Creative Director
|
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.
At this point, is waiting 2 or 3 years the same as never writing the book?
Anyway... we'll do a book like this or we won't. There's a lot of topics to cover out there, and not enough time to do them all.
I never said that we WILL NEVER do a Savage Species book. Neither did I say we'll DEFINITELY do one. At the very least, it's gonna be a year before we do it because we've already got pretty much all of 2010's rulebooks locked down. And in that year, I'm pretty sure that if demand for a product like this is as intense as some folks think or wish it is, then I'm sure someone will rise to the challenge before we get to it. At this point, a Savage Species type book simply isn't high on our to-do list.
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 tired of elves and dwarves.
Elves and dwarves are plenty different for me.
I very much prefer a more humanocentric game where humans are the focus of the story.
Me too. I was pretty happy to read this. The other core races all feel "human" enough for me. A menagerie sounds like fun as a novelty, but that's not how I normally want to play.
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.
No, actually, there isn't. I've counted about a half dozen people who are genuinely upset about this. A couple of them are extremely loud about it, but there's by far not a "huge uproar" from "a lot of different people".
@mdt -> You aren't going to get a very solid answer out of them on this issue because right now they have their PfRPG products scheduled out for the next 16 months+. After 2010 the next items in the hopper are probably going to be Epic Handbook and Psionics. It's entirely possible that they could be convinced to bump one of those items and make the Monster PC handbook but even then it won't be until sometime in 2011 before that would see the light of day. Paizo simply doesn't have the bandwidth to crank out books at the rate people demand them.
While neither the savage species type book nor the epic handbook are very high on my priorities but I would much rather see the Savage Species book than the Epic Handbook and I think a lot of people feel this way.
Regardless, it's going to be at least a year before Paizo has bandwidth to even start work on either. In the mean time Paizo is really good at listening to their customers. Give them a bit of time.
In a perfect world, the monsters would each be individual classes. That would take allot of work. It might be something that actually becomes part of Pathfinder RPG 2e. I thought about it before, but then it would make running purchased adventures a worse chore to convert that to just write your own.
With that, mdt's statement about Paizo becoming like WotC is a little off, to say the least. WotC would playtest new rules on you by selling you a new book. Look at Tome of Magic, for one. People buy the books, thinking this is a great idea, then WotC would offer little support for it. What they were looking for was feedback if the new subsystem worked, or not. Paizo gave you a book, the open test period. They let you know from the beginning it was a playtest. How is that like WotC?
Niche products, like books for monster PCs, are best left to smaller companies. Paizo, unlike WotC, is very much into OGC.If the product was done pretty well, they are libel to actually use it in one of their APs sometime. At least one of the stand alone adventures. Personally, I see monster PCs as a one shot adventure thing, or a mini campaign. Sorta as a lark. That has been done in Dungeon Magazine years ago. For a GM running that, it would be ok for an individual GM to make some sort of houserule. Not too hard for the lower power monsters. If you are wanting Dragons & Demons as PCs, then you are really moving beyond the scope of a standard campaign.
With that, mdt's statement about Paizo becoming like WotC is a little off, to say the least. WotC would playtest new rules on you by selling you a new book. Look at Tome of Magic, for one. People buy the books, thinking this is a great idea, then WotC would offer little support for it. What they were looking for was feedback if the new subsystem worked, or not. Paizo gave you a book, the open test period. They let you know from the beginning it was a playtest. How is that like WotC?
I never said they were becoming like WoTC, I said that a statement made by the Editor-In-Chief sounded like something I would expect from WoTC. Now, I don't know how those two got confused, but, I'm glad to have straightened that out. Now people won't be misquoting me all over the place.
And as tot he open playtest, the Bestiary was not open playtested, so this is moot. I believe if they had playtested it alongside the core rules this would have come out much earlier. But conflating the core with the bestiary does nothing to make an argument.
Niche products, like books for monster PCs, are best left to smaller companies. Paizo, unlike WotC, is very much into OGC.If the product was done pretty well, they are libel to actually use it in one of their APs sometime. At least one of the stand alone adventures. Personally, I see monster PCs as a one shot adventure thing, or a mini campaign. Sorta as a lark. That has been done in Dungeon Magazine years ago. For a GM running that, it would be ok for an individual GM to make some sort of houserule. Not too hard for the lower power monsters. If you are wanting Dragons & Demons as PCs, then you are really moving beyond the scope of a standard campaign.
