure a bunch of other people will help. Betcha we still won't get it done. But I'm game if you are.
This may actually be something I would be interested in doing, in between the 5 other projects I am currently working on. I would be interested in collaborating on such a project.
Ideally, most of the changes made to races in the corebooks would probably equate them to LA +1's in 3.5. The benefit of this, is that it gives us a fair amount of room to play around with. This also made the drow a bit easier to shape into a close balance with the rest.
Aside from tackling the traditional semi-monstrous humanoids (Goblin, Hobgoblin, Kobold, Orcs, etc), I would also like to take a stab at some monstrous races too. I also think a negative level mechanic could work. Here's just a quick idea and sample off the top of my head:
----------------------------------------------
OGRE PLAYER CHARACTER RACE
+10 Strength, +4 Constitution, -2 Dexterity, -4 Intelligence, -4 Charisma
Large: Ogres are large creatures and gain a -1 size penalty to their AC, a -1 size penalty on attack rolls, a +1 bonus to their attack rolls, and a -4 penalty on Stealth checks.
Increased Speed: Ogres have a base speed of 40 feet.
Darkvision: Ogres can see in the dark up to 60 feet.
Low-Light Vision: Ogres can see twice as far as humans in conditions of dim light.
Natural Armor: Ogres have a +5 natural armor bonus.
Resilient: Ogres gain a bonus feat which represents their resilient nature, which they can select from the following: Defensive Combat Training, Great Fortitude, Improved Grapple (Ogres can select Improved Grapple as this bonus feat without having to meet the pre-requisites), Iron Will, Self-Sufficient, or Toughness.
Resourceful: Due to a lack of available weapons ogres become quite skilled at using improvised weapons and gain an improvised weapon feat selection of either Catch Off-Guard or Throw Anything.
Gullible: Ogres tend to be quite naive and suffer a -2 penalty to Sense Motive checks.
Weapon and Armor Proficiency Ogres are proficient with all simple weapons and greatclubs. They are proficient with light and medium armor.
Skill Ranks per Level: 1 + Int modifier
Monster Hit Dice: 4d8
Level Reduction: An ogre character has the equivalent of 3 negative levels (-3 on all ability checks, attack rolls, combat maneuver checks, Combat Maneuver Defense, saving throws and skill checks, and -15 hit points). An ogre character can not progress in class levels, until they have eliminated their reduced levels. A reduced level can only be removed by gaining enough experience to advance a character level.
----------------------------------------------
I'm unsure if this "Level Reduction" mechanic would create the needed balance, but so far it looks good on paper. (Well, on the computer screen).
Where it may not work as well, is for creatures that have a lot of special abilities. In these cases, extras such as feats would have to be stripped. I would like to stay away from a "front-loaded" level 1 character, but at the same time all the negative level penalties should still keep the character in check.
I would like to stay away from abilities being gained as they gain levels (pay off their reduced levels), but I suspect this may have to occur to reduce the concern of "front loading". Either that, or the best balance for races with a lot of special abilities would be to give them their core abilities at level 1, and the rest of their abilities (especially the more powerful ones) when they have paid off all their reduced levels. (In example, a 8 HD monster who has several weak special abilities, as well as Greater Invisibility at Will, would gain all their abilities, except Greater Invisibility at Will at level 1. At level 8, the monster has now paid off all their reduced levels, and would now gain Greater Invisibility at Will. At level 9 they can now start advancing in class levels.
General Design thoughts behind the Ogre PC while rating the benefits:
- minus - fighter-based character with d8 hit dice
- minus - 1 skill point per level
- minus - fighter-based character with only simple weapon proficiency
- plus - ability +/- is +4
- plus - +5 natural armor (perhaps this should be a double-plus)
- plus - low light vision
- plus - darkvision
- plus - large size (I believe there are equal advantages and disadvantages for large size -- although in a combat role, probably more on the plus side, especially when you factor in the 40' speed)
- plus - improvised weapon feat (this to me is barely a plus, given the amount of time improvised weapons are utilized in-game)
- plus - bonus feat from a limited feat selection
I think over all, it compares fairly close in balance to the core races. I threw in the Gullible penalty now to perhaps help any balance concerns. Perhaps its not needed though?
|
Why do GMs feel it's necessary to offer monstrous races to their players?
I have _never_ offered such things to my players. I always tell them upfront and repeatedly (if necessary!) that my games are core-only. If a player wants to do something that is non-core, they should contact me outside of the normal game session time and we'll discuss it but they should expect a "no" answer.
Allowing players to use rules that either (a) don't exist or (b) are going to require a lot of work on the part of the GM (which is you!) seems counter-productive to me. I mean, the players want to have fun, but so does the GM. And turning my 5-6 hours of prep into 10-11 because someone wants to play a medusa (or some other stupid race) isn't fun for me and I'm not going to do it.
Now how do I put this topic in my KILL file?
An ogre character has the equivalent of 3 negative levels (-3 on all ability checks, attack rolls, combat maneuver checks, Combat Maneuver Defense, saving throws and skill checks, and -15 hit points). An ogre character can not progress in class levels, until they have eliminated their reduced levels. A reduced level can only be removed by gaining enough experience to advance a character level.
I'm not sure how you would want this part to work.
Suppose we all start at first level. I want to play an Ogre fighter. So I take those three negative levels.
Now, we're on medium XP, so I need 2,000 XP to remove a negative level. Then I need another 2,000 XP to remove the second, and another 2,000 XP to remove the last negative level?
That's a sweeeeeeeeeeet deal! (probably not enough E's in there to properly emphasize the sweetness of the deal).
All I am out is a mere 6,000 XP and I get all that crunchy ogre stuff? When I just barely hit 5th level, the rest of my fellow adventurers will still be 5th level. I'll be mostly caught up. But I will still have a net 12 ablity score points instead of 2, faster movement, an amazing 5 extra AC, and reach? And best of all, the extra 4d8 HP too!
I'll take it!
Even if we reword what you're saying to say that I would have to gain enough XP to gain 3 levels (going from first to fourth level) before I can gain any class levels, that's only 9,000 XP instead of 6,000. I'll be caught up at 6th level (but really way ahead with all the ogrish goodness).
It seems way overpowered.
Why do GMs feel it's necessary to offer monstrous races to their players?
Well, if you have never ventured from a published setting, I could understand this. A monstrous player character in a Golarion setting would really not fit well.
However, many people use their own scratch built settings, or use a setting built loosely off a published setting. In these settings, the GM's tend to loosen up the reigns a little more.
And in general, after 26 years of playing D&D, its fun to throw in some variety every now and then. There's only so many times a person can keep creating a character from the 7 core races. In fact, one of the most memorable characters I remember a friend playing, was a kobold rogue. That character was a lot of fun.
Not all campaigns are about being good characters and saving the world. There are evil campaigns, and those that waver in-between. Especially in the evil campaigns is where you tend to see more of a desire to play monstrous races. I'm working on a "horde" type campaign where the players will be part of an evil horde of orcs, goblins, hobgoblins, ogres, etc. In such a campaign, I have to offer the players monstrous character options :)
Every now and then, its good to think outside the box.
An ogre character has the equivalent of 3 negative levels (-3 on all ability checks, attack rolls, combat maneuver checks, Combat Maneuver Defense, saving throws and skill checks, and -15 hit points). An ogre character can not progress in class levels, until they have eliminated their reduced levels. A reduced level can only be removed by gaining enough experience to advance a character level.I'm not sure how you would want this part to work.
Suppose we all start at first level. I want to play an Ogre fighter. So I take those three negative levels.
Now, we're on medium XP, so I need 2,000 XP to remove a negative level. Then I need another 2,000 XP to remove the second, and another 2,000 XP to remove the last negative level?
That's a sweeeeeeeeeeet deal! (probably not enough E's in there to properly emphasize the sweetness of the deal).