Actually, I've been running a monster campaign for over a year now, and it's still going strong. I disagree that smaller companies are in a better position to do it, and I couldn't give a flying fig leaf if they use it in an AP, I don't buy the AP's. I buy the game system. I prefer my third party products to be easy to bolt on or take off tools. As an example from the real world, if I'm customizing my car, I might buy a steering wheel from a third party because it's shiny chrome chain. But I prefer my steering column to be from the manufacturer so I know it's covered under warranty. My warranty in this case is that I'm much more likely for future rule books to not break my steering column if it's from Paizo than if I bought a steering column from Adamant Entertainment, for example. Adamant's Tome of Secrets is a fine bolt on to add a couple of classes I like and some rules for alchemical items, but if Paizo puts something out that breaks those classes or equipment, I can just toss them back out of the game. If I've built up my entire game around those parts, that becomes a lot more difficult.
|
In a perfect world, the monsters would each be individual classes. That would take allot of work. It might be something that actually becomes part of Pathfinder RPG 2e. I thought about it before, but then it would make running purchased adventures a worse chore to convert that to just write your own.
Dude, get off my wavelength. *points upthread* :)
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.
At this point, is waiting 2 or 3 years the same as never writing the book?
Anyway... we'll do a book like this or we won't. There's a lot of topics to cover out there, and not enough time to do them all.
I never said that we WILL NEVER do a Savage Species book. Neither did I say we'll DEFINITELY do one. At the very least, it's gonna be a year before we do it because we've already got pretty much all of 2010's rulebooks locked down. And in that year, I'm pretty sure that if demand for a product like this is as intense as some folks think or wish it is, then I'm sure someone will rise to the challenge before we get to it. At this point, a Savage Species type book simply isn't high on our to-do list.
Actually James, I never said that 2-3 years was unreasonable. In fact, if you check this thread you'll notice I was advocating for people to wait and give you a year or three to get to it.
My response was to your, and if I may be so bold as to say, vehement rejection of Monster PC's as anything you would like to do. And then adding on top of it that most of the Paizo people didn't like the idea. When the Editor-in-Chief of a company says 'Hey, I really don't like that stuff, and nobody else here does either', then whether you intended it or not, you leave the impression you have no intent to even try to do it.
That's not me being a whiny b******d, that's just common sense. Any company that publicly announces 'We really don't like <blah>, and nobody at the company is really interested in <blah>' has almost Zero chance of doing <blah>. It's just how humans work, they almost never do things they don't want to unless they have no choice.
Now, add on the comment you added about 'Go try a 3PP' and it really does come across, whether you intended it to or not, as a 'Go away and buy it from someone else, we aren't doing it'.
They've made no secret of the fact that they focus on humans and demihumans as the core races and that its the main thrust of the game. Its most certainly not a big priority for them and probably something that JAMES at the least is not eager to do, but that is not saying that SOMEONE at Paizo might go and say "Hey James, I think I might have a good idea for that monster PC book...mind if I give it a whack?"
Who knows? Maybe someone on the boards will come up with a system. Maybe you yourself will. People expect Paizo and WotC to write all our game content for us. They forget they started out just like us gamers who liked playing and writing their own adventures. Nothing saying you can't do the same if you have a better idea.
They've made no secret of the fact that they focus on humans and demihumans as the core races and that its the main thrust of the game. Its most certainly not a big priority for them and probably something that JAMES at the least is not eager to do, but that is not saying that SOMEONE at Paizo might go and say "Hey James, I think I might have a good idea for that monster PC book...mind if I give it a whack?"
Who knows? Maybe someone on the boards will come up with a system. Maybe you yourself will. People expect Paizo and WotC to write all our game content for us. They forget they started out just like us gamers who liked playing and writing their own adventures. Nothing saying you can't do the same if you have a better idea.
My big hope is that SK Reynolds will talk them into letting him do it. He's stated he's interested in doing it right, and he worked on Savage Species.
As to wanting Paizo and WoTC to write all our content for us, I'm in the sad minority who doesn't. The only thing I want from Paizo is rules, not content. I make my own content, and my players seem to prefer it over released content. Not saying Paizo's AP's are bad, just that I don't use them or want them.
|
Creative Director
|
They've made no secret of the fact that they focus on humans and demihumans as the core races and that its the main thrust of the game. Its most certainly not a big priority for them and probably something that JAMES at the least is not eager to do, but that is not saying that SOMEONE at Paizo might go and say "Hey James, I think I might have a good idea for that monster PC book...mind if I give it a whack?"
Who knows? Maybe someone on the boards will come up with a system. Maybe you yourself will. People expect Paizo and WotC to write all our game content for us. They forget they started out just like us gamers who liked playing and writing their own adventures. Nothing saying you can't do the same if you have a better idea.
My big hope is that SK Reynolds will talk them into letting him do it. He's stated he's interested in doing it right, and he worked on Savage Species.
As to wanting Paizo and WoTC to write all our content for us, I'm in the sad minority who doesn't. The only thing I want from Paizo is rules, not content. I make my own content, and my players seem to prefer it over released content. Not saying Paizo's AP's are bad, just that I don't use them or want them.
I don't like dwarves. At all. Least favorite race. If it were up to me, I would not have included them in Golarion.
Yet they ARE in Golarion. And next month we've got a "Dwarves of Golarion" book coming out. So obviously, while my likes and dislikes help to shape the products we offer, I'm able to separate that from the likes and dislikes of the customers.
In fact, it's my job to make sure that books our customers want get made, and that they get made well. Even if I don't particularly like the book's subject. If there's enough demand, and if the book is a logical one to do, we'll do it. Eventually. Currently, the call for a monsters as PC book is loud... but it's not a majority. And it's the first we've really heard any desires for a book like this despite the fact we've been asking around about what books folks want next; most of them want an Asia themed book or a psionics book or an epic level book at this point. All three of those topics have various "champions" at Paizo who would like to see them made... in fact, I'm eager to see all three of those made (probably in the order I listed them). And since those books have the magic combo of us at Paizo being interested in them AND a larger group of customers asking for them over a longer period of time... they'll be very likely to be made first.
If you want a monsters as PCs book from Paizo, let us know. Get the word out there; get other folks to ask us to make them. But don't adopt an antagonistic, insulting, or confrontational pose when you ask because that immediately puts us on the defensive and will often push us away from looking at the subject with a more favorable eye. At least, that's how it works for me.
And as for the desire for us to write rules over content... I'm afraid that's not in the dice. Paizo's great strength is content. We've just started doing rules, but we didn't get to a position where we could even THINK about printing a rulebook without providing a lot of great content to build up our reputation, our money, and our momentum.
Okay, okay, fine. So the next thing to happen is that if a community project is to be formed, someone has to take point and offer to spear-head it. That's not going to be me because frankly, I don't care nearly enough. But someone needs to step up.
The second thing, is that a discussion has to happen regarding what creatures CAN become PC races, and under what circumstances. So your player wants to play a gold greatwyrm. You can slap him with 45 negative levels but it's still broken. So your player wants to play a beholder barbarian. You can strip all the eye beams and racial hit dice and everything else but it's still broken because - get this - it's got no damned arms. (Though a PC barbarian beholder whose only attacks are bull rush and trip is kind of amusing.) Meanwhile letting a sorcerer play the same beastie isn't necessarily a problem. Eye-stalk somatic components, yum.
See, my point is that this isn't even almost a simple task. It's more than just ECL. It's more than nerfing abilities and doling them out instead of class levels. It's about deciding on a creature-by-creature basis what the impact of that creature sticking around for a campaign instead of only one encounter really means. A quasit with invisibility at will as a bad guy is one thing when he gets squished. A PC with invisibility at will is another story when he uses it every encounter.
In fact, it's my job to make sure that books our customers want get made, and that they get made well. Even if I don't particularly like the book's subject. If there's enough demand, and if the book is a logical one to do, we'll do it. Eventually. Currently, the call for a monsters as PC book is loud... but it's not a majority. And it's the first we've really heard any desires for a book like this despite the fact we've been asking around about what books folks want next; most of them want an Asia themed book or a psionics book or an epic level book at this point. All three of those topics have various "champions" at Paizo who would like to see them made... in fact, I'm eager to see all three of those made (probably in the order I listed them). And since those books have the magic combo of us at Paizo being interested in them AND a larger group of customers asking for them over a longer period of time... they'll be very likely to be made first.
Again James, I'm good with it taking a couple of years. I've never said anything else. I'm also happy with an Asia themed, Psionics, and Epic level book coming out first. As I said before, I took your posts as meaning you did not want them (monstrous pc races) done in house. Obviously, that was not what you meant. I really do hope Paizo does this book. I'm very impressed so far with all the stuff you've done.