All I am out is a mere 6,000 XP and I get all that crunchy ogre stuff? When I just barely hit 5th level, the rest of my fellow adventurers will still be 5th level. I'll be mostly caught up. But I will still have a net 12 ablity score points instead of 2, faster movement, an amazing 5 extra AC, and reach? And best of all, the extra 4d8 HP too!
I'll take it!
Even if we reword what you're saying to say that I would have to gain enough XP to gain 3 levels (going from first to fourth level) before I can gain any class levels, that's only 9,000 XP instead of 6,000. I'll be caught up at 6th level (but really way ahead with all the ogrish goodness).
It seems way overpowered.
That's not the way it works though. You remove the negative levels, when you gain enough experience to acquire a new character level. So, based on medium exp advancement:
0 exp = Ogre with 3 negative levels.
2000 exp = Ogre with 2 negative levels.
5000 exp = Ogre with 1 negative level.
14000 exp = Ogre with no negative levels.
23000 exp = Your first class level.
You remove the negative levels, when you gain enough experience to acquire a new character level. So, based on medium exp advancement:
0 exp = Ogre with 3 negative levels.
2000 exp = Ogre with 2 negative levels.
5000 exp = Ogre with 1 negative level.
exp = Ogre with no negative levels.
exp = Your first class level.
(I fixed your XP progression in your quote).
Ah, well then, that works a bit better. Kinda the 3.5 model. I guess the phrase "remove negative levels" threw me. I thought you were actually removing them.
Doesn't that put me 4 levels behind? I get my first level of fighter when I reach 15,000 XP which is the amount needed for 5th level. The rest of my group is 5th level. But I'm only first. I am 4 levels behind.
So by this system I would never catch up. When my companions reach level 20, I would be level 16.
It might work OK.
I found the 3.5 version worked fairly well for melee classes, but was absolutely horrible for spellcasters. Even something basic and obvious like a drow wizard was horribly limiting. By the time an elf wizard would be casting fireball, a drow wizard is still stuck with magic missiles and burning hands. That's a huge difference. And while the class abilities at low levels might compensate, by the time everyone is getting around 10th level, the wizard will find that having a couple higher ability scores, a mid-range SR, and a couple innate low-level spells is really no compensation at all for being so far behind.
There needs to be a way to "buy back" those LAs after a while, or the characters fall too far behind, but just about any "buy back" system leaves the melee monster races eventually outperforming the core races, while the magical monster races don't really outperform the core races at spellcasting.
It's really hard to balance. You would almost have to have a "buy back" system in place that varies from race to race, and each race might even need multiple "buy back" progressions for different classes they might select. Yuck...
Side note: Did you know that in 3.5, an ogre is ECL 6, so an ogre with one level of fighter is equivalent to a level 7 fighter - are you sure you want your ogre to only have a LA of 3 (or 4)?
Doesn't that put me 4 levels behind? I get my first level of fighter when I reach 15,000 XP which is the amount needed for 5th level. The rest of my group is 5th level. But I'm only first. I am 4 levels behind.
So by this system I would never catch up. When my companions reach level 20, I would be level 16.
It might work OK.
Should I proceed with such a project, I would have to determine which would be the best philosophy to follow. My philosophy is that by choosing a powerful monster, you give up the ability to progress as far in a class level. Ideally though, by the time the "negative levels have been paid off" the monster benefits, plus any added "player character race" benefits should be equal to a build using a straight character class.
There are many like yourself though, that want to advance in all 20 character levels, even if it means "buying off the levels". Those players that want to make a spell casting character would indeed be at a disadvantage if they chose to play a monstrous race -- which I guess means a party full of monstrous fighters/barbarians and core race spellcasters.
I think this could possibly be addressed through feats though? Definitely something for me to think on. In the mean time I can focus on stat'ing the non-monstrous races.
Side note: Did you know that in 3.5, an ogre is ECL 6, so an ogre with one level of fighter is equivalent to a level 7 fighter - are you sure you want your ogre to only have a LA of 3 (or 4)?
My thinking behind the Ogre was to base it on a 4 level build, because it had 4 hit dice. It really didn't have a lot of special abilities, so the ones it did gain were not all that different from the ones the core races get. I just needed a way to penalize them a little bit for all the advantages they did gain.
|
Creative Director
|
Could you explain exactly what you mean about 'it plays different' James? I'm curious about the distinction your pointing out.
The further you get from humanity, the more commonplace the fantastic gets, the less fantastic fantasy gets.
Let's look at an analogy to see what I mean.
Take the "Lord of the Rings." Pretty cool movie, huh? But what if suddenly Frodo was an orc, Sam was a ringwraith, Aragorn was a dragon, Gandalf was a talking eagle, and Gimli was a giant spider? All of a sudden, the story's not about destroying the one ring, but it's about this weird circuis of monsters and why they all get along together, and why they aren't with all the other monsters, and there's no one character at all for us humans to relate to. It changes the story; it changes the feel of the world, and it makes things unbelievable and distracting. To an extent that it ruins the story entirely. It might make a NEW story, but it's not a story I'm gonna be interested in because suddenly it feels like some sort of weird cartoon or kid's story with talking animals or something. It's certainly NOT Lord of the Rings.
Same goes for Pathfinder. Once all of the core assumptions go away, it's a different game. And not really one I want to write for or develop or publish, to be honest... I very much prefer a more humanocentric game where humans are the focus of the story.
I would be very interested in said project.
Another way to look at it would be the old second edition way. Double XP for said character until he "pays off" the monster levels. He would evolve slower but he would evolve.
The problem with negative levels, for the player, is that he is gonna be the SAME for several game sessions, and i would be no fun for him.
If you take the ogre as an example he would be playing with NO modifiers for a LONG time, when the priest and wizards start casting second level spells (3rd level) hes still got squat. I'm not saying its unbalacing, it's just plain boring.
I think the Double XP solution for the first 3 levels would be a little more elegant, and would virtually eliminate the need to "lower" the CR from 3 to 3 levels as the Bestiary sugested.
Just a thought, but if someone wants to work on it, I'm a full fledged follower of the idea.
Could you explain exactly what you mean about 'it plays different' James? I'm curious about the distinction your pointing out.The further you get from humanity, the more commonplace the fantastic gets, the less fantastic fantasy gets.
Let's look at an analogy to see what I mean.
Take the "Lord of the Rings." Pretty cool movie, huh? But what if suddenly Frodo was an orc, Sam was a ringwraith, Aragorn was a dragon, Gandalf was a talking eagle, and Gimli was a giant spider? All of a sudden, the story's not about destroying the one ring, but it's about this weird circuis of monsters and why they all get along together, and why they aren't with all the other monsters, and there's no one character at all for us humans to relate to. It changes the story; it changes the feel of the world, and it makes things unbelievable and distracting. To an extent that it ruins the story entirely. It might make a NEW story, but it's not a story I'm gonna be interested in because suddenly it feels like some sort of weird cartoon or kid's story with talking animals or something. It's certainly NOT Lord of the Rings.
Same goes for Pathfinder. Once all of the core assumptions go away, it's a different game. And not really one I want to write for or develop or publish, to be honest... I very much prefer a more humanocentric game where humans are the focus of the story.
Well at least then Peter Jackson might not have reduced Gimli's role to being little more than the class clown, along just for comic relief...
Of course, Legolas would still be a beautiful elf portrayed by Orlando Bloom to draw in the female audience to a movie that was heavily un-feminine.
That aside, I get your point, but I'll venture to say there are two opposed viewpoints here. Some people want to be "different" really very badly. Others are just tired of the same old elves and dwarves all the time and want to find something they haven't done before. And many see D&D/Pathfinder as an exercise in finding the right statistics that add up to mathematical mechanical mayhem for munchkinly mutiliating and mangling monsters maniacally.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with playing that way. I play that way sometimes, but sometimes I don't.
But I certainly think that trying to tell that crowd that playing a giant spider is weird, wrong, cartooney, or story-ruining will fall on deaf ears, much like telling a republican that Obama might be a good president.
(Uh oh, I mentioned politics. At least I didn't mention Hitler for surely that would kill the thread outright).