If you want a monsters as PCs book from Paizo, let us know. Get the word out there; get other folks to ask us to make them. But don't adopt an antagonistic, insulting, or confrontational pose when you ask because that immediately puts us on the defensive and will often push us away from looking at the subject with a more favorable eye. At least, that's how it works for me.
If I've come across as antagonistic or insulting, I apologize. I honestly did not mean to. The biggest problem with postings is, as I said earlier, you don't get the facial features. I've tried very hard to show both interest and vast disappointment in what I perceived as the 'guy in charge' hating the entire concept. But if you could point out to me what you took as an insult, I'd appreciate it, I've tried very hard, I thought, not to be insulting or antagonistic on the subject. As I said, I even wrote a HUGE post trying to get that very idea across.
And as for the desire for us to write rules over content... I'm afraid that's not in the dice. Paizo's great strength is content. We've just started doing rules, but we didn't get to a position where we could even THINK about printing a rulebook without providing a lot of great content to build up our reputation, our money, and our momentum.
And that's perfectly fine James, I never claimed otherwise. I was responding to a statement saying that I could look in your other AP products, basically saying that while I'm sure they are great products, they aren't for me. That in no way denegrates your products, nor your effort on them. It also is in no way stating that you shouldn't produce them, they are your bread and butter. That is just a statement that I personally don't use them and won't be a customer for that.
You'll note I subscribe to the maps (see tag above). I love those, and they are generic so can be used anywhere in any game.
I really don't get the hubub. If you want a monster race, ask your DM. They will likely be happy to do the work with you. If they don't want a monster race in their campaign, then thank the gods you don't have a rulebook that insinuates that you CAN play one to shake in their face.
Again, kudos to Paizo. I love it.
I really don't get the hubub. If you want a monster race, ask your DM. They will likely be happy to do the work with you. If they don't want a monster race in their campaign, then thank the gods you don't have a rulebook that insinuates that you CAN play one to shake in their face.
Again, kudos to Paizo. I love it.
I can't ask my DM. I'm the GM. :) So I'm looking for rules that are consistent (I'm not in love with ECL from 3.5, but it was consistent, and decent enough to work for races that were +3 or less ECL). I can wait until Paizo has time to work on the rules and use a b*****dized homebrew until then, but it's a huge amount of work and anything homebrew has to be adjusted for further released books. Something official (should) be supported by the further released books (again something I wanted to strangle the WoTC project leads for doing, putting something out and never supporting it again).
I can't ask my DM. I'm the GM. :) So I'm looking for rules that are consistent (I'm not in love with ECL from 3.5, but it was consistent, and decent enough to work for races that were +3 or less ECL). I can wait until Paizo has time to work on the rules and use a b*****dized homebrew until then, but it's a huge amount of work and anything homebrew has to be adjusted for further released books. Something official (should) be supported by the further released books (again something I wanted to strangle the WoTC project leads for doing, putting something out and never supporting it again).
My God, man. How many races do you have in your campaign anyways??? I thought I had a lot and I go with the full FOUR Halfling subraces!!!!
BUT! The people who make the game (us) are NOT tied of elves and dwarves.
Can we make a compromise? Keep elves in, take dwarves out.
I'd even support a world shattering event. Maybe some disease that only targets dwarves and makes Captain Trips look like the snuffles! :)
|
|
Until we get something with rules similar to Savage Species. My group has pretty much decided to go with CR=Level Adjustment (with CR 1/2 counting as 0). If you want to play a CR 4 minotaur, then you are going to start four levels below everyone else. If you want play a Medusa, then you would be 7 levels lower.
Not perfect but it will work for now.
-Weylin
Do they get any HD along with that? An ECL 5 minotaur PC is going to die in one or two hits usually with that rule.
|
f you want a monsters as PCs book from Paizo, let us know
Well I didn't want to make a fuss but since you mention it. A savage species type book is something I would like to see especially if it has catfolk (or something similar) in it course if you put them in another Bestiary I would be fine with that as well.
Since JJ asked, I'm going to throw up my hand begging for a Monsters as PCs book! Me and my SO both love them, as do a number of people in our group. We don't use them often, but we really like having the option.
My God, man. How many races do you have in your campaign anyways??? I thought I had a lot and I go with the full FOUR Halfling subraces!!!!