OGRE PLAYER CHARACTER RACE
+10 Strength, +4 Constitution, -2 Dexterity, -4 Intelligence, -4 Charisma
So a 0th level Ogre could start the game with 0 hit points? They only get 4d8 racial hit points (18 average), meaning average rolls and a cruddy Constitution roll or below-average hit point rolls and an average Constitution roll, combined with the -15 hit points from negative levels, puts them at 0 or below.
Accordingly, removing Level Adjustments and simply stating that now it's up to the GM's discretion whether it should be allowed, is "lazy", and bordering on "silly".
I agree. They don't work 24 hours a day yet. If they turned everyone into ghouls or zombies, or lightproof the office and become vampires, they could work more. :P
Seriously: It's one thing not to sugar-coat anything. Not everyone likes it, but it's that's their problem.
But calling them lazy when they said they left it out because they just didn't have the time and space they would have needed to do it right (and saying more than once that they're doing overtime like mad) is insulting.
Or do you not believe them when they say they didn't have time to do it right, and the books were full enough without a big article, maybe whole chapter about it?
So a 0th level Ogre could start the game with 0 hit points? They only get 4d8 racial hit points (18 average), meaning average rolls and a cruddy Constitution roll or below-average hit point rolls and an average Constitution roll, combined with the -15 hit points from negative levels, puts them at 0 or below.OGRE PLAYER CHARACTER RACE
+10 Strength, +4 Constitution, -2 Dexterity, -4 Intelligence, -4 Charisma
Well, there would be no "Level-0" Ogre, but rather a "Level 1" Ogre.
Starting HP for the 4d8 Monster HD would be: 8 + 4.5 + 4.5 + 4.5 = 21 hp. (Using the Appendix 1, Average Die Results). They would then loose, 15 hp, so they would start with 6 hp, before a CON bonus. (If someone is planning to play such a character with a negative to their CON modifier, even after the +4, I would probably recommend that they change their race decision).
Anyways, I'm going to do a few more drafts like this and throw it up under the house rules section (where it belongs).
|
Creative Director
|
Some people want to be "different" really very badly. Others are just tired of the same old elves and dwarves all the time and want to find something they haven't done before.
BUT! The people who make the game (us) are NOT tied of elves and dwarves. And the people who want "different" really very badly are not NEARLY as numerous as the people who don't. Psionics, epic rules, monster PCs, and the like are variants because they're simply not as popular as core rules. We can't survive leading with the less popular choices when it comes to launching a new game system. What we CAN do is get the more popular core rules out there and then pick and choose the variants to support.
That said... what WE at Paizo want and enjoy honestly DOES figure into things. And as it works out, monstrous PC races aren't a favorite variant of most of us at Paizo. Half of the reason we do as good a job as we do on our products is the passion our developers, authors, artists, art directors, and editors have for the game and for Golarion. Without that passion, we won't be working long hours, posting at dinner time on a Sunday, or otherwise going the extra mile. So it's kind of a balancing act, really... creating product that we'd be proud of and would enjoy creating with creating product that's popular enough with enough folks that they'll buy enough of that product to keep us from losing money.
Anyway... the rules are 100% open content. That means that if someone REALLY has a good idea on how to do monstrous PC races, there's not much stopping them from writing that up and selling themselves a million PDFs.
Some people want to be "different" really very badly. Others are just tired of the same old elves and dwarves all the time and want to find something they haven't done before.BUT! The people who make the game (us) are NOT tied of elves and dwarves. And the people who want "different" really very badly are not NEARLY as numerous as the people who don't. Psionics, epic rules, monster PCs, and the like are variants because they're simply not as popular as core rules. We can't survive leading with the less popular choices when it comes to launching a new game system. What we CAN do is get the more popular core rules out there and then pick and choose the variants to support.