Wow, good question. Let's see...
Goblins, Orcs, Hobgoblins, Drow, Duerger, Lizardfolk, PD Lizardfolk, BS Lizardfolk, Ibixians, Gnolls, Flind Gnolls, Minotaurs, Kenku, Bugbears, Four clans of Catfolk, Forge Goblins, Centaurs, several species of trolls, Ogres, Half-giants, Dragons, Dragonborn, Warforged, Draconics, Half-dragons, Harpies, Nagas, Kuo-Toa, Merfolk, Kobolds, and Goliaths.
Oh, and 4 elves and 7 dwarves. Not species, just 4 elves and 7 dwarves. As in, 11 individuals.
That's all the ones that have come up in game, either as PC's, PC Allies, Neutrals or enemies.
Do they get any HD along with that? An ECL 5 minotaur PC is going to die in one or two hits usually with that rule.Until we get something with rules similar to Savage Species. My group has pretty much decided to go with CR=Level Adjustment (with CR 1/2 counting as 0). If you want to play a CR 4 minotaur, then you are going to start four levels below everyone else. If you want play a Medusa, then you would be 7 levels lower.
Not perfect but it will work for now.
-Weylin
We're using the rules too for now, it's just that it breaks down with some (most) of the higher CR monsters, and it's very flakey with no-hit die +CR monsters (like the Noble Drow).
The way it works (you can check the PRD) is basically the monster keeps it's hitdice and everything it normally gets statistics or power wise, and starts as level N character, where N is it's CR. So the Minotaur has 6 hit dice but is considered a level 4 character. When it hit's level 5 it gains a class level. Then between 6 and 7 it gains an extra class level and it's CR 'levels' (ECL 4) goes down by one (ECL 3). Then again 3 levels later it get's another free class level and it's CR level goes down again (ECL 2). Then it just keeps progressing normally, so at level 20 it's a 22 hitdice creature with 18 levels in a class.
Apart from the threads earlier nastiness (OP was out of line IMHO), I would also be interested in a savage species style book, but as James noted, too fantastic also takes away from the game.
So to fix that I'd focus on the goblinkin, orcs, orges and maybe trolls as the upper limit for PC's (10-15 different races at most). Basically pare the list down to races that don't have a lot of magical abilities to deal with or excessive complexity and are humanoid enough to be easily playable. Then provide example reasons of why the PC's are working together (hired, release/escaped slaves/gladiators, magically compelled, common enemy, etc.), maybe a section on how to deal with evil in the party, monstrous organizations, and provide ideas for the GM to run a monstrous campaign as opposed to including the races in a party of elves and humans. (Actually a section on "peaceful" interactions between human-kin and monsters would be interesting too, like how monsters trade with local settlements or deal with farmers or missionaries.)
The nice thing about keeping the focus on a small number of races is that it gives the opportunity to explore them in a little more detail too. You could have a section on the culture of each of the 10-15 montrous races you choose and some more interesting racial feats as opposed to ones that need to be balanced for either a dragon or a giant to take.(eg Former Chelaxian Slave Laborer, Scrag blooded, Gladitorial Monster, Regional feats, etc)
With respect to game balance, the level approach from Savage Species was excellent but I'd suggest a slightly different use of the lower levels. Divide it into mandatory childhood and optional adutlhood levels. For example, for an orge levels 1 through 3 (or 1-5 for trolls) increase the physical attributes to reflect the aging process so if you really want to play a pre-pubescent orge or troll with a party of goblins and orcs you can and it'll still be balanced. But then have the remaining adulthood racial levels gain the relevant skills and complete the save progression if they don't take a class.
The advantage with that is it lets the PC customize a little more while not taking too much away from the fun of a new race.
...Currently, the call for a monsters as PC book is loud... but it's not a majority. And it's the first we've really heard any desires for a book like this despite the fact we've been asking around about what books folks want next;...
Really? The first you've head of it? Because I could have sworn you had said,
2) The Bestiary is a monster book. Not a "Book of alternate races for PCs." There'll be SOME information about how to play monster PCs in both the Bestiary and in the main Core RPG, but it's not a replacement system for LA (which is, indeed, gone). The game is built on the assumption your players are playing humans and very similar creatures, after all, and while you CAN let your PCs play weird monsters, the weirder and more different they are from humans, the weirder and more different the rules will react. The situation really needs its own book to address, like D&D's "Savage Species" book. There's no way to do a simple system that works perfect for every monster, and as a result, ECL and LA caused more problems than they solved. ANYway... so if you're waiting for the Bestiary to give you solid rules on how to play monster PCs in a balanced way against "normal" PCs... you'll be disappointed. But if you just want to play monster PCs and your GM is cool with experimenting and trying weird things out with the game, the Bestiary will work quite well for you.
Back on Sun, Jun 21, 2009, 12:38 PM
Now maybe that was someone else, but if was you, it would seem as if you were aware of a desire for a text like this long before now (like 4 months ago).
As an aside, I do find it a bit strange that level adjustments were still being used in the bestiary sections up until at least PF#23. If nobody was using the LA, why include it?
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
My God, man. How many races do you have in your campaign anyways??? I thought I had a lot and I go with the full FOUR Halfling subraces!!!!Wow, good question. Let's see...
Goblins, Orcs, Hobgoblins, Drow, Duerger, Lizardfolk, PD Lizardfolk, BS Lizardfolk, Ibixians, Gnolls, Flind Gnolls, Minotaurs, Kenku, Bugbears, Four clans of Catfolk, Forge Goblins, Centaurs, several species of trolls, Ogres, Half-giants, Dragons, Dragonborn, Warforged, Draconics, Half-dragons, Harpies, Nagas, Kuo-Toa, Merfolk, Kobolds, and Goliaths.
Oh, and 4 elves and 7 dwarves. Not species, just 4 elves and 7 dwarves. As in, 11 individuals.
That's all the ones that have come up in game, either as PC's, PC Allies, Neutrals or enemies.
Being a human myself, I believe you are prejudiced against me. Stop the oppression! Human PCs forever!
So to fix that I'd focus on the goblinkin, orcs, orges and maybe trolls as the upper limit for PC's (10-15 different races at most). Basically pare the list down to races that don't have a lot of magical abilities to deal with or excessive complexity and are humanoid enough to be easily playable. Then provide example reasons of why the PC's are working together (hired, release/escaped slaves/gladiators, magically compelled, common enemy, etc.), maybe a section on how to deal with evil in the party, monstrous organizations, and provide ideas for the GM to run a monstrous campaign as opposed to including the races in a party of elves and humans. (Actually a section on "peaceful" interactions between human-kin and monsters would be interesting too, like how monsters trade with local settlements or deal with farmers or missionaries.)
All nice stuff, and I agree. Anything that, under 3.5, had an ECL of say 10 or higher starting out is just way too much. And, I use 10 because they used to count the hit dice in as well (so a Minotaur was about 9 or 10, not sure exactly). Racial hit dice are almost never worth a class level, so it's hard to take those seriously. I hope they work up something where 'racial hit dice' end up being the equivalent of 'Commoner' for NPC's, any PC monsters would take class levels instead of racial hit dice.
The nice thing about keeping the focus on a small number of races is that it gives the opportunity to explore them in a little more detail too. You could have a section on the culture of each of the 10-15 montrous races you choose and some more interesting racial feats as opposed to ones that need to be balanced for either a dragon or a giant to take.(eg Former Chelaxian Slave Laborer, Scrag blooded, Gladitorial Monster, Regional feats, etc)With respect to game balance, the level approach from Savage Species was excellent but I'd suggest a slightly different use of the lower levels. Divide it into mandatory childhood and optional adutlhood levels. For example, for an orge levels 1 through 3 (or 1-5 for trolls) increase the physical attributes to reflect the aging process so if you really want to play a pre-pubescent orge or troll with a party of goblins and orcs you can and it'll still be balanced. But then have the remaining adulthood racial levels gain the relevant skills and...
All good suggestions, but I'd suggest that while giving 10-15 races an in-depth (3-4 pages each) would be very good, I would want at least 3 times that in rules on how to convert the races they don't hi-light, including generic rules for how to play races not in the book.
Being a human myself, I believe you are prejudiced against me. Stop the oppression! Human PCs forever!
Actually, according to your avatar, you are a Panther Clan Catfolk.
:)
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
BUT! The people who make the game (us) are NOT tied of elves and dwarves.Can we make a compromise? Keep elves in, take dwarves out.
I'd even support a world shattering event. Maybe some disease that only targets dwarves and makes Captain Trips look like the snuffles! :)
I predict a thread full of bearded avatars and pseudo-scottish accents as soon as the dwarf-lovers get home from work.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Being a human myself, I believe you are prejudiced against me. Stop the oppression! Human PCs forever!Actually, according to your avatar, you are a Panther Clan Catfolk.