That said... what WE at Paizo want and enjoy honestly DOES figure into things. And as it works out, monstrous PC races aren't a favorite variant of most of us at Paizo. Half of the reason we do as good a job as we do on our products is the passion our developers, authors, artists, art directors, and editors have for the game and for Golarion. Without that passion, we won't be working long hours, posting at dinner time on a Sunday, or otherwise going the extra mile. So it's kind of a balancing act, really... creating product that we'd be proud of and would enjoy creating with creating product that's popular enough with enough folks that they'll buy enough of that product to keep us from losing money.
Anyway... the rules are 100% open content. That means that if someone REALLY has a good idea on how to do monstrous PC races, there's not much stopping them from writing that up and selling themselves a million PDFs.
Well, I'm sorry to hear that. Honestly. It sounds like Paizo has no intention of working on a Savage Species replacement then, despite the posts of some other Pazio people who said they were interested in it. I'm very sorry to hear that.
Oh well, maybe someone else will. At least now I know to not expect it.
Some people want to be "different" really very badly. Others are just tired of the same old elves and dwarves all the time and want to find something they haven't done before.BUT! The people who make the game (us) are NOT tied of elves and dwarves. And the people who want "different" really very badly are not NEARLY as numerous as the people who don't. Psionics, epic rules, monster PCs, and the like are variants because they're simply not as popular as core rules. We can't survive leading with the less popular choices when it comes to launching a new game system. What we CAN do is get the more popular core rules out there and then pick and choose the variants to support.
That said... what WE at Paizo want and enjoy honestly DOES figure into things. And as it works out, monstrous PC races aren't a favorite variant of most of us at Paizo. Half of the reason we do as good a job as we do on our products is the passion our developers, authors, artists, art directors, and editors have for the game and for Golarion. Without that passion, we won't be working long hours, posting at dinner time on a Sunday, or otherwise going the extra mile. So it's kind of a balancing act, really... creating product that we'd be proud of and would enjoy creating with creating product that's popular enough with enough folks that they'll buy enough of that product to keep us from losing money.
Anyway... the rules are 100% open content. That means that if someone REALLY has a good idea on how to do monstrous PC races, there's not much stopping them from writing that up and selling themselves a million PDFs.
Well, I'm sorry to hear that. Honestly. It sounds like Paizo has no intention of working on a Savage Species replacement then, despite the posts of some other Pazio people who said they were interested in it. I'm very sorry to hear that.
Oh well, maybe someone else will. At least now I know to not expect it.
He didn't say they wouldn't, but the likelihood is very low, IMHO. That said, I don't need it myself. Just as I don't need Psionics, the way some on the boards want. I would like Epic Rules, BUT, and everybody has a big ole but, they wouldn't bring my game to a halt if they didn't exist. YES, customers do drive the company, but people fail to realize that what they want as an INDIVIDUAL, is NOT necessarily what the MAJORITY of customers are looking for. If they get enough feedback to show a real MARKET for a product that most of the staff is not into, then they might get a freelancer to help out. At the very least, they might put a bug into the ear of a 3pp that is into that kind of thing. Like James said, it is all open content. Go sell yourself a million PDFs. I imagine if some of the people on here actually tried this approach, they would probably get the rude awakening that their idea isn't as popular as they thought it was. That was the problem early on in the OGL movement. Too many crappy products from start-ups that aren't ever heard from again. Every long-time GM that thought his homebrew gameworld "was the sh!!t". Where are they now?
He didn't say they wouldn't, but the likelihood is very low, IMHO. That said, I don't need it myself. Just as I don't need Psionics, the way some on the boards want. I would like Epic Rules, BUT, and everybody has a big ole but, they wouldn't bring my game to a halt if they didn't exist. YES, customers do drive the company, but people fail to realize that what they want as an INDIVIDUAL, is NOT necessarily what the MAJORITY of customers are looking for. If they get enough feedback to show a real MARKET for a product that most of the staff is not into, then they might get a freelancer to help out. At the very least, they might put a bug into the ear of a 3pp that is into that kind of thing. Like James said, it is all open content. Go sell yourself a million PDFs. I imagine if some of the people on here actually tried this approach, they would probably get the rude awakening that their idea isn't as popular as they thought it was. That was the problem early on in the OGL movement. Too many crappy products from start-ups that aren't ever heard from again. Every long-time GM that thought his homebrew gameworld "was the sh!!t". Where are they now?