:)
I like to think of myself as Rakasta but they're closed content, and I'm resigned to the fact that no anthropomorphic cats will appear in Golarion. It's a tough lot in life, but it is what it is.
I like to think of myself as Rakasta but they're closed content, and I'm resigned to the fact that no anthropomorphic cats will appear in Golarion. It's a tough lot in life, but it is what it is.
I liked the Rakasta. I actually really liked that entire campaign setting (Mystara). I still pull out my old Poor Wizard's Alamanacs from time to time for adventure/encounter ideas.
|
Creative Director
|
...Currently, the call for a monsters as PC book is loud... but it's not a majority. And it's the first we've really heard any desires for a book like this despite the fact we've been asking around about what books folks want next;...Really? The first you've head of it? Because I could have sworn you had said,
2) The Bestiary is a monster book. Not a "Book of alternate races for PCs." There'll be SOME information about how to play monster PCs in both the Bestiary and in the main Core RPG, but it's not a replacement system for LA (which is, indeed, gone). The game is built on the assumption your players are playing humans and very similar creatures, after all, and while you CAN let your PCs play weird monsters, the weirder and more different they are from humans, the weirder and more different the rules will react. The situation really needs its own book to address, like D&D's "Savage Species" book. There's no way to do a simple system that works perfect for every monster, and as a result, ECL and LA caused more problems than they solved. ANYway... so if you're waiting for the Bestiary to give you solid rules on how to play monster PCs in a balanced way against "normal" PCs... you'll be disappointed. But if you just want to play monster PCs and your GM is cool with experimenting and trying weird things out with the game, the Bestiary will work quite well for you.Back on Sun, Jun 21, 2009, 12:38 PM
Now maybe that was someone else, but if was you, it would seem as if you were aware of a desire for a text like this long before now (like 4 months ago).
As an aside, I do find it a bit strange that level adjustments were still being used in the bestiary sections up until at least PF#23. If nobody was using the LA, why include it?
Looks like you won the Internents for today, Pres Man!
In any event, maybe I should have said "This is the first I've seen a major outpouring of vitrol and desire and passion on the subject on these boards." Or maybe I'm on the verge of a nervous breakdown after dealing with this type of thing for the past several years, and am starting to black out and/or forget things. When I wrote that back on Sunday, June 21st of 2009 at 12:38 PM, the final rules for playing alternate monsters was not yet done. It wasn't even yet written. When Jason finally got around to tackling those rules (AFTER my post, I might add), he realized that what he'd hoped could be something he could handle in a few pages was, in fact, a can of worms that would require a whole book. And in any case, as I mention in that post, the Bestiary was never intended to be a "Player race book" and that even then we knew that the concept needed its own book.
The core of my current frustration is, of course, the fact that we've been completely open about the fact that the Bestiary will not include player race rules like ECL and LA... but that the crazy level of reaction to this "omission" didn't actually hit these boards with any level of fervor until the book was done. If ANY error was made on our behalf, it was in not managing expectations.
In any case, Level Adjustments were used in Pathfinder up to #23 because that product was still a 3.5 product, and thus used the 3.5 rules. The first Pathfinder RPG volume was #25.
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.
+1 If Paizo are going to do it, do it last!
The core of my current frustration is, of course, the fact that we've been completely open about the fact that the Bestiary will not include player race rules like ECL and LA... but that the crazy level of reaction to this "omission" didn't actually hit these boards with any level of fervor until the book was done. If ANY error was made on our behalf, it was in not managing expectations.
LOL we gamers are a fickle bunch. Even if you provided us a sundae made with the finest French vanilla ice cream, the highest quality German chocolate sauce and whipped cream from a herd of celestial cows milked by angels and whipped up by a demi-god of cooking, you'd still hear the occasional, "I don't like vanilla", "I'm lactose intolerant", or "What no Sprinkles?" So remember the 80:20 rule in all it's permutations; you won't make everyone happy everytime and that's fine.
The important thing is that you guys do good work, so keep it up and don't let a little random (semi)-unintentional asshattedness ruin your day.
+1 If Paizo are going to do it, do it last!
I've never said it had to be next, or next year even. There are books I'd rather wait on and get a monstrous races book first. Like what you may ask?
Bestiary 3 through 30.
Advanced Arcane Magic
Advanced Divine Magic
Advanced Bardic Music
Advanced Ranger Lore
Advanced Monk Lore
Advanced Sneakyness
Ocean Lore
Desert Lore
Mountain Lore
Dungeon Lore
Forest Lore
Advanced Players Guide to Underwater Gaming
What would I like to see before the above?
Advanced Gamemastery : Planar Marvels
Advanced Gamemastery : The Complete Deity Builders Guide
Advanced Players Guide : Monstrous Races
Advanced Players Guide : Eastern Mysteries
Advanced Players Guide : Epic Adventures
Advanced Players Guide : Magical & Mundane Equipment
Advanced Players Guide : Psionic Wonder
Bestiary 2
What order do I want the second list in? Whatever order best serves Paizo's continued survival and production of good rule books.
|
|
If ANY error was made on our behalf, it was in not managing expectations.
THAT error, is always a killer in any business. I, for one, knew exactly what I was getting in the Bestiary however.
But if you just want to play monster PCs and your GM is cool with experimenting and trying weird things out with the game, the Bestiary will work quite well for you.
And THAT, is utterly true.
To an extent, I'm having trouble seeing what people are complaining about. They have everything that they need to run monsters as PCs in the Bestiary and advance them.
What they don't have is a written mechanism for comparing two monster PC's and ensuring that they are both 'balanced'. Paizo have used the time-honoured (non lazy) response to that - it's the DM's job (for now).
I personally don't believe that a generic mechanism that balances all possible monsters for play as PCs can be created. A group needs to get together and choose the races for their characters based on what each other are playing and the DM needs to weight the challenges appropriately. That's pretty easy for a group to do and pretty much impossible for a game designer to codify in a set of rules.
In short, I think that the set of rules that aren't written down in 'the book' are as important to a game as the set of rules that are - and I think Paizo have made some wise choices in what not to rule on.
What they don't have is a written mechanism for comparing two monster PC's and ensuring that they are both 'balanced'. Paizo have used the time-honoured (non lazy) response to that - it's the DM's job (for now).
Let me jump in here and quote myself from my book Curse of the Moon:
This seems like quite as easy solution...
Monstrous Races were never intended to be a core function of this product. You want the "at your DM's approval" suggestions to be more fleshed out. Seems rather simple... do it yourself, or god forbid grab 3.5 edition MM series books and copy down the level adjustments.
Very long thread to argue an opinion.
Adding in my 2 coppers here...
I see it more likely that we will see a "Races of Golarion" style book before we'll see an "Savage Species" kind of book here. With the "Races of..." covering the alternate races noted in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting book.
|
Not that anyone will care but...
Well done, the monster book should be a book of monsters FOR the DM to inflict upon the PC's. Not a shopping list of "interesting yet stupid" PC races!
Thanks Paizo you have removed the ever annoying need to tell players "NO" as they assault me with "monster races". You have included ALL of the iconic D&D races in pfRPG (cf 1e AD&D - PHB/DMG/MM) - job done for the PHB. Drow are an evil race of nasty dark skinned elves - not exactly heroic material.
"Monster races" should be their own book separate from the MM's if not for any other reason than DM sanity.
Hat off to Paizo,
S.
|
|
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.
Thats why I was always a fan of Conan and that style of fantasy for much the same reason.
As for Savage Species book, I wouldn't mind seeing one. I think the best way to handle more powerful races is to give them a few race levels. Perhaps they start off with X abilities like other races and a class, then can get more by taking race levels say 3 or 5 levels depending on the monster. Not a huge fan of them but they can be fun every now in again as a change of pace campaign. So I would like to see the book eventually. Like the Goblins online comic strip.
I hope by "an Asia themed book", James means a Tian Xia source book for Golarion (although I'm not really all that keen on that either), and not a setting-neutral rule book with samurai and ninja classes and whatnot. I really don't think there need to be extra rules for this stuff. That would be my least favorite option, even less that a "Monster PC" rule book.
|
|
I hope by "an Asia themed book", James means a Tian Xia source book for Golarion (although I'm not really all that keen on that either), and not a setting-neutral rule book with samurai and ninja classes and whatnot. I really don't think there need to be extra rules for this stuff. That would be my least favorite option, even less that a "Monster PC" rule book.
As long as it has a giant hello kitty monster that comes out of the sea every ten years or so to smash a city, then it's all good.