With all due respect, he pretty much did say they wouldn't do it, or at the very least, they would leave it for last and have little or no enthusiasm for it and thus it will probably be a very poorly done book. The only person I've seen from the Paizo people who have been eager to do it was SK Reynolds, but one man, especially one man who is Editor-in-Chief can't make it happen.
Dont' get me wrong now, it's their company, and they can run it how they like. I've posted quite a few posts on here including a 4 page missive telling people to chill and give them time, they were going to get around to it. I just kind of feel like that may have been wrong now, which sucks and leaves my enthusiasm fluffing like a sail with the wind ripped out of it. I'm sure I'll regain some of it, but the repeated diatribes that the editors (IE: the people who make the decisions) think that monstrous pc's are bad, well... that kind of saps your enthusiasm if you feel like they are putting down your viewpoint, which after the post above, I finally do feel like.
As to your argument that I should go sell myself a million PDFs, or should I say Jason's... well... that's sort of the straw that broke my enthusiasm's back. It just smacks of the same sort of attitude that made me turn my back on WoTC. "This is the game we want to make and if you don't like it go somewhere else". I work hard for my money, and I'm a pretty loyal gamer (I been buying Shadowrun books since I was 17, and still do even though I rarely run it anymore) but I get turned off very fast when people tell me to go write my own game if I don't like theirs. One point though, and I'm done posting on this subject. There is a huge uproar on the boards right now about monstrous PC's, and not just from me (actually, I've never b***hed until this one post), and its from a lot of different people. On top of that, a lot of extremely popular fiction (Drizzt I'm looking at you) involved non-core races. In addition to that, settings like Eberron (and Forgotten Realms, etc) where there are playable 'Monster PCs' which are very popular and made WoTC money. So saying there isn't a market for it is rather a non-starter.
I've said before on other posts that Paizo of course can't do everything at once, and I had no issues being patient and waiting until they can get around to it. But Jason's post above isn't saying 'wait until we have time' it's saying 'God I hate that thing and nobody here much likes it and we don't want to do it'. I'm not interested in a half-hearted 'well, fine we'll do it but we don't like it' piece of cr*p book. I'd rather they didn't do it at all. But don't argue there is not a market for it, there is, and all the clamoring (which I doubt anyone at Paizo expected to be this bad) proves that at least. And even if it didn't, you'd just have to look at what books were able to sell even with WoTC putting them out every other month without the loving care that Paizo put into the Core and Bestiary. People still bought the 'Races of...' series, and when you look at any thread that asks 'what is good OGC/OGL content' you will see just about every post lists 'Green Ronin's Races of <blah>'.
So what it comes down to is, this is a philosophical decision by Jason and the Paizo people (and they have every right to make that decision, as he said, it's their game to produce) not to support non-core races as PC races. At least, that's what I get from the repeated posts he's made on the subject. If I'm reading his posts wrong (which is possible, the big problem with text is you can't see faces) then I'll be pleasantly surprised, but so far, I'm just disappointed. Again, not because I didn't have coherent NPC->PC rules in the bestiary (never expected them, never b**ched about them not being there, never gave them a single post of guff about them not being there) but because I now feel that while I was expecting a Savage Species book down the road I now believe there is no plan nor desire to make one, and in fact there is the desire to not make or support such rules by the company producing the core books. And a 3PP cannot do so, not effectively. Because? While the rules are OGC, it is the core company that drives the direction and what rules will be used in the game, a 3PP can't do that, they can only work within the rules that Paizo puts out, and anything they put out will never, for something this big, be a seamless 'drop and fit'. Which means constant errata to fix things that break because of new rules from Paizo, or just orphaned works. This is really why a lot of 3PP has bad reputations, IMHO, it's because it's hard to make something that is great when someone else can change the rules on you and make your stuff break (not intentionally). The company that controls the base rules will always have the best most tightly integrated (and thus 'feel better') rules. Because it's more internally consistent.